Wikipedia talk:Notability

Adding guidance related to stubby articles that just meet GNG/SNG

This is coming from a discussion currently at WP:RS/N related to the possible notability of restaurants with at least one Michelin star. There's general consensus there that this is a reasonable presumption of notability, given the infrequently awarding of Michelin stars, but there is concern that, as NSPORT had allowed years before, the creation of one-two sentence articles that just establish the sourcing to demonstrate the SNG notability, but nothing else, and in the case of the NSPORT ones, stubs that persist today that are nearly difficult to put to AFD because

We already make clear that there is no requirement that a topic that meets the GNG or SNG need a standalone article; meeting the GNG or SNG only creates the reasonable presumption of notability so that we would allow a standalone article to be created for expansion later.

However, I think we want to add additional language to WP:N in general that, even if a topic does meet presumption of notability for a standalone, we expect that standalone to have more fleshed out in it than just a sentence or two affirming the presumed notability criteria. That is, we do not want people creating articles that simply say "Joe's Fancy Diner is a restaurant in Queens, NYC. It earned a Michelin star." and that's it. Expansion of content here can come from primary sources, non-independent sources, or other things that do not meet the type of sourcing expected for GNG, but otherwise provide more context and details though avoiding excessive promotional details. If, from my example above, the article can be expanded with an additional paragraph based on a very local entertainment scene magazine (one that would otherwise fail WP:AUD for WP:NORG) to add to what I already gave, "Joe's was started by Chef Joe Smith, who had studied under Famous Chef with a specialty in French cuisine. He opened Joe's in 1989 in the heart of Queens hoping to attract a variety of customers there." etc. then this is TONS better than just the stubby 2 sentence version.

So basically, we want to encourage editors to not create articles just after finding they meet the GNG or SNG criteria, but armed at least with sufficient material to give something weighter than a few sentences. We can't force editors to created more expanded pages without a significant broader change across WP (we'd need New Page Patrol on board, possibly a new CSD, etc.) But we can certain advise against creating such short articles. We definitely want to say that editors should not use mass-creation tools (automatic or semi or otherwise) to make pages just because they meet the GNG/SNG. (Eg someone could make articles on every restaurant in the Michelin guide with a star, we don't want to encourage that at all)

Also, I would stress we're looking at the state after some period of work. If I created a two-sentence stub with no details but then came back to it 24hr later to expand to this better state, that's fine; we don't want people jumping to delete the stub state 5 minutes after it was created. --Masem (t) 16:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

This look like forum shopping by someone who doesn't understand what a Michelin Star is. It isn't the equivalent of a sportsperson making a couple of appearances in EFL League Two or a professor who gets some minor local award, but that of winning an Olympic gold or a Nobel Prize. And that goes for one star, let alone two or three. It is absolutely inconceivable that any restaurant could gain this accolade without having attracted significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, starting from a stub is a perfectly respectable way of creating an article, and the notability of the topic does not depend on how stubby its writeup is. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Starting out as one maybe, but if it is a stub after months or years maybe it because the subject is not in fact notable except because of a set of criteria that mean you can be notable winning the one race you run your whole career. It can be argue this violates wp:notnews, and the concept that notability should also also be lasting (as well as significant coverage).Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to say this, but that idea is bollocks when it comes to gaining a Michelin Star. It's an award that is given for continuing greatness, rather than "winning one race". Phil Bridger (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Some Michelin stared restaurants have lasted only a tear after being awarded one, others lose them (do they suddenly become non notable?). The point is that all those specific notability guidelines are only a presumption of notability, not a guarantee of inclusion. They still have to obey the wider Notability guidelines.Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

That's not the issue, the point is that there is little value of a 1-2 sentence article that has one source that states and affirms the SNG is met. That tiny stub may pass SNG and we'd allow that article and would be near impossible to delete without proof that nearly no source exists. But how much value to the encyclopedia is that article? In contrast, a 2-3 paragraph that includes the SNG criteria proof, but some basic primary info or pulled from non-independent sources or like, still would be a stub but presents much more value as an article to WP.

