Wikipedia talk:Notability

• Notice: There is an ongoing request for comments regarding the notability of spin-out articles and the relationship between the main notability guideline and the subject specific notability guidelines at: Wikipedia talk:Notability/RFC:compromise.

Archives
2005–Sep 2006 (related to page now moved to Wikipedia:Notability/Arguments) Sep–Oct 2006 Oct–Nov 2006 18–25 Nov 2006 Nov 2006–Dec 2006 Dec 2006 Dec 2006–Jan 2007 Jan 2007–Feb 2007 Feb 2007 March 2007 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21

Wikipedia:Relevance

• See also Wikipedia talk:Relevance (and archives)

In a better nutshell

For the busy people, the article has this quick encapsulation of the notability article:

There are several important things that we left out of this nutshell, which the reader can get by reading the rest of the article. Think about these questions and ask yourself if they are important to an editor being pointed to this page for the first time.

• Why is notability important? What impact does notability have on Wikipedia articles?
• What happens if an idea is not notable? Do only notable ideas deserve articles?

If course, anyone who reads the article in its length can answer these questions. However, these are fundamental issues that govern whether an article survives deletion or if an inexperienced editor creates a legitimate Wikipedia article. Leaving these issues out of the nutshell statement is avoidable. Consider this version:

Granted, the original version specifies the agreed definition of notability, but this article does not simply define. Notability matters, and the term's use extends far beyond bare meaning. My motivation here is to make the notability statement connect with how notability affects the business of Wikipedia, because the existing version does not. —Kanodin 21:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Subjects don't "deserve" articles. The lack of information in reliable secondary sources is not so much a question of merit as a question of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. If there isn't enough reasonable coverage out there, we have no way of writing a decent article on the topic. The emotional judgment of "deserves" might be the ultimate arbiter when it comes to ignoring all rules, but the basic principle of notability is not "should we" but "can we?" SDY (talk) 21:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

See this earlier discussion - an article needs to be about a notable topic, but a notable topic does not need an article as sometimes it is better to cover such in the context of a larger topic. So the version you propose is not correct.

That said, maybe the wording needs to be flipped around:

that is, re-emphasizing that article topics should be notable (and that non-notable topics should not have articles), while reiterating the definition of notability. --MASEM 21:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I very much prefer Masem's version, which I think puts it well while also sounding friendly and positive. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC).

Also, because it correctly allows for what I have said just below about the role of the "GNG". Now what we need is a definition of "presumed" that doesn't presume to much. :). DGG (talk) 03:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Short and to the point, explains that notability is desired and why, but still leaves enough room to breathe. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

^ What Sgeureka said. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand Masem's objection to "deserves", and I have no problem with avoiding the word. In fact, I think the substance of what I wanted to add is Masem's new sentence. I am going to leave the original nutshell sentence (since the flipped version is logically identical and switching would require rehashing the rest of the article), and add Article topics should be notable. Surprisingly, that's all that I think is missing. If anyone disagrees, please revert/adjust the corresponding edit and explain. —Kanodin 06:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think the change is unnecessary. The inclusion of the word "should" adds an element of ambiguity, and I request that the first sentence be removed.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Given that this is a guideline (thus not absolute), and the second sentence of the lead uses the same word, there is nothing wrong with using "should". (even policies use "should", with the understanding there are always exceptions). --MASEM 12:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"Should" is OK for describing preferred behaviour. It is not useful for describing dubious facts (where a real fact would be worded "Article topics are notable"). When saying "Article topics should be notable", what are you saying? That editors should strive to make article topics notable? That is not appropriate, because a topic is either notable or not, and an editor cannot make a non-notable topic notable. The fact that notability is a requirement for articles derives from WP:DEL#REASON (or perhaps the behaviour that WP:DEL describes). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Masem is a master of obfuscation. The guideline is not absolute, but it still needs to be clear. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• Well, "Topics of articles on Wikipedia are notable" is de facto wrong. A quick look through CAT:NN will convince you of that. --B. Wolterding (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• (ec, to Smokey Joe and Gavin) The next step up from "should" is "must", and it's certainly not (yet) the case that notability is a requirement. I can't see any other word choice that is appropriate there.
• The other aspect to consider is that notability is not 100% objective. Even by the GNG, what constitutes "significant coverage" is not a question that can be answered easily; there's obvious cases on where it does happen, obvious cases where it doesn't, but a large number of articles that hit AFD for being "non-notable" fall in a subjective grey area. This is not like WP:V where sourcing is can be very apparently, and while exactly what are reliable sources up in the area, there's much more objective guidance on that. Because we cannot be objective when it comes to notability, we cannot say that article topics "must" be notable since there's no absolute measure of that. --MASEM 13:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone has ever claimed that WP:N to be 100% objective, as whether a source is reliable or secondary will always require an element of judgement. However, I have not seen any alternative proposals for inclusion criteria that are more objective; as far as I can see, alternative proposals (such as FEAPOALT) seem to be based on so called "consensus", which is little more than so called "expert opinion". I don't see any reason for the proposed change, unless you have come up with a clear and well defined proposal reason why WP:N should be watered down by changing the wording. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(←) Reread the OP's question and why this change was suggested. The nutshell covers the fact of what the GNG says, but does not explain why an editor should be aware of that. Since the statement "article topics should be notable" is a replication of text in the first paragraph of the body of the guideline, this statement of "why" should be added to the nutshell; it does not change any meaning of the guideline at all but enhances the first-time reader's understanding of the importance of the guideline. --MASEM 14:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• It is not the purpose of this guideline to explain why policies and guidelines exist, and more importantly we should not attempt to provide an explaination in a nutshell; this falls outside the scope of WP:N. In any case, the reasons provided by Kanodin as to why WP:N exists are an expression of his opinion only, not a statement of fact. My own view is that WP:N exists as an inclusion criteria because, where there are sufficient independent sources exist to satisfy the content principles of Wikipedia, then that is best criteria by which it can be judged whether or not to have an article on a particular topic. If you can think of other inclusion criteria that should be used, then state them, don't try and water down WP:N as if it were only one of many (better) alternatives.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion criteria is a cause of action in WP:N, as specified in the first paragraph of this project page: "The topic of an article should be notable..." I can find this inclusion criteria nowhere in the content principles, and those principles govern the content of articles, not whether they exist (WP:ATP is an exception, but has nothing to do with notability). However, an inverted version of this, an exclusion criteria, exists in WP:DP. If we are to say that WP:N is no cause for action, then we have no business declaring that WP:N requires all article topics to be notable. If the WP:N inclusion criteria derives from some other policy, then we should recognize that in the article. As WP:N looks now, the inclusion criteria is more cardinal than the meaning of notability itself. The inclusion criteria appears to be part of the essence of WP:N, and is not the same thing as an explanation of why the policy exists. An explanation of why the policy exists would extend to WP:NOT and WP:V, but WP:N bridges this connection by noting that notability exists as a presumption.

So, one of two things should happen:

1) The inclusion criteria should exist in inverted form inside WP:DP and should be removed from WP:N; WP:N should note that WP:DP excludes non-notable topics, or

2) The inclusion criteria should be a part of WP:N and its nutshell statement.

