Wikipedia talk:Notability

Notability is not temporary

I reverted a recent change to the WP:NTEMP section, which is getting overly long:

"Similarly, an existing topic might be deleted if a later review of evidence suggests that the topic did not actually achieve notability, as consensus can change".

In my view, these twists and turns that describe how a topic case loose or gain notability is long winded, verbose, and really does not explain anything because they are vague generalisations that can't be applied to real examples. In my view, we need to get rid of the following paragraph:

"Similarly, an existing topic might be deleted if a later review of evidence suggests that the topic did not actually achieve notability. This can sometimes happen when notability was not discussed earlier in the article's history or was discussed but there was no clear consensus; when there was a flurry of media reports but it has since become clear the topic was not notable; after a significant cleanup (e.g., to remove improper or promotional material) when it is easier to judge notability; and in certain editorial disputes where time allows a more dispassionate appraisal of enduring noteworthiness."

Vague terms such as "suggests", "sometimes", combined with genralisations such as "it has since become clear" do not provide any clear guidance. This guideline needs to be short, sharp and to the point.

I would also like to propose moving the statement to WP:NRVE:

"A topic that does not meet the general notability guideline at one time may do so later. However, articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may meet the criteria in the future." --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Gavin, you know by now that notability is always subjective and determined by consensus; it is impossible to make this objective and why it will never be a policy, and why most of the langugae needs to remain vague. Providing significant coverage in secondary sources is one of several means to push a topic so far from where questions arise that it is unlikely to be deleted as non-notable, but notability can always be challenged, particularly when something like NTEMP is involved. The point of the "consensus can change" line is not the fact that consensus is letting a topic be notable without meeting the guidelines, but that instead, while it may possibly meet the guidelines today as determined by consensus, in a month/year/whatever, consensus may decide "oh, that was just a flash in the pan" and determine it is non-notable due to NTEMP. --MASEM (t) 12:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Masem can put his views in an essay, but extending the length of this guideline adds no value. The paragraph above can be boiled down to a simple statement "an existing topic may or may not be deleted...it all depends", and embellishing it with various references to "concensus" provides no useful guidance. This guideline should be short, sharp and to the point, not long winded and vague. This is one of those byzantine abstractions which Masem is renound for, but which can't be applied to any article in reality. I propose it be cut out altogether, because I don't think Masem (or any other editor) can provide an example where this section has been applied in actuality. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Because this is one of the most (if the most) controversial and misunderstood guidelines on WP, making it terse and brief is not helpful. We need to be clear how notability works for both new editors who are confused by it, and experienced editors that sometimes forget what it means when nominating articles for deletion. Of course its possible to make this terse, but that hurts the guideline by glazing over many of the subtleties this has. --MASEM (t) 15:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You have not answered my question: to what articles, if any, can this paragraph be applied to? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Any article that has faced AFD more than once, with the first time being kept, as one very large set of examples. --MASEM (t) 17:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I missed that. Which article did you suggest would you say this applies to again? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this about gutting WP:NTEMP of meaning? Can a new set of editors swoop down on an five year old article on declare it in a ex post facto way to have not been, is not now, nor in the future, meriting inclusion in the Wikipedia? If the point being made here is that consensus can change has precedence of over NTEMP, then notability really is temporary and subject to revocation at any point. patsw (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No, this is not about gutting NTEMP. The link to Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus can change was added by me to supplement the existing wording, which already stated that decisions on whether a topic is notable can change. Read the thread above about NTEMP too. Fences&Windows 13:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The first question was rhetorical. The second question is the one that solicits comments. patsw (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Towards your second question: yes, a new set of editors may challenge an article that's already been presumed notable through previous consensus (most likely AFD). Of course, that challenge may be fruitless or POINTy if the previous AFD well-established the article's appropriateness or clearly passes notability guidelines. But alternatively if the previous AFD ended on a keep after a heated discussion, and no improvements have otherwise been made to move the demonstration of notability from that point, a second challenge may provide better reasoning why it doesn't meet notability guidelines. --MASEM (t) 14:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Writing it that way makes it seem as if every article's appearance has a fragile dependence upon there being a sufficient number of Keep votes available in the AFD process in perpetuity. patsw (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

There is - though I'd argue its more the ratio of keep to delete !votes. If you try to AFD a second time an article that already passed AFD the first time with a ratio of 10:1 keep to delete, you're likely either being ignorant of the previous consensus or being POINTy, and continued actions that way are frowned upon as a behavior issue. On the other hand, I've seen (can't recall) where an article has been at AFD several times, with the previous N-1 times having a keep or no consensus result, and finally be deleted on the Nth AFD. The point is that notability guidelines are a line that a topic should surpass to have an article; by providing significant evidence to show it passes, the less chance that it will be challenged or that even if challenged, it will be found non-notable. However, if you fail to provide evidence and let the topic's notability stay in some type of fuzzy zone between notable and non-notable, it will likely be challenged again and again until it is either pushed out of that zone, or consensus establishes it on one side or the other. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Masem has to seperate WP:N, which is a set of inclusion criteria, seperate from WP:AFD, which is part of the deletion process. I have never see a topic that can meet WP:N ever deleted: I challenge Masem to provide an example of a notable topic that has been deleted. Consenus just does not enter into it. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• For an example of a notable topic which was deleted at AFD, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Credit Management. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is everything to WP:N, because only human analysis can determine if the evidence given for notability shows a topic has surpassed our notability guidelines. And thus where AFD needs to be considered as the practical application of WP:N consensus determination on WP. As for an example, as I've noted, any article that has had multiple AFDs but eventually is deleted is an example where this happens: the most recent one I could find easily was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido (3rd nomination) from May, but that's just the first.

What needs to be considered is that there are three theoretical metrics in play here:

1. The actual notability of the topic as measured by the world as a whole. WP has no influence on this value. There is no way of measuring this value directly, only through sampling of reliable sources can we infer what it is. Important here is that this is what NTEMP comes into play: this value can never go down, though it can go up; someone slightly notable in the 1960s may become significant notable in the 2000s, but notability was established in the 1960s regardless, and that will never diminish.
2. The demonstration of notability by sources included about that topic. This is where the editor attempts to validate the first metric of notability by showing a sampling of what sources exist for that topic (though referencing, etc.). Coverage in a large range of reliable works and over time is a good sampling of such, and captures that facet appropriately. Coverage in niche works or over a narrow period of time, on the hand, is a poor indicator. Ideally, the "value" of this metric should increase with increases in the first metric, and as from NTEMP, can never decrease over time (though an editor can remove references and weaken their demonstration of notability, but this is such a rare case not to consider this factor, since it can also be rectified due to the tracking of changes).
3. The required level of notability as set by consensus. This is a highly flexible value, and can change over time (WP:CCC) but generally its average value (represented by the GNG) stays pretty much constant; however, it should be considered as a range of values, and when inside that range, AFD results vary from keep, delete, and no consensus with little predictability. It should be noted that the average value can move as well in a slow, glacial manner.