My idea is not to 100% disallow 1-2 sentence short stub articles or make these delete-able. It is advice editors to simply on finding a topic to meet a SNG to rush to create 1-2 sentence stub, but try to do a bit more legwork to add a few more sources and expand beyond 2 sentences. There's no "penalty" for any 1-2 sentence stub that is created should this advice be added, but this asks editors to consider a more expanded article before creation. --Masem (t) 22:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

If it's merely advice to editors on how to make their articles more useful and informative, and not about allowing or disallowing certain topics, then it is off-topic for a notability guideline and should not be included in the guideline. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

No its not, given that we give the advice in WP:N that a topic presumed notable does not require a standalone article. This advice follows right along: if all you can on a topic is how it meets the SNG, perhaps hold off on an article until you can get more information, though we're not going to stop you otherwise. (However, someone mass creating stub articles based on meeting an SNG at a rapid rate and without seeking community consensus may see behavioral concerns). And I will stress: the restaurant/Michelin star thing is not the issue; I'm in total agreement that should be an SNG criteria. This applies to numerous SNG that can lead to quick and easy article creation. NSPORT's standard "played one pro game" is a common cause of short stubby articles on athletes. But in most cases with those, one can add career box scores - even from primary sources to at least give that weight. --Masem (t) 23:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:CREEP and WP:TLDR. The longer you make pages, the less likely they are to be read. Brevity is good and it has nothing to do with notabilty which is a property of the topic, not its Wikipedia entry. There are many notable topics which have no entry at all; they are still notable. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: The way to cater to readers who want to read the whole thing and those who only want to get a brief rundown is to write good articles and even better leads. That way we don't need to compromise either. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

We're talking about short topics, not long ones here. There's a tendency to compile these into long lists in which each section is like a stub article. Such listicles are impossible to summarise in the way you suggest and so are best kept as separate stubs. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

It does depend on the type of topic you are talking about. For example, as a practical example we used to, years ago, have separate article for each Pokemon, but that ended up establishing the WP:POKEMON test; now, only those specific Pokemon that are notable have articles, the others are all collapsed into a handful of tables which are easy to compare against eg List of generation V Pokémon (not saying these are perfect, just that this is definitely a good case of folding up stubs into a table). Something like Michelin Star-earning restaurants are not, even if you did it by nation and state/province/etc. within that. It would just become a list of restaurants and their location and that would violate NOT#TRAVELGUIDE among other things. So no, I would not expect stub-articles on Michelin star restaurants to be merged up into a list. I though still stand that there should be the type of caution (unenforceable) for editors that creating a 1-2 sentence stub about such a restaurant that basically only identifies the restaurant and that it won a Michelin star is not the type of article you want to create and then walk away from hoping others will improve it, and that it is better not to create this type of article without some additional content. --Masem (t) 16:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• Most of the comments at RSN are saying the he same thing... that a Michelin star is a good indication that additional reliable sources will exist to establish notability... but that a star - on its own - is not enough to “prove” it. Blueboar (talk) 01:52, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Request for justification beyond existing content

Could those arguing in favor of additional guidance in the notability guideline, please state their belief why the content already present in sections #General notability guideline and #Whether to create standalone pages is insufficient to handle stubby Michelin-awarded restaurant articles already? The way it looks to me currently, the needed recommendations are already there, they only need to be cited, and applied. Am I missing something? Mathglot (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I actually see point #3 in that section is basically around this, and the only explicit thing that I would say is missing is specific caution against 1-2 sentence stubs that simply affirm an SNG is met and do nothing else. The idea is there and I would agree it may not be necessary to add more, but given the concerns of the discussion at WP:RS/N on a potential plethora of these type of stubby articles, it may need to be more explicitly said. --Masem (t) 01:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

It does not need to be said. It is incorrect. There is nothing wrong with having 1-2 sentence stub articles, either as placeholders for expandable topics or in cases where the topic is notable (e.g. a species, a member of a national legislature, or a Michelin-starred restaurant) but little more can be added. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