I side with (2), partially because Wikipedia better operates with an inclusion criteria rather than an exclusion criteria. Editors should justify to themselves that an article topic is notable before creating an article, and not wait for a complaint to measure whether they should have created the article in the first place. Relying on an exclusion principle advocates the latter behavior and distracts everyone with inane AfDs. —Kanodin 00:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Under WP:SILENCE, I am adding ' Article topics should be notable. ' to the beginning of the nutshell statement. This edit bumps against archiving so people can (re)join the discussion. —Kanodin 22:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• This is just your opinion, and your edit should be reverted. Frankly, I see no reason to say that articles should be notable; I don't thinking this conveys any meaning at all. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• Kanodin, you do make some sense, but I don't think it merits bloating the nutshell. The nutshell should be the absolute bare minimum. Perhaps you could modify the body of WP:N, or even better, help clarify the deletion criteria at WP:DP / WP:DEL#REASON. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Gavin: I chose Article topics should be notable because it already appears as policy in the first paragraph of the article. Should is a standard term that operates policy decisions. We can talk about using a stronger modal verb than should, but I think that is not the real issue. Without this addition about the mandate of article topics, the nutshell statement says nothing about Wikipedia articles. Do we want to assume that everyone knows that WP:N controls whether article topics exist? The statement in question says more about Wikipedia's standards than defining notability. Editors probably have some plain English notion of what notability means; but newcomers do not know that Wikipedia's articles have to be notable. Unless someone tells the reader, the WP:N nutshell defines notability and applies it to nothing.
• SmokeyJoe: Your comment exposes a tension between two policy pages. As we now gather, WP:DP has deletion criteria and WP:N has inclusion criteria. There is probably some overarching criteria for the existence of articles, but that set of conditions does not center on any one policy page. Those conditions are scattered across WP:N and WP:DP. Notability does not say everything about whether an article is legitimate. However, notability is still an essential condition of article existence--no article topic may exist without notability. Here is a major problem: since Wikipedia's article notability policy exists in WP:N and in inverted language in WP:DP, which page trumps the other? This is a potential wrangle, but I think that the inclusion criteria is cardinal, and WP:DP simply follows WP:N's suit. Article topics should be notable is better than its inverted form: Article topics should not be non-notable.
• Randomran: As much as we may agree that the addition of the sentence is appropriate, pushing reverts against two editors who plainly disagree with us is not productive. Gavin.collins and SmokeyJoe took time to break W:SILENCE and contribute their opinions, and I respect their right to disagree. As long as they find the time and energy to contribute their ideas in opposition to me, I will commit to keeping my opposed idea off the policy page.
• So far, this discussion has done two things for me. First, others have given me an opportunity to learn more about Wiki-policy and how certain policy pages fit together. Second, it has made me aware that policy pages overlap and collide in many ways. We require all Wikipedia articles to be notable does not have a clear "home" in any definite policy page. If it did, then I would know to which nutshell statement to add it. The other problem is we cannot expect editors interested in certain aspects of policy to have a whole array of pages on their watchlist. As an aside to the WP:N nutshell, try to tell me where the mandate of notable articles belongs in Wikipedia policy. I think answering that question will go a long way to resolving my issue. Someone tell me if I'm wrong, because I am starting to think that WP:Article Criteria needs its own page. In the meantime, I'm going to try this version for this page's nutshell statement:

• The added words, a suitable article topic, derive from the first paragraph of WP:N. Now, if someone is motivated to complain about nutshell bloat, remember that this revision expands the nutshell statement by three words and keeps it down to one declarative sentence. Is that not a reasonable compromise?

—Kanodin 09:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• I do like that one [1]. Reducing the use of that confusing "notable" word is good. This page effectively defines wikipedia-notability, and internal references to "notable" are not helpful. Note that this is especially in reference to the intended audience: newcomers and others not familiar this this notability stuff. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Why not leave it as it was? Unless you have a compelling reason for change (e.g. it makes no sense) leave it as is. I don't think any of these cosmetic changes are necessary, as this continous "goldfish editing" (which involves nibbling at the guideline, but forgetting what came before) is not productive, and a waste of time.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right that it's much more productive to get this right on the talk page first, rather than making snappy replies in the edit summary. That said, I think your version with "a suitable article topic" is actually better than anything we've had so far. The problem with ditching "articles should be notable" is that you don't explain why we should care about notability, and what happens when an article is notable / not notable. The problem with keeping "articles should be notable" is it's kind of trite and uninformative. Saying "it is presumed to be a suitable article topic" is synonymous with "it is presumed to be notable", but much more informative for a novice reader. Randomran (talk) 12:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think the use of the phrase "it is presumed to be a suitable article topic." is awful! For starters, it is too judgemental. We have been down this path before, describing the inclusion criteria for an article as being based on "importance", and now we are using an equally judgemental term "suitability". Also, it is a very old fashioned turn of phrase. Describing an article as worthy for inclusion on the basis of "suitablity" sounds like we are selecting a husband for a Jane Austen character. Has he article got "means" to impress its readers? Is the article written in a "cultured" style? Is the article's tone "pleasant" and without any pride and prejudice? Was it first drafted in tastefully coloured ink using a sharp quill? My goodness Mr. Randomran, I must now demand that the original version be restored or otherwise we will have to resort to pistols at dawn!--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• I don’t think the phrase is really that awful. If it judgemental, that’s because it is the nature of WP:N to be judgemental, as a policy based deletion criterion. “Suitable” and “importance” are not similar words. “is presumed to be” is a bit of a funny turn of phrase, and is in a passive tense. I’d be happy with “is”. I do think it is important that an article has sources that impress. You go on to confuse matters with references to style, tone and taste. These things relate to the style guidelines and have no place in WP:N. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• I accept your point that the term notability is itself judgemental, and that the way that the concept is applied in Wikipedia (say at AFD) is also judgemental. However, if you follow the archived discussion at WT:IMPORTANCE regarding the use of the word "importance" as a description for Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, you will see that "importance" was abandoned because what is important to one person may be irrelevant to another. By contrast, notability was considered to be a term that was less judgemental in the sense that, regardless of whether a topic is notable or notorious, it qualifies for inculsion in Wikipedia, provided reliable secondary sources can be found for that topic. A similar problem arises with use of the term "suitable", which sounds as if it has more to do with describing a topic which passes WP:NOT, as an unsuitable topic would (in my imagination at least) fail WP:NOT. A notable topic, by definition, is one that is "worthy of notice"; this is a concept distinct from "importance" or "suitability", which is why I am still requesting that the original wording be restored.--Gavin Collins (talk) 04:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• “Suitable” for an “article topic” is what WP:N is about. Labelling a subject/topic not “suitable” appropriately conveys the message that there is nothing you can do to fix it. No amount of editing can make an unsuitable subject suitable. I feel that suitable has far less value connotations than importance, and reasons for not using “importance” don’t readily apply to “suitable”. The previous wording I think is worse because it implicitly redefines “notable” from its real-world meaning. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• But truthfully, our use of "notable" is a very limited subset of what "notable" means in the real-world. A first-time editor getting hit with a non-notable AFD needs to be aware of this fact once directed here. Now, I can see dropping the word from the nutshell as to not get hung up on its alternate meaning, but then there seems to be no relationship between the page title and the nutshell. --MASEM 12:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• In answer to SmokeyJoe, if you don't define what "suitability" is, how can you say that WP:N is about "suitability"? In answer to Masem, notability may only be a subset of the real-world meaning of the word, but within the context of this guideline, its meaning is explained comprehensively, unlike suitability. Please restore the original version that has been in place for over a year [2]. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that notability should be mentioned; I think the nutshell is less effective if you, as a first time editor, come to "WP:Notability" and not see it defined in the nutshell. We shouldn't be beating around the bush with the nutshell. This is why the other part that is being added, about notable topics and article suitability, is also necessary: without it, we say what notability is without why it should be considered. We don't have to get into specifics, just that "An article topic should be notable." --MASEM 16:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

(un indent) I like the version posted by Kanodin at 09:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC) best of all the options shown. It keeps to the original intent and signifies the article is a critical part of the statement as topics do not need to be notable in of themselves if they are in article which is notable. Jeepday (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me point out that I did not come up with these additions to the nutshell out of thin air. In an effort to eliminate controversy, I chose phrases and words that already exist in WP:N. If we want to talk about whether a certain aspect of WP:N belongs in the nutshell, that would be a legitimate conversation. But, questioning the legitimacy of the proposed statements as if they were foreign to WP:N goes way beyond a nutshell issue. Consider these sentences:

• The topic of an article should be notable.
• Notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article.