We consider a topic notable when the second metric - the demonstration of notability - excesses the consensus' metric for notability. Metric 1 is always equal or greater than metric 2's value, and metric 2's value should exceed the envelop where metric 3 fluctuates. Thus, and here's the important part to all this: because metric 3 (the consensus's level for establishing notability) fluctuates, it is quite possible that a fixed value of metric 2 (the demonstration of notability in the article) will start above metric 3's value one day, but fall below it another day. The only way to make sure that you don't lose an article this way to is get metric 2 far past the envelope range of metric 3 so that even if challenged, it will likely not be deleted. If you're content with only showing enough notability to get to the edge of that envelop, you cannot be insured that an article will never be deleted, either due to a different set of eyes at AFD or a change in general notability policy.

The tl;dr version of this is: Determining when notability is met can only be done by consensus with the formal practice done at AFD; if you do have an article that is kept - barely - at an AFD, you probably want to seek to continue to improve the article because that is not assurance that community consensus will want to keep it again. --MASEM (t) 15:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

We're back to the basic problem of definition: Notability on Wikipedia means "whatever editors choose to keep".

It does not mean wikt:notability. The purpose of this page is to give people a way to find out what standards will probably be applied to their articles, if those articles are taken to AfD.

Basically by definition, no article that is deleted at AfD is ever notable. The outcome at AfD is the sole determinant of notability: If they !vote to keep your article, then the subject is included ("notable"). If they !vote to remove it, then the subject is not included ("non-notable").

We're trying to provide useful information here, but this is just a description of whatever editors normally do in the deletion processes. The "real policy" is whatever the editors normally do at AFD (etc.). The "real policy" is not our description of the editors' typical actions on this guideline page. Changes here do not change the "real policy"; they only make this page be a better or worse description of the real state of affairs.

This fact of life, BTW, is why WP:DEL is a policy, and WP:N is a guideline. Wikipedia does not guarantee inclusion to any topic simply because it meets the usual standards. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• This section is currently full of falsehoods and does not represent our general consensus or practise. This may be observed at any time by reading the main page. This always contains a section entitled, In the news. For example, currently this leads with "In tennis, the French Open concludes with Francesca Schiavone defeating Samantha Stosur in the women's singles final...". This demonstrates that the guidance given about "sports coverage" is false. This may also be seen by the recent AFD for Armando Galarraga's near-perfect game - a snow keep. I shall therefore tag this section to indicate its dubious and disputed status. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Wrong; we have no problem with including recent news of existing notable topics, both there on the front page and in respective articles - that's the benefit of being an online work is that we can be up-to-date. However, when a topic is yet to be shown notable but enters the news, that's when this section applies. It may be the topic is notable, then we make an article on that (such as the near-perfect game); it may not be, then we either incorporate it into a notable topic or drop it. The point here is that it is nearly impossible to judge notability based on the rush of 0-day news coverage and why we discurage writing articles based on bursts of news coverage. But it can take only a short period of time - or maybe several years - before the notability standard is met. --MASEM (t) 21:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• No. The number of sources for a topic can only increase. If a topic, such as the near-perfect game, seems notable due to the the volume of immediate coverage, then this notability can only become greater. For another example, see Wall Street panic of May 6, 2010. We had a merger because more than one article was created in response to this flash event. The topic's notability continues to grow but was already great enough to withstand AFD. So, we do cover breaking news and the notability argument cuts little ice in such cases because, by definition, it is the abundance of sources which has provoked creation of the article. The only argument for deletion that tends to be effective in such cases is BLP. That's why we still have a redlink for Gillian Duffy, even though she brought down a Prime Minister. So, notability is quite irrelevant for items which are in the news, because their newsworthy status tells us that they have been noticed and it is clearly illogical and counter-factual to suggest otherwise. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• For another recent example on the other side of the ledger, see 2010 Staten Island Air Show Disaster. This is going down at AFD because the event wasn't notable to start with. Nobody is arguing that we should wait to see whether more coverage turns up over time. The judgement is made immediately, based on the extent and quality of the immediate coverage. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• Of course notability can (and only can) increase for an event. However, the notability at the time or shortly after the time of the event often will not meet our standards until more sources appear. Just appearing in the news is not sufficient unless there is followup, significant coverage from secondary sources about the event. For example, while the stock market fluctuation on May 6 we know is important now, and likely late in that day (and since has only become more significant), we don't consider lesser fluctuations during otherwise average trading that are still widely reported in the news as notable. The near-perfect game article even proves another case: given that there was a true perfect game earlier this year, we don't have an article on that even though it was also widely reported. It is understanding when that news becomes more than news but a topic that can be disucssed more that just the facts of what occurred is when it becomes an encyclopedic topic. That means we're looking for what secondary sources can provide: analysis, critical opinion, synthesis, etc from others in reaction to that. A perfect game is just another perfect game and gets written up in the pitcher that threw it; a near-perfect game particularly on the 27th batter and on a flubbed umpire call that would have been clearly caught if the league manager allowed for replays, well, that got more than a few critical opinions to show up and clearly is notable itself and not just a footnote for the pitcher that threw it.
• WP is not indiscriminate, which is why we don't have articles on all news events. That doesn't mean we can't be current (current news happening to a notable topic can be included in that topic) or delegate to a sister project, Wikinews. But it does mean that we don't simply create articles on an event without affirming there is enough information out there on the event to be of encyclopedic value, and that requires significant coverage in secondary, transformative sources, not simply reiterations of the facts of the event. --MASEM (t) 13:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the record for most AFDs before being deleted is 18. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

True, that was for Gay Nigger Association of America, but Encyclopedia Dramatica had 23 discussions in all: Wikipedia talk:Lamest edit wars/Archive 3#Lamest deletion wars, beating the GNAA by two overall. Fences&Windows 01:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to restore this (or a suitably shortened version of it). NTEMP has been misunderstood by editors as a double jeopardy protection clause -- that if the article survives one AfD, it's permanently deletion proof, because "notability is not temporary". AFD technically doesn't determine notability; it determines the community's current consensus about notability for the subject. Consensus can (and does) change, and that means that an article once believed to be notable can be re-challenged and deleted later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

"All universities and colleges are notable" ?

Regarding Wikipedia:WikiProject_Universities/Article_guidelines#Notability which says "All universities and colleges are notable", this is a strange policy they have on their project space. There are tonnes of univs and colleges in the world. I dont know why general notability guidelines shouldnt be followed for univs and colleges which every other article has to follow, right? Those guidelines are: multiple reliable sources making a significant mention of that univ or college. and if those references have been found, the editor should be able to find them and justify the presence of the article. So this WikiProject_Universities is saying "hey dont care touch our articles, they are all automatically notable".