There is clearly part of the community that take issue with 1-2 sentence stub articles. And WP:STUB also further cautions against that. Without caution against short articles, you create a potential drive to mass create articles from databases. This is what happened several years ago related to some sports where 10,000+ articles were created by semi-automated tools from databases. Article creation must be curated, and 1-2 sentence stubs are not curation. --Masem (t) 01:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, your presence here demonstrates that there is at least one editor that thinks this way. That isn't evidence for the correctness of your position, though. And I do not think "curation" means what you think it means: like notability, it is not something that can be measured by the length of the Wikipedia article on a topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• Is there a draft wording somewhere in the forest above? Johnbod (talk) 04:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Lists of fictional animals and WP:LISTN

Should Category:Lists of fictional animals by type and all the member lists be deleted? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional badgers. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I've commented there, but BOLDly added to here diff that regardless of notability, WP:V still is required on standalone lists like the one in question at AFD. This is reiterating advice from other pages, but it should be clear here too. --Masem (t) 14:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• It needs discussion first, as there is a principle adhered to by many editors that provided the inclusion is verified in the linked article it does not need to be replicated in the list article particularly when the list is very large. For example List of Youtubers had a reference for every entry but @SoWhy: removed all the references on the basis that the page was very large affecting loading times and that the verification was available in the linked articles (only blue linked articles are included), imv Atlantic306 (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I purposely did not add that the verifyability be through a citation, as I do know many lists where "blue-linked standalone" is all that is required on the presumption the required source is on the blue-linked target. I know several valid lists that have problems running into the template limit due to sourcing each item. But WP:V still must be there. --Masem (t) 15:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree, but the wording needs more clarification as the reader would assume verification refers to referencing on the list, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• As I said in the AFD mentiond You can verify something in the source material without problems. You don't need a reference for everything. This [1] revert is ridiculous since the title of one of the books the character is featured in is titled "Digger the Badger Decides to Stay", so you have no reason to doubt that a badger is in those books. The rule against primary sources is for people talking about themselves who might lie, nothing to do with media being used to verify things like this. The point of source is if there is anything that cause reasonable doubt, but some just get out of hand with it. Dream Focus 20:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

More fiction

Is there a guideline for notability of fictional whatevers? If not, should we try to make one? Consider articles like

• Captain America
• Steve Rogers (Marvel Cinematic Universe)
• Captain America (Ultimate Marvel character)
• Alternative versions of Captain America
• Captain America's shield - Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

There is no specialized notability guideline. That is, fictional characters or elements are expected to show notability per the WP:GNG through significant coverage in independent secondary sources. There is further factors list in WP:WAF which is more content related but a founding principle being that we don't take articles consisting principle of only plot summary. I just peaked at the first link and the first two main sections at least help on the GNG but the rest is not good and needs massive trimming. --Masem (t) 20:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

And to add: Steve Rogers is a perfectly good article from notability (lots of GNG sourcing there), but the other three flat out fail GNG and NOT#PLOT. --Masem (t) 20:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Mmm. It's not surprising MCU has good coverage, people spent a lot of money on that (and it was frickin great for the most part). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

That is, unfortunately to a degree, how these things often fall. Some of the more likely influential characters of the Golden Age of comics get little, but because there's a rather dashing Chris Evans playing him in a big-budget production, the current version gets all the attention. But that said, at least the last two articles are typical of comic fan fluff we get often, we can't document every element of a comic universe if it hasn't received any attention at all. --Masem (t) 21:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Someone should go a little Thanos on those articles. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Adding a 4th bullet to WP:NOPAGE

I was about to start writing an article on a new bill in the US senate that's drawn attention, but as I started thinking about it, realized its probably too soon - in that while the draft language has made some free speech groups in a panic (that is, I can clearly pass GNG with sourcing for it), there's no indication yet how far the bill will get. I've been able to write about the bill elsewhere, but in piecing this thought pattern together, realized there may be something we could add to here under the advice of when to create a new standalone page, and that's related to ideas like RECENTISM. (It is not quite WP:NEVENTs realm).