If anyone has a problem with these sentences (emphasis added), go to WP:N and read the entire opening section. All of these statements already exist as part of policy. By virtue of their stable presence in WP:N we all concede that these represent Wikipedia policy. If people want to question these proposals based on their acceptance as policy, they need to question their presence in WP:N and not simply their appearance in the nutshell. —Kanodin—VENT— 06:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• "The topic of an article should be notable" would be better written as "Articles should only cover notable topics" --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

proposal

There have been several heated disputes over the notability guidelines. After huge arguments from inclusionists, deletionists, and all those in between... a few compromises have gained conditional support. We are now putting a few of those compromises to the larger community at a request for comment.

Please chime in at: Wikipedia talk:Notability/RFC:compromise. Randomran (talk) 03:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The RFC is going as badly as I had feared, and I am in particular appalled by your conduct, criticizing A1 for a lack of specificity when you are the one who tore out the specificity and nuance to collapse it into a few sentences. Although I will participate in it, I am doing so only inasmuch as it is needed to clearly voice that the proposal under discussion on the RFC has no relation to the actual serious attempt at a policy shift that I am going to work on separately. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, instead of accusing me of "appalling conduct". You don't own the proposal, and even after you withdrew it I kept it in a different form because there was circumstantial support for it from others. Nothing is stopping you from making your own proposal at a later time, this RFC is not a vote, and it is certainly not the final word. It is merely a discussion that will help us rule out some possibilities, and develop consensus on even a few issues. Of course I hoped this would resolve the issue once and for all, but I never expected it to. We'll see how it pans out and wait for the next step. Randomran (talk) 22:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The RFC is proceeding quite predictably. Calling wide attention to a problem that a reasonably sized group of interested participants can't agree on is not likely way to get progress. A better method is to propose your preferred solution, defend it, and adjust it per valid criticism. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yet more confusing wording.

In the "nutshell", and indeed pretty much the entire article, it says "Article topics should be notable". Shouldn't this read "Article subjects should be notable"? because it also says, at the bottom of the article, that content is not beholden to WP:N - "...particular topics and facts within an article..." do not need to meet WP:N. So I'm left wondering how can "article topics" be notable if the topics in articles are not notable? I understand that the distinction is kind of banal but we should make a more clear attempt at separating the "subject" of an article from the "topics" discussed in the article (those being my proposed "distinction words"). What say ye? padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 19:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• You are right that distinguishing between the topic described by an article's title and sub-topics within an article is important. However, replacing topic with subject doesn't solve the problem. People may still think that an article may have multiple subjects within it, and then we're back to your original issue. Discriminating between the scope of an article and multiple sub-topics requires verbose wording that goes beyond the nutshell, and I cannot think of a simple way to make that clear for the nutshell. Part of the complexity is that notability affects an article's NPOV content; article content should be germane to that topic's notability (i.e., relevant). We don't write everything that is verifiable on every notable topic (WP:INDISCRIMINATE). —Kanodin 20:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, then notability does affect article content and we should take the contrary insinuation out. This would also alleviate the problem by removing one side of the confusing elements. But I find it unacceptable to use the same word for two different situations and expect the reader to figure it out. How about the following:

padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we need a quick step back here, and make sure we are nutshelling correctly.

We have the following "major" points that are your one-minute take-aways from all of WP:N that we're trying to fit to the nutshell:

• Sign. coverage in secondary sources --> presumed to be notable
• (Meet an sub-notability guideline --> presumed to be notable) (this one, lets leave out pending the RFC)
• An article's main topic should be notable.
• Content of an article on a notable main topic is not further limited by notability.

I will point that "topic" is consistent with other guidelines (particularly NOT) so we should stay consistent.

So considering these:

(The SNG section is a placeholder but would be removed in a current version). This gets all four fun facts quickly and easily and in order of importance at least in the current editing environment. "Primary topic" is better than "main topic" or "topic" alone as yes, a topic may have several sub-topics, but "primary topic" should be obvious. --MASEM 13:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

MASEM, you show your customary skill at concision--but I would just substitute the word "independent" for "secondary" The question o fjust what counts as a secondary source has proven to be confusing, as Wikipedia seems to sometimes use it in a special meaning. The combination of significant, reliable and independent is enough to take care of the common valid objections to non-notable subjects. DGG (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

DGG, I disagree. In a great many areas, if not all, secondary sources, as per WP:NOR, are essential in formulating articles properly based on sources. No one denies that there is confusion as to the detail, but you can't just cut it out due to complexity. The existence of secondary sources are critically important to a useful concept of notability as an inclusion criterion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It is key to remember that sources sit on two axes: the relationship to the facts (first- and third-party) and the type of treatment of the facts (primary, secondary, and tertiary). Verifiability means a strong reliance on third-party, utilizing first-party to suppliment; the GNG, on the other hand, requires topics to be covered more than just repeating the details -- aka having secondary sources. This is why we can't (yet) justify episode articles only on TV guide descriptions (third-party but primary sources since they do no analysis) while we can use (with caution) commentary from the producers or actors as first-party, secondary sources. --MASEM 02:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, TV Guide descriptions are generally first party: they are provided by the production companies and printed verbatim.Kww (talk) 02:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the nutshell at the moment is just fine. For those who disagree: What is it that the nutshell says, or doesn't say, that leaves you, or the newcomer, confused? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• At the moment, I agree with SmokeyJoe. Mentioning WP:NNC in the nutshell is stretching things a tad far, but distinguishing main topic from sub-topic warrants concern. WP:NNC exists as a courtesy clarification of the limits of WP:N, but is not essential to policy. WP:NPOV covers content issues that relate to notability (the code words for notability in NPOV are significance and proportion). WP:NNC tries to eliminate policy overlap (a Mickey Mouse solution) and would look rather silly in the nutshell statement. I also think that we should attend to the vague 'instead' language in WP:NNC before squeezing it into the nutshell.
• It would probably be best to address one of these issues at a time. The main-topic/sub-topic issue is more basic and should be solved before tackling the WP:NNC issue (if people want to pursue it). My first poke at nominating a change to the nutshell would be to change a suitable article topic to suitable as the primary [or main] topic of an article. The downside to this suggestion is that it expands the nutshell by four words.

—Kanodin—VENT— 13:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• I do agree that NNC can be a red herring, so keeping it out is fine. And the matter of SNGs is still up in the air but as noted above, a small clause can be added once its resolved once their purpose is confirmed. The only major concern is that the nutshell never mentions the word "notability". If a new user created a non-notable article (unaware of policy/guideline) and it was put up to AFD for being non-notable, the nutshell would not serve them well. Mind you, I see the point of not stating "notability" to avoid with the non-WP, more common definition of the term (and IMO, with the way the RFC is going, I think I see a way to depreciate our use of "notability" for a better term, but that's neither here nor there), and having it in the nutshell could complicate matters.. --MASEM 13:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Having the nutshell define notability might be good. Having the nutshell refer to notability is bad. People will come to WP:N to find out what this “notability” thing is, and being self-referential is not very helpful. Not using the word “notable” as far as possible is, I think, a good thing, because our modified definitions causes confusion.
• Deprecating “notability” would be a good idea except for two problems: (1) Finding a better word/phrase; (2) The word is so deeply entrenched in our history that people will keep using it, and without WP:N, they will go back to misusing in the confusing, undefined manner that people used to use it (along the lines of “not encyclopaedic” which degenerates down to “I don’t like it”). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't go too far, this is just a nutshell. y base argument was that everything is referred to as "topic" - Article subject as well as sub-topics in the article, and this might be confusing. You got several statements, even outside of the nutshell, that say the article topic must be notable and then a blurb stating that topics in the article need not be notable (which, in and of itself, is misleading too). So I was just looking for a better way to phrase one or the other of these things. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 13:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• I still prefer the original wording because it was brief [3], and did not include any vague adjectives such as "suitable" (which is better left to Jane Austen novels), and I propose we revert to this version which survived for more than a year on the basis that we have not agreed on a better version as yet. I don't like the term "suitablity", which in my view is a veiled reference to the requirement that an article must satisfy the content principles of Wikipedia. The term "suitablility" should be replaced in GNG with an explicit statement to this effect, but this should be the subject of a discussion for another day. To avoid addressing this issue now, and to address the issue that the original "notability in a nutshell" was vaguely self-referencing, I propose a compromise which I feel is less judgemental in tone:

Since notability is just one of many guidelines on inclusion criteria, I feel this makes sense, and does not suggest it is the paramount guideline on this subject just because it defines what is "suitable", which is related to the content guidelines and falls outside the scope of WP:N. --Gavin Collins (talk) 02:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I like it. It gets to the point. It explains the sourcing requirement. And it explains what that sourcing requirement gets you. Saying "it gets you notability" doesn't explain anything. Saying "it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article" does. If there's a cleaner way to say that last part, I'd support that too. Randomran (talk) 03:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• These latest nutshells won't do because they seem to indicate that the existence of sources qualifies a topic for inclusion. This is not the case since there is material for which we have good sources but which we do not wish to cover, for example, ordinary murders (WP:NOT#NEWS). I am therefore reverting back to the last nutshell which explains how notability is defined, not that it guarantees you inclusion. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • If the problem is that we might mislead that meeting the source requirements "guarantees" inclusion, perhaps it might be more useful to phrase it in the negative? "If an article doesn't ..., then it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." Randomran (talk) 07:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Defining notability and football coaches

I just posted this on the Help desk and then thought it might be better posted here. A recently created project seem to stretch WP:NOTABILITY to include a large number of football coaches who are not notable under the normal rules of WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE. The arguments are set out at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Walter_J._West. How do I set about extending the afd to embrace all such non-notables without falling foul of WP:FORUMSHOPPING ? Kittybrewster ☎ 13:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Try Template:AfD footer (multiple). I don't know how to use it. If that does not work, get an admin on your side to use one AfD to cover all the nominated articles. Point all AfD links toward that single AfD discussion. Expect a lot of participation. —Kanodin—VENT— 14:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You don't. Expanding an Afd that has been going on for a while is wrong. Multiples have to be submitted together so the discussion covers them all. Submitting as a multiple afd isn't appropriate in this case anyway, as college football head coaches isn't a tight enough group to qualify. Now if you were submitting a bunch of articles about people that had being a part of West's staff as their sole claim to notability, then you would have grounds. If your issue is with a project's interpretation of WP:BIO you should discuss it at their talk page. Horrorshowj (talk) 08:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• The folks attending to those AfD discussions can best answer these questions of appropriateness. The template I pointed to suggests creating an AfD the traditional way (to see how it goes) before putting multiple AfDs together. Kittybrewster should bring this idea up at any relevant existing AfDs and all the talk pages under future AfD consideration. The people there are the likely stakeholders of a multi-AfD. That way there will be fewer surprises. Also keep in mind that there could be other people waiting for this move to happen, because if it is appropriate, it saves a lot of time.
• Yeah. Don't mix existing and new AfD hearings. It messes with discussion time periods, and people may leave a discussion once they make a single contribution.
• Finally, think about how much time you save. How many different articles are we talking about here? If it's five, I wouldn't bother. If it's 30, I would get an admin in on the situation before doing anything else. —Kanodin—VENT— 06:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• How about "has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources"? Anything meeting those criteria seems to be generally accepted as encyclopaedic. Guy (Help!) 09:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Question

When it comes to hip-hop musicians, are mixtape articles allowed on Wikipedia? See Template:50 Cent.

If it's covered by reliable third-party sources, then yes. If there's an artist who would get coverage for mixtapes, it would be 50 Cent, among others. Randomran (talk) 14:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The notability subguideline on music uses the following wording (effectively summarised by Randomran): "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 14:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I ask this because mixtapes for other rappers such as Snoop Dogg were deleted quickly. Maybe this should apply to 50 Cent. I'm just saying. Fclass (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The best way to save an article from notability-related deletion is to find sources. That said, I'm pretty confident that 50 Cent's early mixtapes are notable. Randomran (talk) 14:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Might be easier to have an article on 50cent mixtapes. That would e easier to source than individual articles on each tape, and less likely to end up in arguments over the one tape that has only one trivial source... Guy (Help!) 20:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

For your consideration

In light of the RFC's present results, considering both the pros and cons and what concerns editors have for certain proposals, I have created this essay as a start of an idea to resolve notability issues, basically that we need to rework what we have as a structure for inclusion, using the GNG as one obvious measure, and reworking the SNGs to become inclusion sub-guidelines as the other measure. To deal with the matter of sourcing and other policies, those policies become the metrics by which we consider how much we talk about a topic. Can it be sourced through third-party sources (like most GNG-met topics can be) (among other considerations)? Great, it gets an article, otherwise it needs to be covered as part of a larger topic or grouped with other similar topics. The SNGs would need a major revamp to make sure that they describe inclusion and that the criteria is globally approved of. And I know Gavin or someone else will likely question that this will create a lot of non-notable lists, which I admit is there, but that's the reason to vet the SNGs to make sure that such lists include content we want to cover without overwhelming sourced information relating to a more overarching topic. (eg episode lists are ok, lists of major/recurring characters ok, but lists of one-shot characters are not appropriate for inclusion -- unless alone they meet the GNG).

My realization is that we have two WP mission aspects, the broadness and the verification, that clash. We want good discussion of a topic if there's lots of third-party and secondary sources about it, but when that's not available, a topic deemed worthy to be included still needs to be discussed, just in a much more limited form and in a manner that still is verifiable (just, likely from primary sources only). It's a more positive spin without ditching notability (as the GNG is still the catchall for anything that doesn't fit a SNG), and really is only a small tweak on how we have our current framework; the core of making this work is getting the SNGs right, and I don't have a big problem erring on the side of more inclusion to start to see what developments, removing allowable criteria if we find that it allows the wrong type of topics or articles. --MASEM 17:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Tag for sections

Is there a notability tag for article sections? I have a huge section that needs to go but I want to tag it first. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 17:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Since notability does not restrict article content, cleanup templates such as Template:Notability only apply to whole articles.--Gavin Collins (talk) 21:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, not to canvas but, can you take a look at Köchel_catalogue and see if I'm off my rocker? they are replicating a list of compositions in the body of the article and claim that because one list is by subject and the other is chron they are not redundant. I can't help but think that kind of need is a little too specialized for WP to have to put up with multiple lists of the same stuff. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 06:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The lists are not redundant (presumably verifiable original research by Ludwig von Köchel), but that's not what matters. I first question the notability of then Köchel_catalogue (a WP:N issue), then next question the legitimate weight of reproducing the entire list (a WP:NPOV issue). Why is showing the whole list germane to expounding on the notability of Köchel_catalogue? Everything in an article should strive toward explaining the notability of the article topic. Defenders of the list must give an adequate answer to that question. The fact that something is the text of a notable document is not grounds for its inclusion.