I ask, who made that policy and why do all colleges and universities get a free pass for notability, when other articles have to fight tooth and nail for it? If justifications can be made for them by saying "education" and "places of learning", you might as well start including all the 1000's of Taco Bells and KFCS because they too are automatically notable because they are "places of nutrituion" and so on. I'm not going to fight over this though because I dont have time. --Demetrioscz (talk) 11:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Project space notability guidelines that have not been vetted by the community as a whole and provide this type of criteria usually should be ignored. Most projects do usually provide stricter-than-GNG guidelines which is fine at the project level, but that criteria in WP-U needs to be affirmed by the community, not the project. --MASEM (t) 13:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The guideline actually says quite a bit more than "all colleges and universities are notable." I'm pretty disappointed that the statement is being taken out of context as it's a reasonable statement within context. The guideline is clearly saying that nearly all (legitimate) colleges and universities meet the threshold of notability, not that the threshold is different or lower for these institutions. ElKevbo (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Quoted from there "In general, all colleges and universities are notable and should be included on Wikipedia.". This is like me saying all prisoners are notable in general. Why? Every article, person, college, university should be able to satisfy the notability guidelines on its own. To say that "They are notable by default" is wrong. --Demetrioscz (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Technically, that's wrong, but practically speaking, it's probably true in most cases I would think. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I read the project guideline as saying that any genuine university or college is notable, and it very clearly spells out that the statement does not replace WP:N and does not have much weight in AfDs. I agree with the project guideline because there is no point arguing over whether a particular university or college is notable (that's pragmatism, and I know it conflicts with policy). However, we do have to establish that an organization really is what would commonly be regarded as a university or college – there is a lot of wriggle room there, and a valid AfD argument would be that institution X has no independent reliable sources verifying that X is any more than a non-notable business. Johnuniq (talk) 02:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I did an AFD and was slammed by keeps Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karunya University. Oh well.

The problem is that if an article is automatically notable, no one will bother finding reliable sources for it (unless its something like Harvard) and so, the article is going to be all OR and a poor encyclopedic article. Thats why it helps to first let an article establish notability because you've started on the right foot. Anyway. --Demetrioscz (talk) 02:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

In general, all colleges and universities are notable because, in general, they will all satisfy the GNG. john k (talk) 02:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I added the {{essay-project-note|type=section}} template to the section in question.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Implicit in any statement of the form "All X are notable" (i.e. "An article with the topic X ought to appear in the Wikipedia") is that if X is a type of Y, that it is a bona-fide (see "genuine" above) type of Y. The bona-fide of an college or university could easily be established by sources independent of the college or university itself. Editors who care about this ought to get together and decide what sort of objective tests (i.e. an SNG) can be made regarding the legal charter, accreditation, types of degrees granted, etc. which can filter colleges and universities from technical schools with delusions of grandeur and outright hoaxes. patsw (talk) 03:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I tend to think that when we say "All X are notable" the strongest implication is, "if you look into it, you will discover that all X meet the general notability guidelines." The broad statements are useful because they prevent people from wasting their time trying to demonstrate that notable things aren't notable. john k (talk) 02:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing is inherently notable - there has to be verifiable evidence. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 06:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Who said anything about things being "inherently notable"? The statement merely said that, in general all colleges and universities are notable. Nothing inherent about it. They're notable because there is verifiable evidence. In making a general statement, the guidelines page is simply noting that the verifiable evidence almost certainly exists. Can anyone provide any evidence of an accredited college or university for where there is no verifiable evidence? john k (talk) 11:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

When a WikiProject says "all X are notable", they usually mean something like, "We have always been able to find verifiable evidence of notability whenever a true X has been contested." You could easily imagine an editor saying "All US Presidents are notable" -- a true statement, but only if you read it as a statement of fact, and not of causality. "All US Presidents are notable" because hundreds of reliable sources have written about each one of them, not "All US Presidents are notable" because they're US Presidents.

The fundamental problem with the project's sweeping opening statement is directly addressed at the end of the paragraph: "anyone can set up an institution and call it a "college" or, in many countries, a "university", so that it is essential to be clear whether an institution actually merits such a description." WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I thiink the statement that "We have always been able to find verifiable evidence of notability whenever challenged" is just hubris, and I agree with WhatamIdoing that we should not fall into a mindset based on generalisations. We need to abandon once and for all that the notability of some topics is above question; such generlisations that break down when coverage is thin or trivial, or where the sources are questionable. A good example is Triumphant Institute of Management Education. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

For broad and sweeping generalizations such as this or those in NSPORT, but there as you narrow things down for the sake of focusing more on improving articles rather than being held to a gunpoint of someone who passes by and AfDs an article narrowly definied criteria that give time to find such sources can and should be used in some cases when its been shown historically that such items are retained; it should not be used as a free pass though.陣内_Jinnai 18:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Gavin, it's not hubris that's driving this. In some cases, it's just a plain and simple statement of fact. For example, if you challenged the notability of each US president in turn, the community would certainly find verifiable evidence of notability for every one of them. If Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Presidents wanted to say on their project page, "All US Presidents are notable", it would be a perfectly factual statement.

The problem is when we slip from "So far, they've all been notable" into "And therefore they always will be."

When I encounter unqualified statements of notability, I usually see whether they can be amended to be less misleading (e.g., through the addition of suitable weasel words). IMO this particular paragraph already contains a sufficient warning that there's no free pass merely because an organization is purported to exist, or purported to be a college. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Its not fact is it: it's generalisation, which is essentially another form of hearsay, or another way of saying WP:IKNOWIT. I have answered John Kenney's question: clearly some universities are not notable. If you want me to say that "all generalizations are true, therefore some topics are inherently notable, plain and simple (because WhatamIdoing says so)", I don't think anyone is going to agree to that, not even you. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what legitimate, accredited universities are not notable? ElKevbo (talk) 06:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Start your search amongst Category:India university stubs and you will see there are some examples, e.g. Bhavnagar University. These articles could be improved perhaps, but the fact is they did not meet WP:N when they were created. The rule that "All universities and colleges are notable" has many exceptions. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, my example was that all US Presidents are notable. Do you disagree with that sweeping statement?

The WikiProject's paragraph already indicates that they are providing a rule of thumb. The phrase "in general" means "This is a generalization, or an oversimplification, and it may not apply in every single instance." I think that you're unreasonably holding them to an incomplete quotation taken out of context -- like pretending "The Bible says 'there is no God'" or "The US Constitution says Congress shall make no laws" is the whole statement, when it's clearly not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Lets not base guidelines on generalisations. Better to base guidelines and policy on real world practice, rather than obtuse abstractions, generalisations and hearsay. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not a guideline; it's an essay. Furthermore, when read as a whole -- rather than taking part of a sentence out of context -- it accurately reflects the community's actual practice: Articles about educational organizations that the community perceives as "real" universities aren't generally deleted, even if there are relatively few easily accessible sources about the university. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Its a bad way to lead an essay, because it starts off with an argument that is essentially the same as WP:IKNOWIT. You would have thought that for a subject area such as universities there would be a greater understanding of the concept of notability: that it is based on sourcing, rather than a generalised rule such as "All universities and colleges are notable". --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 04:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

IKNOWIT only applies to a singular or small group of editors working against larger consensus. If consensus as a whole says "We know it", regardless of any other objective measures, it is appropriate for WP; that's how consensus works. I'm not saying that it is necessarily true for universities and colleges, as this essay only has the backing of a small group of editors, but we cannot be dismissive of group knowledge and common sense when the group becomes large enough. --MASEM (t) 06:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Where does it say that WP:IKNOWIT only applies to a singular or small group of editors working against larger consensus, Masem? I think you are making this up. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Where it talks about "small communities" and "select groups". Pretty obvious of its intent. --MASEM (t) 13:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

inre: The General notablity guide

I know thought I knew the answer, but need to ask so someone else will understand for my own better understanding. Does the GNG overule all other notability criteria? IE: In what cases might someone be found notable through proper WP:Verification of information, without the required verification itself being "significant coverage"? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