For comparison, the WP:FILM project has a rather good piece of advice for any new film: unless there's really good sourcing available to back it up a long complex development history (Akira (planned film)), one should not create the article on the film until production has been confirmed to have been started. You may have lots of cast and crew news before production, but because in modern film production these can go south in an instant, the WP:FILM project has felt it better to wait for production to have started - not quite a point of no return - before the article can be created. Details prior to production can go to articles otherwise where possible.

So I'm wondering about a fourth bullet in the NOPAGE section, something that when the topic reflects some type of process - the making of a film, the passage of a bill, etc. - that one should make sure the process goes along along far enough to a point where more than likely the process will go through to completion before making a standalone article on the topic. In that it is generally inappropriate to jump the gun to make articles when companies announced plans to make something without demonstrating any progress on that something (this is very common in the video game arena too). This doesn't mean these announcements and projects can't be mentioned elsewhere, redirects made for searching, and all other factors, but just to help editors to consider waiting until there is some assured nature a project would go forward before making a standalone about it, even though it is often easy to meet the GNG at the point of these announcements.

I don't know what language I'd use yet, but I wanted to see if this made send to include first. --Masem (t) 15:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

As there was already something leading to this in the 3rd bullet, I appended language and referencing the Film project's WP:NFF. [2]. --Masem (t) 00:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

General information about companies is not promotion

I see on the Help Desk and the Teahouse that people given advice are often told something that I interpret as meaning that if they only provide general information about the company, that is promotion.

I come to Wikipedia for general information about companies. People are advised to use their web site for this information but what many companies do on their own web sites is promotional gibberish that has nothing to do with what I am looking for.

Sometimes (but not lately) I create articles about the companies I am looking for after I have to go in search of the real information. I may not be in agreement with the community on what makes a company notable but if I want to research the company and not have to go all over the place to do it, it seems notable enough to me.

I don't know if this is in the wrong place, but I just had to say it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

You probably will get better input at WP:NCORP. --Masem (t) 18:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) This all depends on where the information about the company comes from. If some of it's from significant coverage in independent reliable sources, then the company is notable, and uncontroversial information can be sourced from the company web site, particularly if the information published by a company is regulated by a reliable stock market or other reliable institution. This really depends on specific cases, so it would be helpful if you could provide some specific diffs where this has not been happening. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem there is, when most new editors say they want to "provide general information on a company", they often mean their company and the general information they want to provide is that they "are an award winning and fast growing presence in the industry, providing a range of services to small businesses and Fortune 500 companies alike." GMG^talk 19:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Wow, where did you find that? I've never met a company that says anything like that, so must do some business with them immediately! Phil Bridger (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Notability during Splitting

Hello! Can anyone help me out: When a subtopic of an article has to be split off due to article size, are there any guidelines what the spinout article should to conform to with regard to notability? Thank you very much! Daranios (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

There are really not any guidelines here; spinout articles should not have to meet notability guidelines if you have a size issue with any otherwise GNG-meeting topic. But, that said, some pointers:

• Before spinning out, ask if the size can be reduced. Sometime a careful review will find material that is excessive and beyond the scope of an encyclopedia and you can avoid the spinout that way.
• If the spinout still needs to happen, look around at other similar topics and see what common spinouts happen. If you name the article, I can see what exists, but for example, for actors, its common to spinout their filmography or their lists of accolades. For a fictional series, a list of their characters, etc.
• Moreso, the advice of Summary Style should be followed first: find the information that is of the least general interest and that is likely the material that is best suited to be spun out.
• Ideally you still want to show GNG-type sourcing in the spinout. If you spin out a list of character in a fictional series and can only use primary sources to support it, its probably a bad spinout, but it all depends.

But this is basically the type of stuff LISTN "covers", in that we really have no hard rules here. Its not a hard science here compared to a primary topic notability. --Masem (t) 22:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

A Rosetta Stone?

For years I've been thinking about the challenges and complexities of trying to handle the wp:notability criteria. Recently becoming active at new article curation/review has become a firehose of additional information and perspective. The guidelines have failed to cover what we know intuitively......that that my son's kiddie hockey team with tons of in-depth coverage in local newspapers should not have an article despite full compliance with wp:GNG, but that Acar (bivalve) with only one tertiary source identified probably should. We also have massive amounts of articles which we know should be articles (such as those on species and towns) which require exceptions to wp:notability. Numerically, Wikipedia is sliding towards becoming a listing of sports people & statistics, and a directory of business, products, products and people in cases where any of them can benefit from having an article.