Try the {{content}} template:

—Kanodin—VENT— 07:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You don't think they are redundant? They are the same list, sorted two different ways. How is that not redundant? I guess that's my biggest hurdle, lists be damned, how can someone think the same information sorted two different ways is not a repetition of the same information. That is gonna drive me to distraction. A sortable table could take care of the whole mess in one shot. I guess my programming background makes me see lists as tables and I can organize the data without affecting the data. I just don't get the "not redundant" argument. But thanks for the advice and the tag. I've placed an RfC so we'll see how it goes. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's time to stop using the vague statement "notability guidelines do not directly limit article content", and phrase it in the affirmative. According to our policy, "an article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." Perhaps a more useful heading would be in the affirmative: "notability guidelines indirectly limit article content", or perhaps "limit the amount of coverage, but do not necessarily exclude coverage". I'm looking for a phrasing that is more accurate. Randomran (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, it is time to overhaul. I will make a suggestion in a new section. —Kanodin—VENT— 07:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Rename proposal

I would like to propose that we rename this page Wikipedia:Inclusion guideline. The main reason for this is the incredible offence it gives to article subjects who clearly and unambiguously fail our inclusion criteria, to be told that they are not notable. It's a recurrent source of complaints to WP:OTRS, and wold be vastly easier for non-Wikipedians to understand in deletion related discussions and user talk page discussions. Guy (Help!) 21:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. John Reaves 21:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I've noted that I've written based on the current RFC results that approaching this as Inclusion is the "right" way to go for many reasons; "notability" as per defined by the GNG is still part of that as any topic that is notable per GNG can be included, but there's more than just that we really should be consider. I point again to my draft of what I think this could look like at User:Masem/Inclusion Guideline. --MASEM 21:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Good idea by JzG (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 21:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Strongly support. Daniel (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

People are often mislead or confused by the term notablity. Real world language is preferable. WilyD 21:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think a rename actually makes some sense. "Notability" conjures up too many real-life intuitions about what is or is not important. This is not about importance. It's about whether we have decent sourcing or not. That said, I'm not sure that "Inclusion" sums it up. I think "Minimum Sources" might be a good way to frame it, but I'm not sure. Randomran (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This would also go a long way to clearing up the perpetual confusion between "notability" and "important/famous". I support. Shereth 21:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

So simple! Yes, "Inclusion guideline" is more clear, and avoids the insult of calling thousands of people non-notable every week. henrik•talk 21:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggest Wikipedia:Inclusion as a rename instead of Wikipedia:Inclusion guideline, for more flexibility if this page's status changes at some point. Cirt (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but we need to reinforce the fact that this is a guideline, the policy is WP:V, WP:NPOV and to a certain extent WP:NOT.

The problem I have with "guideline" is its vagueness and scope for unconstructive debate around the margins. I would agree with "Inclusion Criteria", and my initial objection elsewhere was largely based on the fact that many WP projects have set out their own more specific criteria, and "guideline" would possibly have forced them to re-evaluate those criteria, which I can only see leading to dissension. I don't want to see this debate diffuse, as have so many others, into nothingness. We have better things to do, although the principle of not causing offence is useful, but not determinative. --Rodhullandemu 21:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but "criteria" sounds like a firm policy, meet X and you are automatically in or out, whereas there may be a consensus to the opposite in individual cases (such as schools, which are often included even without non-trivial reliable independent sources). But just "Inclusion" would not carry that baggage. Guy (Help!) 22:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

We should form a committee to discuss the proposal to rename the guideline. Just kiddin. :P -- Cirt (talk) 22:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I like Wikipedia:Inclusion or Wikipedia:Inclusion criteria as straightforward, non-pejorative descriptions of the purpose of the guideline. I don't think including the word 'guideline' is a good idea, as it implicitly casts the document as a {guideline}. The word 'criteria' I can take or leave; it really is what this guideline aspires to be, even if it is both incomplete and heavily tempered by both WP:IAR and WP:SENSE. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I support the change to "Inclusion..." for the reasons given above. However I think we should go slow in making changes to the guidelines which have been developed over several years with much community input. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I will point out again my suggestion of an inclusion guideline (based on many comments over the last 2 years and the running RFC). The TL;DR version is this:

• We are an encyclopedia, we should be defining topics that should be covered simply because we are that, an encyclopedia, not because of sources.
• We still want to make sure V, NOR, NPOV, and NOT are met. Topics that should be covered but lack third-party sourcing should be covered in limited context (aka lists and tables).
• We still want an opening for any topic that may not be specifically called out by what we want to cover to be included as long as it can meet the four policies; this is where WP:N and the GNG fit into place.
• We need to have strong vetting of the sub-notability guidelines (aka sub-inclusion guidelines) to make sure that none delve too far into allowing too many topics in a specific field but still provide the right level of coverage that Wikipedia's consensus seeks to be.

This, I hope, addresses many of the concerns both inclusionists and deletionists have, as well as those worried about sourcing and the like. It doesn't diminish what WP's notability means as the GNG is still a well-tested criteria, but sticking to that and only that makes for the conflict on WP. --MASEM 22:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:INCLUSION works for me. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• WP:Inclusion works for me as well. We already tag it as a guideline. No need to go out of our way to do so in other ways. Protonk (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I like Wikipedia:Inclusion. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I support moving this guideline. Is the idea to replase the existing DAB page, and to subsume its contents into the header? This idea is similar to the impetus behind Wikipedia:Article inclusion, to which I ascribe its failure to it being created as a fork during controversy and full protection of WP:N. We need to worry about "notability" returning to being a widely used/misused/abused term at AfD. Should the title Wikiepdia:Notability be a redirect or converted to an essay summarising the past use of "notability" and how we now choose to talk about WP:INCLUSION instead. If this proposed WP:INCLUSION turns out to be user friendly, I think it should be policy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability is still useful, at least in the sense of the GNG, in that it itself is one facet of inclusion for Wikipedia. Simply moving this page, striking out all "notability" for "inclusion", and stating the problem fixed is not going to work. This page should stay here but with a big header and introductory note that more inclusion guidelines can be found at WP:Inclusion (or wherever it ends up), and edited to describe what defines GNG- notable coverage only. --MASEM 23:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I oppose this. Notability is not the only factor determining whether or not an article will be included on Wikipedia. Verifiability notably (no pun intended) comes to mind as at least one other governing factor. So to call this an "Inclusion Guideline/Policy" is misleading because there are other things taken into consideration with regards to inclusion. On a much more subjective and possibly irrelevant note, the word 'notable' will almost certainly still be used, as it seems a pretty indelible term, and that rather defeats the purpose of no longer using the word 'notable' to prevent offense. Especially since this leaves no word to describe articles that we currently call 'non-notable' or 'unnotable'. How would A7 be re-worded? "Does not assert meeting the inclusion guideline"?seresin ( ¡? )  23:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