No, there are cases such as WP:NOTNEWS.陣内_Jinnai 19:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

In practice, if it meets an SNG (subject-specific notability guideline) instead. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The GNG should be viewed as a fallthrough for all of the other sub-notability guidelines if the topic is not determined notable through there; that is, as long as there is secondary significant coverage for a topic and that topic isn't limited by a sub-notability guideline, it should be good. As to whether simply the presence of verified information is sufficient, that's up to the sub-notability guidelines; most warn against this, that while they provide criteria that only require verified evidence, the aim is to expand more and more to lead towards secondary coverage. I wouldn't say the GNG overrides so much than is the underpinning of the entire notability aspect. --MASEM (t) 19:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Some of the SNGs also have stricter guidelines too.陣内_Jinnai 20:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Effectively it does over rule all other notability criteria, because it defines notability in its purest form. Other guidelines claim to be independent (i.e. WP:PROF), but that is just hubris. All the other SNG's provide an interpretation of WP:N in respect of their particular subject area. I would like to say that this guideline is the Alpha and Omega of notability guidelines, but I understand that Wikipedia:Notability (books) was actually the first notability guideline, nonetheless there is no better set of inclusion criteria in existence that defines what is an encyclopedic topic better than WP:GNG. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

@ User:Masem This my understanding as well... as I understand that notability guidelines are intended to be mutually supportive in allowing editors other considerations toward notablity beyond being written up in media... and as additional considerations, the various notability sub-sections are not intended to be mutually exclusionary. To overwork the "trees-for-forest analogy" (sorry), sometimes an editor might look at a forest, concentrate on one tree, and then flatly deny the existence or importance of other trees based upon his well-meant determinaton that only that one tree is of any value or worth. Guideline teaches me that it takes more than one tree to make a forest, and that all of them have an importance and place in the forest's existence. Denying that other trees exist or that they could have a purpose within the forest, does not make the forest go away. And so... in addressing such well-intended good faith single-mindedness... what would be the most succint and guideline-supported response to an editor that insists that with no exceptions, the GNG must always be met? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"The GNG is a good measure of demonstrating notability (as well as meeting content policies), but consensus ultimately is the final decision.". Or "Notability is not policy." --MASEM (t) 23:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

We had this discussion back in September 2008, Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise. Only 19% supported the statement that SNGs can override GNGs. One of the main sticking points was that small (and interested) groups of editors are involved in drafting SNGs and so they might be used to circumvent the idea of notability altogether. I don't agree that WP:PROF fits the bill (promotion and tenure at R1 institutions require evidence of a national reputation), but it is easy to see how other SNGs would. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 18:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Looooooooooong discussion.... but thank you. As my time spent reading through it was enlightening, I appreciate the link. The "A" section about aspects of spinouts and lists certainly got input, that's for sure. The overwhelming support of proposal B2 seemed to get to the crux of the matter in dealing with the reasons for the existence of SNGs. The overwhelming defeat of proposal B4 and its suggested elimination of SNGs was also of relevance to my question above. The overwhelming support of proposal B6 and its acknowledgement that SNGs support a reasonable presumption of notability is perhaps the most relevent. I see that pretty much it was concluded overall that GNGs and SNGs are mutually supportive and not mutually exclusionary, and meeting one or the other can allow a reasonable presumption of notability through consensus. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• But I now have a related question. Core policy WP:V mandates verification verifiability in WP:Reliable sources, but I do not see WP:V demanding that sources give significant coverage, only that the verification verifiability BE through a reliable source. Moving down the ladder, I do not see WP:RS demanding that sources be significant, only that they be reliable per the caveats of that guideline. So what is it with so many editors now-a-days demanding that such policy mandated verification verifiability is acceptable only if it itself meets the GNG? Seems to be contrary to core policies WP:NOR and WP:NPOV to add 2 plus 2 and get 7. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • It doesn't which is why notability is so misunderstood and used incorrectly as a tool at times. Notability will never be policy - or at least notability as defined by the GNG. Hitting the sourcing requirements of the GNG is sufficient to meet most of our content policies but there's many many other ways to meet policy too, and be indiscriminate (a mission of WP), without engaging significant coverage by secondary sources. Notability needs to be a common sense guideline, not a objective measure. --MASEM (t) 20:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, notability is "misunderstood" so often that we have to say that there is strong community support for that misunderstanding. I think the policies and guidelines do not hang together as coherently as Schmidt might like because there is not consensus on what they should mean, not that the GNG can be ignored if the core content policies are satisfied (although, there also isn't consensus that the GNG become a policy). We oppose A without supporting not-A. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 21:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

As a possibly minor point, WP:V doesn't mandate verification. It requires verifiability, not verification. That is, if I know that reliable sources say that eczema is a medical condition, then I can write "eczema is a medical condition" in an article, and I'm not actually under any obligation to name a specific reliable source to support this fact (unless and until someone requests one). Like WP:N, WP:V cares whether the sources exist, somewhere in the world, much more than it cares whether an editor has yet bothered to name a specific source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed that above, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

So, is there a succinct manner in which to respond to those good faith editors who insist that the policy-mandated verifiability must itself be significant coverage? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

If notability means being "noted" by reliable, third party sources, then a mention passing is not going to be enough. Significant coverage is the touchstone by which notability is tested. Everything else is just trivia, or synthesis. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I've stressed this before: the presence of significant secondary sources is a typical outcome of a topic becoming wikt:notable by mankind, but certainly not an assured outcome. This is why notability is a guideline - it sometimes requires common sense that even if sources don't cover a topic to recognize it as notable and quite capable of becoming an encyclopedic article, and not a hard-nosed approach to finding sources. Mind you, the highly convenient overlap between something having sources due to being wikt:notable and having sources to satisfy V/NOR/NPOV is very optimal and works for the near-majority of topics. --MASEM (t) 22:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I recognize the guideline GNG as a valuable tool, and I am certainly not arguing against its use, for it is indeed valuable... but I recognize that it is not the "only" valuable tool. After having read through the RFC on this subject (as provided in the link from User:RJC), I think it might be more accurate, to state "Significant coverage is one of the major touchstones by which notability is tested, but consensus allows other methods, such as meeting SNG". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it not generally considered polite (and typically considered mandatory) for an editor who takes a discussion to another forum to inform the original parties that he is doing so, MQS? That way everyone benefits from the knowledge gained, and it doesn't look quite so much like a transparent attempt to win an argument by appeal to authority. At the very least, when one is doing so one should at least link to the original discussion, so that editors acting in good faith here are not unwitting dupes in some AfD somewhere. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

My questions here are relevent to hundreds of AFD discussions in which I have taken part over the last few years, and not just any specific one. I ask for input here, as neutrally as possible, to aid in my own understanding of policy and guideline, without muddying the waters or causing devisiveness here or elsewhere by tossing in specific edits or specific AFD examples. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't this there is any alternative to significant coverage, no matter what SNG's say. The reason is that significant coverage is the stuff that encyclopedic articles are made from, not trivia or mentions in passing. The rationale behind the SNG's I am most familiar with for books, films and fiction is that they more or less disallow common forms of trivial coverage as evidence of notability. SNG's that claim there are alternatives to significant coverage don't stand up to scruitany, because you can't write an encyclopedic artice without it.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