There is also an interesting structural note. Nowhere is wp:notability actually defined! The WP:Notability guideline structurally has two parts and roles; the first is broader than notability, the second is narrower than notability. The beginning of the guideline contains the master statement of what can have a separate article in Wikipedia, with compliance with wp:not included in that. It establishes the "place" of the remainder of wp:gng in the scheme of this as well as that of the SNG's. The remainder of wp:GNG and the SNG's contain requirements but do not specify what wp:notability is. This is inevitable because meeting the "notability" criteria is actually the complex interchange of latter-GNG, the SNG's and wp:not compliance defined by the very beginning of wp:notability.

While complete acknowledgement of the above might need big changes, I think that there is an easy less perfect way to combine all of the above to our advantage. The structurally broader role of the beginning of wp:notability can be used to introduce "degree of encyclopedicness" into the "separate article?" question. My first idea on how to do that would be to add to "2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.". Add the following to it: "Extra consideration should be given to topics which easily comply with wp:not, and extra scrutiny given to topics which only marginally comply with the policy."

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. The ideas of WP:NOTDIR and WP:MILL seem to have been lost. Let alone rappers or Indian film actors. Now you've mentioned it though, I wonder how long until Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acar (bivalve)? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't disagree that are some topic areas that every member of that topic we would reasonably likely have an article on that topic, and those topic areas are when they represent the more basic academic areas like core physical sciences (such as biology). Given the taxonomy tree, I would reasonably expect that each level down to family would have its own article, but at the genus and species level, that's a bit questionable, as our genus article points out, there were 510,000 identified genus with a rate of 2000 added per year. That becomes indiscriminate information if we're just documenting a name of a genus, which is against NOT. (though listing a genus within a family would not be). This is not to same some genus cant have their own standalone page, just that there's likely not sufficient for all 510,000 genus to have their own. --Masem (t) 16:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

A genus which has been recognised for 150 years, and has a four character name (and thus was early to the naming party) - we should certainly have that. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I picked a bad example; I was trying to find one which we intuitively know should have an article where wp:GNG is not satisfied. But I'll bet the sports SNG exempts at least that many players from wp:GNG. :-) North8000 (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, see... remember that we judge on identifiable sourcing, not the current state of sourcing in the article. I did a quick search on Acar and its clearly more documentable than what's there just from a quick Google Scholar search. If I took that to AFD, I would be laughed off. I don't know if all 510,000 genus can be documented to the same degree (I would doubt it). I'm not saying your point is bad, as I think there's something there and aligns with something I've been suggesting earlier, but it's not quite refined yet. --Masem (t) 17:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

My point was that "degree of enclyclopedicness" should be taken into consideration, and that such would resolve many problems. North8000 (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that. Degree of coverage in reliable sources is at least somewhat objective. Degree of encyclopedicness is mostly not (although a small number of specialized notability guidelines like WP:NSPORT have hammered out specific objective criteria with this aim), and would likely lead to much more heat than light in deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

We need to be a bit careful on "degree of encyclopedicness". If you get into a specialized area, like many popular culture topics with large fan base like Star Wars or Star Trek, you can find "encyclopedia" and one can then argue some of the topics in that would meet the same "degree of encyclopedicness" as we would be describing for a creature in real-life. But it's also possible to get too much academic encyclopedicness as well for a general purpose work. There's a balance here. --Masem (t) 22:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