In the case of A7, "Provides no assertion of significance." would still work nicely because A7 does refer to the importance/significance/"real notability" sense of the word. This is exactly why the change would be beneficial: articles are speedily deleted if they don't indicate the subject is important, while pages which do not meet Wikipedia:Notability for other reasons have to go through AfD. Being able to distinguish between which meaning we are referring to will be of immense benefit. --erachima talk 02:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I also support this, even though it's going to slash the productivity of people in deletion debates by removing their ability to write "NN. ~~~~" --bainer (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment: It'll just become FIG (Fails Inclusion Guideline).Kww (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• I support moving the title to Wikipedia:Inclusion Wikipedia:Viability, because being able to refer separately to distinguish between notability-the-guideline and notability-the-concept will make it much easier to explain things to new users. --erachima talk 02:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support move to Wikipedia:Inclusion. However, I do not think it a move will be sufficient in and of itself to clear up the confusion. A large part of the problem is (and will continue to be, if uncorrected) that the guideline is not at all clear about the fact that "notable" means "significant and noteworthy according to the body of reliable sources". Some serious work needs to be done to make a more comprehensible guideline, but moving the page to a less "loaded" name is a good first step. Vassyana (talk) 02:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support struck. The oppose comments raise good points. The remaining comments stand. Vassyana (talk) 07:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support move. "Notability" has a certain simple elegance, but I agree that the negatives outweigh the positives. Wikipedia notability has become a term of art, and is thus confusing, contradictory to A7, and, apparently, an OTRS issue. I can't say I love the idea of moving this to WP:Inclusion, as that's not a particularly descriptive or intuitive name. After a bit of thought, the best I came up with was WP:Inclusion threshold, though I think any of WP:Inclusion guideline, WP:Inclusion criteria or WP:Article inclusion would be better than just "Inclusion".--Kubigula (talk) 04:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support. I was bold and moved Wikipedia:Inclusion to Wikipedia:Inclusion (disambig), which frees up the former for this proposed usage - which at this time appears to have consensus to go forward with. Anyone want to be bold as well and move this page to there? Cirt (talk) 04:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Given that we currently have an RFC discussion the global impact of notability, bolding moving this may be premature, plus there's only be half a day's worth of comments on this on a critical topic, it may be pushing it too fast. I would say we should prepare everything for moving, but let's not jump that fast at this. --MASEM 05:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Or more specifically, if I go off the OP point that started this, renaming "notability" to "inclusion" is a placebo - it may feel better to call this inclusion, but there's a deeper fundamental problem that we need resolve through the RFC; we should really focus on that, and keep in mind that we should be framing whatever results as the positive "inclusion" over the negative "notability". --MASEM 05:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support I've just had to explain to yet another user how "notability" on WP is not the same as "notability" in the real world, when they tried to defend an article (understandably) on the grounds that "the subject has done x, y and z". "Inclusion criteria" is going to better help editors understand what they need to do to defend an article, and that can't be a bad thing. :) - Bilby (talk) 05:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Not a good idea. This proposal changes the scope of WP:N. Some conditions exist outside of notability that govern whether an article is suitable, hence the presumption clause. Those extra-notability issues exceed the scope of WP:N, and rightfully go to other policy pages. If we change WP:N to something like WP:Inclusion, we expand the mission of this page to cover not only notability, but everything else that governs whether a page exists. If that happened, we would have to talk about all the issues behind the reasons for article deletion. Some of those issues have nothing to do with notability, like WP:COPYRIGHT, WP:ATP, WP:BLP, WP:SPAM, and WP:OFFICE. Do we really want to address all of these non-notability topics after a rename? I support pursuing a separate article criteria policy page, but not at the expense of cannibalizing WP:N. Let's go back to WP:Article inclusion and turn it into a decent policy page. —Kanodin—VENT— 06:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Weak oppose based on the wise words of Kanodin. Renaming to "inclusion" changes the scope of this guideline. It means we don't just talk about minimum sourcing requirements, but we also have to mention various aspects of WP:NOT and so forth. I have been a proponent of a rename for some time. But I think that while we need to rename for clarity, we need the rename to retain the same scope. WP:Minimum sources or WP:Research threshold or something to that effect would be more effective, IMO. (As in: article does not meet our WP:Research threshold and is at risk of deletion.) Randomran (talk) 06:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose per the same reasons as Kanodin and Randomran. I think something like WP:Research threshold.  ;) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - There are other rules on article inclusion other than WP:N (were someone to copy an ad for a provably notable company, which has proof of notability, that would clearly follow WP:N, but be deletable under 2 different CSDs! Additionally, the link WP:N is used in several deletion reasons, and a user who comes in an opther year will have no idea what it means. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose- I have found in assisting new editors at the New contributors' help page, the Drawing board, and other areas; that the word "notability" is very well understood by people and that it succinctly gets across the fact that this is an encyclopedia with a clear threshold for inclusion. I use the word all the time in articles for that very reason (e.g. notable alumni, notable residents, etc.) Changing the name will muddy the issue and make it harder, not easier, to explain to newcomers where the inclusion/exclusion line lies. The nominator gave as a main reason for this is because it's a common subject of complaints at OTRS... The way I see that is that it doesn't matter what the guideline is named, they're still going to cry and complain because, "Somebody deleted MY page". —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 09:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• neutral per comments above, but "research threshold" is not the way to go, IMO. If you want something to address the meat of the page, it would have to be something like Source Requirements or something, either way I have no opinion on whether to keep or rename. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 11:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Strong support, sensible move, long overdue. Everyme 12:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Names like Inclusion guideline fairly scream "I am just a rule." To the extent that it is tempting to assume one knows what Notability means without looking at the guideline, renaming it Encyclopedic Notability might help to indicate that the word has a specific technical significance in this context, and that one would do well to look it up, without sacrificing descriptive value. However, there will always be contributors who do not undertake to review policies and guidelines, or lose sight of them for one reason or another. When a conversation becomes necessary, it is valuable to have a name that is descriptive of the guideline's subject. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose to name change, Strong Oppose to incorporating Guideline in the name. WP:N being a guideline instead of policy has been a never ending source of trouble, emboldening little groups to ignore it under the rallying cry It's only a guideline, not policy. Incorporating Guideline in the name makes it harder to promote it to its rightful place.Kww (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support. The word "notability" has such a unique meaning in Wikipedia that it always causes confusion to newbies at AfD and other places. Renaming it to what it really is--an inclusion criterion--would improve communication by avoiding unnecessary jargon. --Itub (talk) 13:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support This has many key benefits. I would support Wikipedia:Inclusion or Wikipedia:Inclusion criteria both as guidelines, but I don't like the word guideline in the title either. I don't like WP:Viability, too confusing. - cohesion 14:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose both renaming and changing it from guideline to policy. Renaming (including as something like "viability") will confuse the ussue. There are many other considerations apart from notability that are relevant in deciding if an article is notable, such as length, BLP, content and POV forking, WP:NOT, and other considerations. Making WP:N into a policy is even worse and I am extremely strongly opposed to this. As Wikipedia expands, the utility of WP:N is decreasing and the utility and importance of subject-specific notability guidelines is increasing. There are too many special situations and circumstances depending on particulars of different subjects that WP:N cannot cover in detail. Special notability guidelines should be able to override WP:N if necessary and to establish notability standards that better reflect the substantial differences in how different subjects are covered by reliable sources. Nsk92 (talk) 14:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support - Notability isn't the only criteria for inclusion, and with the concept of "inherent notability" it tends to get ignored in a lot of circumstances. It would need some rewriting to actually reflect the new title. Mr.Z-man 15:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Kanodin, Elipongo, and Nsk92. In response to the comment by Mr. Z-man above, "inherent notability" is part of the notability guideline. --Pwnage8 (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose there are plenty of other inclusion guidelines and policies (WP:NOT, WP:BLP, WP:SPAM etc). The word "notability" accurately describes the contents of the page. Hut 8.5 17:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• It does, but it also does a horrible job at conveying the spirit at the heart of the guideline. Unfortunately, the exact momentary wording of policies and guidelines is often given undue weight over their spirit, their basic tenet if you will. "Notability" is just a word that has come into widespread use in lieu of more subjective approaches (fame, prominence etc.). But it doesn't describe the actual function of the page and the processes in its vicinity, which is to help us determine what will be included and what will not. Everyme 12:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support some renaming. Not entirely sure inclusion is the right rename, but the term "notability" is toxic and needs to die, and inclusion, while potentially misleading in that it ignores NOT, BLP, SPAM, etc, at least isn't offensive to newbies. I'm happy to trade for a lesser problem. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think this is the way to go. Same reasons per Kanodin. However, I also disagree with "Research threshold" and the like. --Banime (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. 1. WP:N is here not for the purpose of inclusion, but for deletion. It is a negative barrier, and, as already mentioned, there are other barriers that bar inclusion. 2. The use of word notable and non-notable seems to be persistent and simply renaming a policy does not prevent future "offence to subject". NVO (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• I don't think we can design our encyclopedia to prevent damage to fragile egos. If someone gets offended because we say they are not "notable" enough, they are going to get offended no matter what language we use to tell them they aren't worthy of inclusion. We also can't design our policies to prevent the problems caused by ignorance. The current name for this guideline does a very good job of literally describing what it's all about. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Seresin, Kanodin, Hut 8.5; proposal creates confusion by substituting a guideline, which covers only part of a larger policy, to the policy itself. VasileGaburici (talk) 01:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose as the term notability is focused on Wikipedia's inclusion criteria based on GNG. Other attempts to rename or replace WP:N with alternative terms, such as Wikipedia:Attribution have failed, simply because they lack focus on the requirement to site reliable secondary sources.--Gavin Collins (talk) 01:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Attribution's history has nothing directly to do with WP:N. Wikipedia:Attribution's failure had nothing to do with lack focus on the requirement to site reliable secondary sources. There has been only one serious attempt to rename/replace Wikipedia:Notability, and that was Wikipedia:Article inclusion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Rename proposal: Wikipedia:Viability

I note that several people think Wikipedia:Inclusion is not a sufficiently precise title and would create new problems, and on consideration, I agree. However, I still think we need to retitle WP:N to something less misleading to new users. I suggest the page instead be moved to one of the following two titles: Wikipedia:Viability, or for additional precision, Wikipedia:Page viability (shortcuts WP:VIA and WP:PV are available).