While there have been attempts to create cases of inherent notability in some SNGs (if you are an X, you are notable), these are all only valid when the meaning behind them is "if you are an X, then there certainly is significant coverage about you". Olympic athletes are considered notable because there have been numerous books about all the Olympics and/or all the athletes per country, to the point that it is generally accepted that if one can verify that someone has been an olympic athlete, it is taken for granted that the significant coverage exists. The same goes for e.g. highschools, where every highschool is supposed to have enough coverage to pass the GNG. These SNGs are created to save people the time of nominating articles for deletion which don't have a chance of being deleted anyway. But in some cases, they have been expanded beyond this scope (like "every pro athlete is notable" in WP:ATHLETE) as a means to include articles that clearly fail the GNG. Such guidelines in general have less support than the GNG (ATHLETE especially seems to be on teh way out, even if the new guideline isn't much better), and are often disputed at AfD when used for borderline cases. In general, if there is no significant coverage in reliable sources, we can't write a substantial article about it, and it should be merged if not deleted. Fram (talk) 10:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd argue that ATHLETE does, in fact, attempt to stick to the GNG line; the point is that enough people are paid every day to follow pro sports exclusively for reliable sources that it's difficult to be a pro athlete and not get covered significantly by reliable sources at some point. At least that's the intent as I see it. I agree with the rest of the post, though; the whole point of SNGs is that they imply sufficient RS coverage (i.e. enough to pass the GNG) rather than being separate altogether. You can pass the GNG without passing an SNG, but the other way around shouldn't be possible if the SNG thresholds are set properly. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Its a changing Wikipedia. I'd have to agree with User:Fram that ATH appears to be on its way out (as seems are most of the sub-criteria of N, one-by one). While yes, a specific athelete on a major team might receive significant coverage, not all on that same team will receive that same coverage. The stats of those contributory athletes might find their way into a database in a reliable source, but such listings for such in a database would fail GNG, and in seen as failing GNG, those atheletes without specific significant coverage might reasonably have their article sent to AFD for their notability being so dependent on the inherited notability of being part of a team, rather than being based upon individual coverage. Perhaps though, as the team itself might be found notable through GNG, they might merit their names at least being on a list in the team article, with seperate articles only for those team mambers who caught the eye of popular media. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I think WP:ATHLETE was created with good intentions, but has become distorted over time. I think if it was a guideline that said that "Professional athletes are notable...if there is verifiable evidence", this is shorthand for a topic being notable in accordance with WP:N. But once an SNG moves away from the requirements of WP:GNG (e.g. "All athletes who receive money must be notable"), then you are in the realms of subjective opinion, i.e inclusion based on generalisations, speculation, hearsay and WP:IKNOWIT. It seems to me that if an SNG is not clear or explicit about which side of the bright line between subjective opinion or verfiable evidence it stands on, then there are going to be challenges, leading to disputes, regarding the validity of SNG's. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, where consensus drives what is included, not hard set rules. --MASEM (t) 23:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you will find that set rules are an explicit statement of what the consensus is. If the consensus of opinion is worth writing down, it is going to be in rule form. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

There are no rules on Wikipedia; policy and guidelines describe our best community practices as to replicated them in the future for consistency and meeting the Foundation's missions. Of course, some policy is treated with more concern than others, either from Foundation request (BLP, NFC) or to maintain a working wiki (WP:3RR, WP:COPYVIO etc.) Everything else is based on how current community practice reviews past community practice and determines appropriate actions going forward. That's exactly how notability grew out of community practice, and why it remains a guideline, because while mostly right about what happens for most cases, it also creates a lot of false positives. It is absolutely imperative that on the open wiki, consensus drives everything, including what content we include. To place more restrictive "rules" or that matter, we need a non-open, separate Wiki to do that. --MASEM (t) 13:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Most editors do not engage in every discussion, so it is helpful to have some statements regarding what has been the consensus in the past that have the effect of rules. In practice there are rules because we cannot insist that everyone participate in every AfD or allow things to be decided only by the most animated (who tend to be the ones with axes to grind, i.e., precisely those who lose out in the larger community discussions). Policies and guidelines can be changed by consensus, but day-to-day editing has to be done with an eye to those policies and guidelines. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 19:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in practice policy and guidelines drive daily editing, but what Gavin is suggesting that we cannot create new or modify existing guidelines based on subjective judgment as agreed to by consensus. Pretty much every policy and guideline is built on subjective judgment of the crowd, and very little are based on objective rationales. --MASEM (t) 19:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) To that end, I want to jump in and look for a point of clarity: I easily agree that, in the context of an AfD, if a topic fails the GNG but somehow passes a SNG, we should still consider that topic "non-notable" and probably argue delete. However, what about topics that fail a SNG (such as -- I'm referencing a current AfD as example, but not naming it -- a film that hasn't commenced principal photography, hence failing WP:NFF) but still appear to pass GNG (the film fails WP:NFF but its pre-production has been covered, to some extent, in reliable sources, thereby passing GNG)? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It should always be the case that if a work passes the GNG, it should be included unless specifically excluded by criteria in an SNG - best example is WP:BLP1E. If it passes the GNG but doesn't pass an SNG because it doesn't match the specific criteria for inclusion there, it should still be included. --MASEM (t) 20:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

So is it reasonable to conclude that the GNG is more about a "topic" having coverage, and somewhat less about the topic itself... as in "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below and is not excluded by WP:NOT" ? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you've got it right. Notability basically means, "If you write a separate article about this topic, we (probably) won't delete it." In practice, the biggest factor in determining whether an article is permitted to exist is how much (as a rough rule, "significant coverage" = "lots of words") the independent sources have written about the topic. After you've determined that a separate article on this topic is permitted to exist, you're completely done with the notability guideline, and you move onto the content guidelines. Notability does not restrict article content -- only the existence of the article itself.

One of the sources of confusion is that editors will say "That minor detail isn't wikt:notable enough to include" or "That source isn't wikt:notable", when they mean things like "Including that minor detail puts WP:UNDUE emphasis on an unimportant point" or "That source isn't reliable". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

That's only a point of confusion if one subscribes to the trivialist position that anything which can be referenced is worthy of being in an article somewhere, or the lawyeristic position that any time someone uses the word "notable" they are referring to WP:N. In reality, people use "this isn't notable enough for inclusion" to mean "the article can do without this cruft" all the time, to the benefit of the project. But we're off on a tangent here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a source of confusion if you don't realize that the editor making the statement is using plain English instead of wikijargon. This isn't a legalistic position: it's what actually happens. I've seen editors ask, in apparent sincerity, if they were only allowed to use reliable sources that had corresponding encyclopedia articles. In the typical case, someone had told them that something wasn't wikt:notable, and they thought that the editor meant that all reliable sources had to be WP:Notable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Should Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) be merged with Wikipedia:Notability (events) and Wikipedia:Notability (people)?

Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) is currently a notability guideline that touches upon the notability of 1) criminal acts [i.e. events] and 2) people who are either the victim or a perpetrator of a criminal act. As an option to help alleviate a bit of redundancy within the growing number of notability guidelines, I am wondering if there is any support or opposition to merging the first section of that guideline with Wikipedia:Notability (events) and the second part to an appropriate subsection within Wikipedia:Notability (people). Location (talk) 06:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• I noticed this issue when we wrote WP:EVENT as the criminal acts guideline preceded it, but I felt it was better to get on with establishing the new guideline than trying to merge that one in too at the time. Thanks for raising this. I think a split and merge of this guideline as appropriate is a good idea. WP:PERP and WP:VICTIM are special cases of WP:BLP1E. Fences&Windows 23:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• I had not seen this guideline before - and find it extraordinarily malleable. If it remains extant, it should be written with far more definitive language than it presently has, and thus is really unsuitable, as is, for merger into anything much at all. Collect (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• Probably a good idea to combat CREEP. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• Less guides is more better. --Jayron32 04:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Notability limits article titles?

Gavin.Collins asserted in a dispute at WT:AT that ""Before notability can be established, we have to agree on the right title". I believe this is wrong:

• Notability addresses subjects/topics/ideas/concepts, not what you type in the URL or the first sentence. The leading cause of death among adults is a notable topic, no matter whether you title the article "Heart attack" or "Myocardial infarction".
• Because article titles appear in the first sentence, they are part of the article content, and, by long-standing consensus, notability does not directly limit article content.
• If the title, rather than the subject, were what determines notability, then we'd be re-considering notability every time a page gets moved.

So I updated the third paragraph to say, "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content or titles of articles."

Spartaz reverted it, saying "That makes no sense, if a title doesn't reflect the subject of an article it should be moved to a more descriptive title" -- to which I reply, yes, if the title is unconnected to the subject, then the page should be moved, but the fact remains that this guideline doesn't actually care what the title is. Notability of a topic does not depend on your choice of URL or the phrasing of the first sentence (article title). Heart attacks would still be a notable topic, even if we replaced the URL with the kind of random, incomprehensible titles that URL shortening services like Bit.ly use. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The title of the article is its subject, so in that sense the titles are limited by what passes our notability guidelines. The examples you give are merely synonyms, so both titles would share a subject (and an article). But surely we can't have an article title like Johnny Parker (Jr. High School athlete) if multiple discussions have shown the subject to be nonnotable. ThemFromSpace 18:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the title tells us what the subject is, but the title isn't actually the subject itself. Myocardial infarction and what most people call a Heart attack are the same subject, but different titles.

If "Johnny Parker (Jr. High School athlete)" is non-notable, then little Johnny is non-notable no matter what the title of the page is. If little Johnny is notable, then he is notable no matter what the title of the page is. No choice of URL magically turns a non-notable subject into a notable one, and no choice of URL makes a notable subject become non-notable. "The medical condition that the physician coded as ICD-9 410 when your grandfather died" is a notable subject, no matter what title or spelling you use on the article about the condition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

See The map is not the territory: It's the territory (the topic) that is notable, not the map (article title). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you are taking my comments out of context. There is an implicit assumption in all of the content policies that the article title fits the subject and vice versa. But if this assumption/generalisation is not true, e.g. the title "Johnny Parker (failed athlete)" is chosen, then WP:AT kicks in regardless of the topic's notability. I think what WhatamIdoing has missed out is that we were discussing descriptive article titles, which sometimes can contain contentious labels. Even if Johnny Parker is a failed athlete, and the sources make this plain, I still think that even before notability can be established, we have to agree on the right title, otherwise the article is starting out on the wrong foot, so to speak. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Why can't you determine notability first, and the title later? Does a common medical condition start being notable, or stop being notable, depending on whether the editor creating the article started writing about the subject at its formal name or its common name? Does the notability of the previous US president depend on whether or not his middle name is spelled out?

IMO the topic of the article must be known to assess notability ("So what's this about, anyway?"), but the content of the URL and/or first sentence is not what determines whether the topic is notable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Gavin's rhetorical point should be taken too literally outside the context of that discussion. The Notability guideline is indeed "merely" about the underlying subject of the article, but I don't think it is wise to list too many things that Notability is not. Bad titles for good subjects can be fixed, but identifying the article's subject is prerequisite to determining whether it is a notable one. The guideline ought not invite people to evade questions of notability by claiming the title used to describe the article's subject doesn't matter when they are actually attempting to define the article's scope as a subject that is not notable. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why these issues have to be intermingled. What's the use case here? It's surely not heart attack? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand what you're asking. My goal is something that amounts to, "Please quit citing WP:Notability as the community's advice on the content of the first sentence in an article" -- that is, an anti-intermingling statement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that notability of a topic and the choice of title of an article are connected in some way (two sides of the same bridge, so to speak), but dealt with in separate guidelines. We don't need to have a statement in every policy and guideline saying that they are connected but also separate. I think Spartaz did the right thing, in the sense that not everything discussed on these talk pages needs to be in the guideline as well. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just stupid, but what problem are you trying to solve here? Who is "citing WP:Notability as the community's advice on the content of the first sentence in an article", and on what article? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure why WhatamIdoing has a bee in his bonnet about this issue. However, if he or any other editor is interested, there is an RFC on article titles if any editor is interested in making his views know on this facet of content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 06:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

This guideline is harmfull and doesnt reflect concensus of the wider community

Again and again this guideline is used to justify the deletion of popular articles that the majority of editors want to keep, such as had just happened at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Baxter_Building. Its claimned that this guideline has global concensus. But is that really true? Surely its more accurate to say this guideline reflects the concensus of a small group of very articulate editors who seem to permanently camp here to keep it locked down. Granted theres a requirment for significant coverage in reliable and indpendent secondary sources when it comes to high impact real world topics like BLPs, religion, politics etc. But no coherent case seems to exist for applying the same rigor to harmless topics such as articles on fictional characters or locations. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Notability and the goal for encyclopedic coverage through secondary sources needs to be enforced for all topics, otherwise we get what WP was like when the project first started - a heck of a lot of articles with no chance for improvement. Furthermore, the last RFC affirmed that notability has community support for being a guideline, so its not some small group that's maintaining it. --MASEM (t) 21:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

There is admitedly some support beyond the regulars on this page. Regretably the last RfC was degraded from being a centralised discussion only hours after it was started, so we didnt get the wide participation neeeded to affirm whether this guideline really does have global support. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

What was the last RfC? I don't recall such a thing, though I can't imagine I'd have missed it. For the record, I think WP:N does have consensous. I just wish that closers would treat it a bit more like a guideline than a law (though in this case the only fault I can find is that a redirect and merge might have been a good idea. Still might be. Hobit (talk) 22:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It wasnt formally an RFC, but a village pump discussion and breifly a centralised discussion to. I dont know how to link to archives but you can see if from this diff. Apologies if Masem is talking about a different discussion. FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This one. --MASEM (t) 22:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I think FeydHuxtable knows that Wikipedia is not able to function without this guideline, as the only other criteria for the inclusion of topics as standalone articles is subjective importance, which is open to abuse, particularly from editors pushing their own personal agenda, such self-promotion and spam. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You attempted to downgrade WP:N to an essay back in April and it was the overwhelming consensus of the Wikipedia community that it is useful, necessary and should remain a guideline. Railing bitterly against it just because an AfD hasn't gone the way you wanted is unhelpful and a waste of everyone's time. Reyk _YO! 00:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It might be time to have another look at WP:N via an RfC(it's been a while since the one Masem linked to), but I honestly suspect that could backfire. Hobit (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Notability is purely subjective, and it militates against Wikipedia being the comprehensive and inexhaustible encyclopedia of our day and age as Aristotle was in the Gothic period of the Middle Ages. It should never be used as the exclusive cause of deletion. I am of the persuasion that it should be removed from being a guideline in that all its provisions are contained in present guidlines. Notability=censorship--Drboisclair (talk) 03:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Notability is far from censorship, and should never be considered that. As below describes, it is meant to determine when a topic should have a standalone article. If it's not notable, it still can be mentioned in a larger topic (barring BLP issues). --MASEM (t) 03:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Then it should not be deleted because someone thinks that it is not "notable"; it should be merged with another article.--Drboisclair (talk) 03:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

03:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Notability is a bastion that keeps Wikipedia from being a gigantic dumping ground for an unbounded amount of unencyclopedic and inappropriate content and its lack would destroy any ability to ever be the comprehensive encyclopedia of our day and age. Notability=appropriate restraint on chaos.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

So long as it is not a stalking-horse for deleting willy nilly whatever one wants because it does not suit one. Even the subjective tastes of a sizable majority should not weigh against legitimate, sourced, verified data. One also has to reckon with the possible conflict with WP:NPOV--Drboisclair (talk) 03:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Bound WP:N's scope as a reason for deletion (consider merge before AfD)

One thing that doesn't seem to come through clear enough is that WP:N is only about whether there should be a stand-alone article on the topic. It does not say that any material should be deleted, if there is a plausible merge, or even just redirect target. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abbediengveien for an example.

The text, and a section title, does say "[WP:N does] not directly limit the content of articles", but it is not very prominent. The Nutshell "A topic is deemed appropriate for inclusion" has already, prominently, implied that WP:N is a reason for deletion. WP:DEL also is very suggestive that WP:N is a deletion reason.

I'm thinking that the language of WP:N should be more explicit regarding it's scope.

I suggest changing the Nutshell "A topic is deemed appropriate for inclusion" to "A topic is deemed appropriate for a stand-alone article". I also suggest adding to the lede text: "If a topic fails to meet the General notability guideline, consider turning the page into a useful redirect or proposing it be merged before prodding or listing at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't object to making the nutshell say something like "A topic is normally given a stand-alone article if..." There are certainly many topics that meet the standard criteria and still are better handled as part of a larger article.

I support I'm not sure that expanding the lead is necessary, although I wish that more people were aware of what this guideline says in the WP:FAILN section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps if this is the goal of "notability" it should be given a different name, and articles should not be summarily deleted but merged into more general articles of the same subject matter. I can see questioning whether an article can stand on its own, but then it should not be crassly deleted.--Drboisclair (talk) 03:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree about that change - we're only focused on when topics deserve stand-alone articles; failing notability doesn't meant the topic can't be included. There is probably a better word for notability than what we have now, but its going to be impossible to change that. --MASEM (t) 03:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't such a process potentially leave us with a number of unpleasantly large articles? Plus, what about when there is no "larger article?" For example, if an article on a musical artist is declared non-notable, what do you article to you merge that article to? Do we create an article titled "Non-notable musicians" that runs into the tens of thousands of kilobytes? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

At some point, we need to realize if a topic is non-notable and not tied to any larger topic, we can't keep it around. We merge as much as we can, but there's just a point where we have to drop a non-notable topic. The logic, if we had to keep all topics ever included, means that we'd have articles on pretty much every person that wanted to make an article on WP about themselves, or businesses, or garage bands, or .. etc. We are not indiscriminate about what we can include, but whenever we can , we can merge upward. As to size, that's what WP:SIZE and Summary style is for, to determine if a topic grows overly large for an article, with all the elemsents merged upwards, how to break it out to multiple articles. --MASEM (t) 03:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Then you are reneging on the scope of "Notability." I am grateful, though, that everyone sees the danger of the misuse of this guideline. There is probably more consensus on pursuing the right course in this ongoing debate.--Drboisclair (talk) 03:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not true. Notability's purpose is only to determine if we give a topic its own article. Everything else: merging, summary style, determining when a topic is indiscriminate, etc. as aspects of larger policy as relating to the work's mission, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and accessibility. --MASEM (t) 03:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The misuse of this guideline primarily comes from those who demand the merging of non-notable items as a tool to abolishing the project's inclusion standard altogether. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Can you point to examples, or other evidence? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Angels (Warhammer 40,000)#Section break: Dark Angels is a good example, but I think to have a real feel for it you'd have to have been involved in the AfDs around that subject at the time. I haven't really the heart to go looking for better examples, sorry. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that's way far fetched of a claim; first, merging of many topics into one has very little harm on the work since those topics are still covered. Secondly, if merge is the ultimate goal, AFD is absolutely the wrong venue for it (despite attempts to make it otherwise AFDiscussion and not AFDeletion). If someone was using it that way, the community would likely call them out (See: TTN). --MASEM (t) 13:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

To second Masem's point, the results of an AfD are often "merge and redirect," but this results (or should result) when the arguments for deletion prevail but there is still valuable content to be salvaged for another article. It is not (should not be) the nominator's intended result in the first place. I have to say that I think the system works pretty well. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 14:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Relationship with more specialized notability guidelines

I tend to think in structure. I'm going to ask a question which I don't think that there is an answer to, but which I think is big. That is, with respect to an article meeting notability guidelines, what is the relationship between the (wp:gng) guideline and the more specialized notability guidlines, and, for writing brevity/clarity only, I'll randomly pick and use one of them as an example: wp:academics. Is it:

1. The criteria for BOTH of them must be met. That would mean that wp:academics establishes additional requirements that must be met beyond meeting wp:gng, and visa-versa
2. That wp:academics merely helps interpret wp:gng, i.e. is subordinate to it. I.E. passing or failing wp:academics on its own is irrelevant.
3. That wp:academics provides a second way to meet notability. So, if wp:academics is met, it need not meet wp:gng, and visa-versa
4. When a more specialized standard (such as wp:academics) exists, it takes the place of the more general wp:gng. So, only wp:academics matters, passing or failing wp:gng is irrelevant

Again, wp:academics was a random choice for wording simplicity, my question is about the general relationship between wp:gng and any more specialized wp notability guideline.