I believe these titles would appropriately capture the concept we are attempting to describe on this page: the exclusion of subjects on which an encyclopedia article cannot be written; and also give the guideline a clear scope: describing the standards a page should meet to show that it is viable to write an article on the subject. This title should also assuage concerns with the wording of WP:CSD#A7, as it could be rephrased quite simply to "that does not indicate why its subject is viable for an encyclopedia article." As an additional benefit, this new title should clarify the purpose of the rule in numerous ways, allowing us to lower the level of policy complexity by requiring less disclaimers. For instance, the section "Notability does not directly limit article content" should become unnecessary, as it should be clearly understood that viability applies only to subjects.

As a demonstration of how this terminology switch will promote clearer understanding of Wikipedia's stance on article inclusion, I will employ it in explaining two seeming paradoxes in the Notability concept that have historically led to lots of contention between editors: the lovely pair of "inherent notability" (the WP:SCHOOLS debate) and "inherited notability" (the WP:FICT debate), whose common sense interpretations directly contradict how Wikipedia treats them. The idea that all highschools, for instance, are notable on the surface seems patently absurd. When you consider it as an issue of page viability, however, the reasoning becomes clear: the continuous coverage of school history and events in local newspapers means that it is often viable to write an encyclopedia article about a school even if it is completely unimportant outside of Podunk, Iowa. Similarly, it makes intuitive sense that the main characters of a top-selling media franchise are notable because they are key aspects of a highly visible subject, but for Wikipedia's purposes these character are often not viable article subjects because there is simply nothing encyclopedic to say about them, and they are therefore excluded despite being orders of magnitude more significant to the public mind than the highschool in the middle of nowhere. --erachima talk 08:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with the general approach, I think this still misses why the change from the name "notability" is called for, and that is because on the surface, the words "notability" or "viability", ignoring any meaning they have in policy, are highly subjective terms and to some extent we have to alter their typical meaning for WP's purpose; a user is going to complain per the OP the same way that they would if an article they think is viable is called out non-viable just as they would if an article they think notable is called out as non-notable. There's no reason that we can't talk about viability of an article as part of this guideline as that as actually a good measure when the term is placed in context, but as a naming term, it still carries the same problems. I think this is why "inclusion criteria" is better as now the term is not ambiguous with a real world meaning and thus leading to the same complaints from new users (we'll still have them arguing they feel their topics should be included, but that's a very different issue). This doesn't mean that we can't have inclusion criteria that include notability or viability but these would not be the only possible criteria as well. --MASEM 12:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

As several people have noted above, the Wikipedia:Notability guideline has a specific focus, and renamings which significantly broaden or change its scope (ala "Inclusion guideline") are going to be problematic. This guideline is not about every reason a topic cannot be included in Wikipedia, just the ones that cannot be included due to a lack of second-party sources. Also, any term we chose would be subjective. --erachima talk 13:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment of the problem. As for the solution, I think "viability" comes across with less emotional baggage than "notability". But the problem is it's still not really clear as to what this guideline is about, and doesn't really have any clear scope. The guideline is about sources. A good rename would encompass that, IMO. Or else we're just making a lateral move, trading old problems for new ones. Randomran (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the assessment that this is a lateral move. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Viability has connotations, at least to me, that are too process-centric for a general content guideline. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

"Viability" carries an even more negative connotation than "notability". Whereas notability implies that a subject does not belong on Wikipedia because it is not important enough, viability asserts that the subject does not belong because it's completely useless and shouldn't even exist. Therefore, more editors would be offended if the guideline were renamed to "Wikipedia:Viability", and we'd have the same problem all over again, except much worse. --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• No Inclusion is clear and direct. Notability was lawyerly. viability is not lawyerly, but does not benefit from being clear. Protonk (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• No. Not a useful term. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• No.. Viability reminds me too much of Roe v. Wade and suggests that an article can survive deletion if it has gestated for enough time. (I will provide a more serious objection later, but in the meantime, show how WP:Viability escapes the expanding-scope objection) —Kanodin—VENT— 22:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Vague terminology, even more confusing than "notability". VasileGaburici (talk) 01:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• No. Term doesn't even make sense in this context. Inclusion or notability are far superior. 2005 (talk) 01:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Stay focused!

Just interjecting quickly here, but the real possibility of this discussion falling apart due to a rambling focus is becoming worrisome. Before half a dozen different rename proposals and just as many disparate straw polls/discussions crop up, I think the core issue of whether or not this page needs to be renamed at all should be answered. Once a consensus that a rename is warranted is reached, then it makes sense to start debating over a proper new title, rather than blending the two questions into one. Shereth 16:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Support: A rename is a good idea, in order to get away from unclear words with real-world baggage. That said, we shouldn't trade one kind of confusion for another. Focus on what notability really demands: sources. I'd support any rename that focuses on that. Randomran (talk) 17:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes It is important that we move notability (or whatever we will call it) away from a term of art defined in a lawyerly fashion. This only adds to the gulf between people who are new to wikipedia (and so may not understand why inclusion policies are important) and people who are well versed in the language. The rename should preferably coincide with a page change to turn WP:N into something like WP:CIVIL, a concatenation of WP:NOT, WP:V, and WP:OR, noting that other policies might allow or disallow inclusion of a topic. Protonk (talk) 19:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Possible compromise - "Encylcopedic Notability"

I appreciate Shereth's point, but I'm not certain you can completely separate the two issues - the support or opposition may hinge on what the move target is. At this stage, I would say there is a consensus for a move, though the trend of comments seems to be weakening that consensus. Frankly, I see this beginning to head towards gridlock. Reviewing all the comments above, I see one that strikes a nice balance among the various concerns. Specifically, User:Ningauble's suggestion to move this to WP:Encyclopedic Notability. It would help make it clear that this is a term of art and alleviate many of the concerns with the current name. At the same time, it remains close enough to address the oppose and qualified support issues.--Kubigula (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, but that doesn't fix the problem. Article subjects find the judgment against "notability" to be excessively problematic. We know this from long experience. Guy (Help!) 19:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I admit that it doesn't fix all the problems, but I think it would be an improvement on some of the problems raised by having this guideline simply called "Notability". I suggest it as a compromise that would probably make nobody happy, but might help with some of the issues and be something that we could all live with.--Kubigula (talk) 20:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Overhaul WP:NNC (also known as "Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content")

As most of us know, editors frequently come here because of NPOV or due weight issues with particular article content. This indicates that the limits of the notability guidelines are unclear to the community. Because WP:NNC is responsible for clarifying these limits, there is some agreement that WP:NNC should be completely revised (see the Tag for sections discussion on this talk page). Consider this as a replacement of the existing WP:NNC section:

Notability guidelines do not regulate article content

Further information: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

Notability determines whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. Notability guidelines do not regulate the content of articles, except for lists of people. Instead, various content policies govern article content.

However, because of the nature of an encyclopedia, notability nonetheless affects article content. Observe this by ensuring that an article's content conforms to a neutral point of view. Give all content its due weight by articulating it in proportion to its verifiable significance to the article's topic. Attend to anything that may construe a point of view, including depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

The revised section title allows the article name shortcuts to remain the same (WP:NNC and WP:N#NCONTENT). But, I think the revision is more to the point about the reality of notability and article content. —Kanodin—VENT— 07:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Question. Could you please explain what problem you perceive that this change would address? I've compared your wording with the current one, and while I think it reads a bit more nicely, I don't see how it makes any substantial modification to the guideline. --erachima talk 08:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

We understand the purpose of WP:NNC, so I want the revision to be articulating the same substantive policy. However, there are multiple small differences:

• Revised version refers to the category of content policies, not simply WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:TRIV. There are some notability-related issues that exist beyond those four tags, such as WP:NAME and WP:NOT.
• The useful description of undue weight in the original version features a double-negative ("An article should not give undue weight.").
• The section uses undue weight to describe something that is wrong, instead of inverting it to describe how to do something right. The original complaint was that the section spends too much time telling the reader what not to do, instead of giving positive language about the limits of the general notability guideline and how notability affects the rest of policy.