And, I don't think that the usual answer of consensus works, here, because AFD's are decided by an individual admin, often on the basis of interpreting the notability guidelines. Again, there may not be an answer to this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The usual way this is taken is your third option, where the specialized guideline provides an alternate way to meet notability in addition to using the GNG. Some guidelines are written more towards #1, where they require more than the GNG, but most are not like this. --MASEM (t) 20:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Number 3, with the caveat that editors at AFD can demand compliance with whichever standard they choose, not whichever is easiest to meet. For example, you could have a BLP that nominally meets WP:ATH, and an editor could still argue (successfully) for its deletion on the grounds that there really isn't any significant coverage in secondary sources (language from WP:GNG). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! North8000 (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The second opinion is correct, because if a topic fails WP:N, then it has not been truely noted. The reason is simple: the general notability guideline provides a comprehensive definition what notability is, whereas the SNG's don't, as they are more focused on how notability applies to their specific subject matter.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Something can be noted without having significant coverage in secondary sources; coverage comes as a result of notability but is not an assured outcome. --MASEM (t) 19:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, no: notability means nothing but coverage. "That which is noted". What the secondary guidelines do is imply that a subject meets the GNG because we've established that certain classes of subject generally receive significant coverage in reliable sources regardless of what the exact subject is (for instance, all music singles which have charted). The secondary guidelines mean that we don't limit creation of articles on schools, songs and such to people who have access to the specialist or local sources which provide the significant coverage needed to demonstrate notability, instead relying on the implied GNG pass conferred by the sub-guideline while those sources are found. In the long run, any article on a notable subject should be able to show through the inclusion of reliable secondary sources that it passes the GNG without consideration to the secondary guidelines. This isn't accurately expressed though any of the four options provided. A better one would be:

5. The criteria for the GNG must be met. However, articles which pass wp:academics should not be deleted for failing the GNG as wp:academics has been designed such that any subject which passes wp:academics is implied to pass the GNG due to the existence of reliable sources which cover anything that wp:academics is applicable to. It's just a case of finding them.

Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

When reading wp:gng again in trying to respond, (with the thought of saying that my 4 cover all possibilities and that Chris's #5 would fall under one of them) I think I found the answer in the sentence: "A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in any of the subject-specific guidelines listed on the right." And so I think that wp:gng says that it is #3. And so IF (and a big IF) wp:gng is considered to be the highest authority on this topic, then it is #3. I think that Chris's statement includes a sidebar statement that says that the specialized guidelines are written such that something that meets them will almost certainly meet wp:gng, but I would consider that to be a sidebar observation rather than operational instructions. I am just going by the structural aspects of the statements, I do not have experience or expertise in the area of Wikipedia notability. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Notability is "something that is noted", but being noted does equate exactly to "documented" which is what the GNG rests on. Notability is something that falls out from the wisdom of the crowds, and that can be both through what is certainly the most common way, documentation and sourcing, but can also be extracted from word-of-mouth passing. Everyone "knows" about that speed trap on 4th and Main, but no one is going out of their way to write it down.

The GNG is "great" for WP because it captures most of the "notable" topics when they have been documented, and also provides a good alignment of sources for meeting WP:V, OR, and NPOV. But it needs to be realized that the reason WP:N remains a guideline is that the GNG may get 99.9% of the body of notable topics, but fails to capture that last 0.1% that result from other means of being an undocumented but notable topic. Of course, w/o third party sources, a topic shouldn't be included at all (WP:V) so we're not talking urban legends or the like that have no foundation to write an article about. But topics can be notable but simply lack secondary coverage per the GNG. When that occurs is partially listed in the SNGs, and partially based on consensus at AFDs, but there's no way of writing down the how and when to encompass all possible cases.

So back to the point, the SNGs are written in a way as to try to include assuredly "notable" topics of that field based ont he wisdom of the masses that have a near guaranteed likelihood of meeting the GNG given enough time for sources to develop. (I want to make sure this is quite different than being a crystal ball and presuming a presently non-"notable" topic (there is no wisdom of the crowd knowledge of the topic) will eventually because notable and have sources appear - "I'm sure my garage band will make it in 15 years, just you wait!") Sometimes, those criteria may be wrong and after enough time, we should be free to consider merging or deletion of a notable topic that gains no significant sourcing, but the criteria in the SNGs should have been vetted that the frequency where this occurs is very very small. So this is still within the #3 point above - the SNGs provide an alternate means of showing notability, but we do expect that to eventually become documented notability and meet the GNG in time, with a heaping dash of common sense where needed. --MASEM (t) 12:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you to everybody. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

For each of the individual special guidelines, we can define how it relates to the general guideline, though usually we say its an alternative--we make the rules, and we can make whatever relationship between them we please. But the GNG is in my opinion the roughest of approximate guides, its a crude measure which we should get away from as much as we can, not the goal to which we should aspire. It leads to the perennial confusions of WP:V with WP:N. WP:N can be more or less than the g GNG guideline. I'm not actually all that much concerned with the topics that it leaves out, because I or any careful researcher who knows the subject can in most fields generally find two adequate sources for almost anything that would fit the other guidelines, though it can sometimes take a while. I'm more concerned as with the ones it will increasingly include. We've been using special rules for some of them, such as ONE EVENT and the various provisions of NOT, but this is going at it backwards, it';s saying basically include everything, unless there's some reason not to--a reason which bears no necessary relation to notability. Increasingly, the coverage of Google Books and Google News archive will provide sufficient sources to meet the GNG for millions of people and millions of books and other media who we would not ordinarily consider notable. I could probably meet the GNG for every building and every street in Manhattan, but we would not therefore include them, but find some sort of reason for not doing so. I could find such for most assistant professors at major universities, though they almost none of them meet the specialized more appropriate guideline of WP:PROF. We should define specific criteria which mean something for what we want to include, not rely on the accident of what people working here can routinely happen to find sources for. We can work with this guideline: we've gotten I think rather skilled at arguing for or against the sort of articles we do and do not want to include, but it would be much clearer to base our coverage on the importance of the subject, and refer not as much to articles being in or out, but to the extent of coverage, whether in a list, combination article, full article, or group of articles. DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that there is a complex interplay of numerous factors.

• There probably needs to be an additional factor taken into consideration along with notability, and that is the degree to which the subject inherently has, or the article is likely to end up containing encyclopedic type information (sought under that subject) that is interesting or useful. I think that we all tend to intuitively "feel" that criteria, and try to implement it under the topic of notability even if it isn't truly a notability criteria.
• Wikipedia often uses publishing/sourcing as a practical, imperfect definition / arbiter for factors (outside of the core one of wp:ver) which are more complex, because it would be too difficult to develop and apply policies that are more targeted.
• I think that the subject areas where there is more of a likelihood of an article being put in as self-promotion, promotion for commercial reasons etc. get a lot more coverage in guidelines and a lot more scrutiny for deletion on a notability basis. If you put in a stub article on a sea slug that nobody has heard of, with no sources given, it is not going get taken out on notability grounds. If you did than about a professor, band, commercial product, it would get whacked. This double standard serves us well 3/4 of the time and misfires the other 1/4 of the time.
• Deletion of an article is the most "nuclear" of all options regarding articles, and, for most articles, the only available way to delete an entire article is notability. Now, couple this with the fact that despite this being the most nuclear of all options, it is also one of the few actions in Wikipedia that is decided by one person (the closing admin, and often one who hasn't been involved and due to time limitations may not be able learn it thoroughly). This gives notability a unique place where there is wiki-warfare going on.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

If a street in Manhattan has significant non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources then it deserves an article. The whole problem with the line of thought which says that some things which have reliable secondary coverage still fail the GNG is the result of bad-faith attempts to treat trivial, primary, or otherwise insufficient coverage as sufficient to establish notability. Were people to stop doing that, you'd quickly find that this was far less confusing than it's made out to be. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)