I placed this suggestion on the talk page, instead of simply being bold and making the changes, because I want to check for consensus before tempting a revert. This time, I'm being a zero-revert kind of guy. —Kanodin—VENT— 11:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Didn't you contradict yourself? "Notability guidelines do not regulate article content", but "notability nonetheless affects article content". Also, WP:UNDUE is not just about point of view but about giving "each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." This is just straight up wrong. Randomran (talk) 13:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you mean by contradiction, but I don't think I'm inconsistent. WP:NNC has an inherently difficult logic. On one hand, NNC is trying to show what the notability policy does not do. On the other hand, NNC is trying to explain the far-reaching power of the concept of notability (which is why the original section name featured the not directly language). NPOV mandates that the article's content lines up with the article's main topic. The measure of whether it "lines up" is the character of the topic's notability. If the article does not reproduce in the mind of the reader what makes the topic notable (from a NPOV), there is something wrong with the article. Maybe we can articulate this neatly; maybe it's just too difficult and needs to fade from policy.

Nevertheless, I'm correct in my due/undue weight description. Because WP:DUE and WP:UNDUE are inside WP:NPOV, the issue of due/undue weight has everything to do with point of view. When multiple views compete, undue weight causes many articles to fail WP:NPOV. However, this is really weird to be discussing here, because now we're in NPOV territory. Should be just prune the section back and not mention NPOV and weight? —Kanodin—VENT— 22:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Quote: "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. ... An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." The exact point of putting it here it to show how this is *not* just a point of view issue. Randomran (talk) 23:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me be clear here: "We should treat each aspect with weight appropriate to its significance to the subject" undeniably falls under the WP:NPOV policy. To say that due weight is not just about points of view is like saying that notability is not just about determining whether topics are notable. Of course, all the policies have teeth. The enforcement ingredient that you're pointing out is that articles should give each piece of content its due weight so that the overall article conforms to a neutral point of view. There are things in WP:NPOV that don't sound like "point of view", but they all end up contributing to the NPOV pillar. Consider this:

Notability guidelines do not regulate article content

Further information: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

Notability determines whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. Notability guidelines do not regulate the content of articles, except for lists of people. Instead, various content policies govern article content.

However, because of the nature of an encyclopedia, notability nonetheless affects article content. Treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Attend to anything that may construe undue weight, including depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

Are you saying that the revision should say this? If so, then I concede the point (it is simpler). I don't want to get bogged down on this dispute, because clash over weight is not about WP:N. I am far more interested in whether WP:NNC can articulate the difference between WP:N policy and the notability concept.

If I'm missing the point of your contention, please let me know. I'm trying to make WP:NNC encapsulate the WP:NPOV policies that bear some resemblance to the concept of notability. My goal is to do this without revising WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. —Kanodin—VENT— 07:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The second paragraph makes sense, and represents what we mean by undue weight (e.g.: it's not just limited to viewpoints). But now the problem is you have a contradiction. You say that notability doesn't regulate article content in the first paragraph, but it does effect article content in the second paragraph. That's confusing. We currently say "WP:N doesn't directly limit article content ... but we do care about due weight", which is still confusing, but at least it can be reconciled. (e.g.: WP:N only has an indirect impact on content...) Randomran (talk) 07:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not a vote

Votes are evil. However: it is probably worth gathering some thoughts under the two general threads evident above.

Proposal A: That "Wikipedia:Notability" be renamed

Supporting reasons given thus far:

• Wikipedia's definition does not match the usual real world definition
• The term has pejorative overtones for those subjects which are not appropriate for inclusion, implying a judegment of the merit of the subject
• Confusion between notable-as-in-significant and notable-as-in-encyclopaedic, leading to circular arguments in deletion debates and elsewhere

Opposing reasons given thus far:

• If the wrong name is chosen, the scope of the page will increase
• Potential for obscuring the difference between this (guideline) and formal policy

Supportive of renaming to something

1. For the reasons stated, especially Phil Sandifer's comment: the word notability is indeed widely perceived as toxic. Guy (Help!) 19:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Agree with rename, if scope is preserved and clarity is improved. "Notability" carries with it real world baggage which is misleading. We're not judging an article's importance or value, but whether it has met our source requirements. Randomran (talk)

Opposed to renaming, Notability is good enough

1. I disagree that renaming to any name would remove the office people are taking at us presuming to judge others for worthiness of inclusion. The only things that can solve ignorance is education and that takes active participation on the one who is ignorant. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
2. This proposal is meaningless. You cannot compare one thing. It only makes sense to consider proposals that actually offer an alternative. VasileGaburici (talk) 02:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

   This is "Part A" with a tied-in "Part B". It isn't meant for you to take this part in isolation. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

3. I think there's a larger problem that a simple "feel good" renaming solution can provide; that's not to say we shouldn't aim to make inclusion/notability/whatever be a more positive turn, but such an approach needs to be married with a strong look at the content of the guideline (currently in progress at the RFC) and not just name alone. --MASEM 04:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
4. This proposal incurs disadvantages without solving a problem. Does this proposal stem from a desire to make the page name speak for itself? If so, designing a name with little common meaning goes against this purpose. WP:N notability speaks for itself plenty because it uses a real-world word. It would be fantastic if we could find an article name that helps the reader understand it, and at the same time avoids conflating the article name with colloquial meanings, but that hope is absurd. Besides, notability is not an easy concept to master, and we can only expect so much from an article name. —Kanodin—VENT— 07:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal B: If renamed, then...

Potential titles suggested thus far:

Inclusion guideline

Notability is (explicitly) just a guideline, but some feel that adding guideline to the title will encourage wikilawyering.

1. See also Inclusion below. Guy (Help!) 19:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion

1. With both inclusion and inclusion guideline we have an opportunity to roll back some of the creep which has happened over time with notability. The value of this page is primarily in determining what merits inclusion, its major use is in deciding the marginal cases at deletion debates. This may offer the opportunity to prune back on the proliferation of rules and be much more explicit about what the guideline is for, and thus what is expected in an appropriate article subject. As a means fo reducing confusion, that would seem to me to have merit. Guy (Help!) 19:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Having a policy and an guideline with the same name would be very confusing. This was pointed out by many others above: Seresin, Kanodin, Hut 8.5 to name a few. VasileGaburici (talk) 01:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
3. I support focusing the issue from being about notability to being about inclusion as that is really the measure, but as I comment above, this is not just replacing the word notability with inclusion - notability is one factor for inclusion, but the verdict is still out if we include topics in some manner if not notable, and thus there may be more than just notability that makes up inclusion. --MASEM 04:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Viability

1. Not a meaningful name as pointed out by several editor above. Would increase the confusion. VasileGaburici (talk) 01:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Minimum sources

1. The guideline is a subjective assessment of value, but an objective requirement for a minimum amount of sources: significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. This also sums up a key part of WP:V: If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. It also helps the guideline to maintain its current scope, rather than turning it into a general inclusion guideline. Randomran (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Your worth as a human being is not tied to having an article on Wikipedia.

1. Is that what this all about? If the complaint is that people are getting offended by the non-pejorative term, lets make it even more clear. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
2. I'm all for adding a "consolation" paragraph to WP:N or even link from WP:N to separate essay should someone endeavor to write it. VasileGaburici (talk) 02:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

   Someone has. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

add more here