There may be a balance here but it will be very difficult to set that balance uniformly across the encyclopedia without tipping the scale toward the desires of the active fanbases like the Star Wars fans and away from more serious but also more niche topics. If you want to have less fancruft, this is the opposite of the way to go. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that the typical article that we're getting flooded with violates wp:not but not decisively enough to stop the article solely on that basis. My idea would be to let the standards of wp:not still have some influence in those cases beyond the binary non-exclusion. North8000 (talk) 11:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Question... how often do reviewers who do new article review/curation recommend that new articles be merged into existing articles. There are a lot of topics that don’t rate their own articles and yet deserve to be covered somewhere in WP. How often do we look for a potential parent article, and suggest that as the appropriate place to cover the less-than-notable daughter? Blueboar (talk) 17:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that it's pretty common, and also a good idea. But once the discussion starts, the proponents for the article generally consider merge to be an adverse outcome, the same as delete and argue accordingly.North8000 (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• Unfortunately I don't believe this is a good idea at all as it would encourage and promote intellectual snobbery with a preference for academic subjects at the expense of popular culture which is what Wikipedia is most read for according to the stats. WP:NOTPAPER applies and the best way to have a fair system is to stick to WP:GNG with some exceptions such as WP:NCORP and with borderline cases decided at AFD, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • But popular culture is also one of the areas that is poorly sourced. Popular culture can be sourced using works like Entertainment Weekly, The Hollywood Reporter, etc. but the bulk of what we have in pop culture is poorly sources, or just documenting mere existence which is against policy. --Masem (t) 21:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Referring to popular culture in a wide context such as modern films, tv shows, bands, albums and so forth, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that there are a lot of popular culture articles that are poorly sourced, but sources exist, and those articles can be improved. Beyond the magazines that you mention, there are tons of books about television, film and other non-fiction media commentary and criticism. I think that we should be encouraging people who are interested in those subjects to find and use the rich source material available, rather than discouraging them by saying that those topics are unencyclopedic. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Its not that they aren't unencyclopedic, but too often people approach them in unencyclopedic manners, focusing on plot summaries and in-universe content (primary sources) over concepts/creation, development, and reception (secondary soruces). That is, content that is of interest to the fans of the work vs content that is of interest to the general reader. That's a struggle, but its generally overcomable. It does limit some of what can be covered though. --Masem (t) 21:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

This gets us to the distinction between Notability (whether WP should have a stand alone article on someone or something), and Noteworthiness (what details should go into an article, and HOW we should write about them if they do). These are subtly different concepts, and editors don’t always understand the difference. Perhaps we need more guidance on “Noteworthiness“ (or even a separate guideline). Blueboar (talk) 22:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

When I started this thread the main group of articles that I have in mind from drinking from the firehose at new article curation usually isn't some academic vs. popular culture quandary. Under any possibility, popular culture is firmly accepted. The focus is more on stuff that really isn't articles that is passing through the curation/AFD process in numerically huge numbers due to some weaknesses in guidelines, and where just a tiny bit of extra consideration for the enclyclopeciness of the topic would help things much. In most cases they might take one topic which would be a good pop culture or sports article and split it up into 20 articles. Examples are:

• In sports, besides the SNG directly exempting I'd guess a half million players from wp:GNG (a whole different topic) the numerically huge category is what I'd call compound derivations that tend to create dozens of article out of one topic. For example an article for each year/season for each sports team. Or for the participation of a particular sports team in a particular tournament. Or a lower level league. (where I've been informed that there is a subpage at project football which is another "general notability guideline" which exempts a league from both wp:gng and the sports SNG.)
• For musical performers, a separate article for each album, and often a separate article for individual song in the album (not that this isn't sometimes a good idea)
• In pop culture, aside from articles on notable musical contest, individual articles from individual countries participation in individual years in that contest. For example an article on participants from the xyz country in the 20xx year of the abc musical contest.

For the ones that I have in mind the typical article consists of 1-2 sentences and then tables of information. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

It sounds to me like the problem is people not taking seriously GNG's requirement for in-depth coverage, rather than some vaguer lack of "encyclopedicness" whatever that means. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm really curious to that "(where I've been informed that there is a subpage at project football which is another "general notability guideline" which exempts a league from both wp:gng and the sports SNG.)" page as that completely violates the principles of the GNG/SNG allowances (the only SNG with allowance to override the GNG is NPROF for reasonable arguments). But I think we really need examples of what's going on, as its hard to distinguish what's happening without hard examples to know how to take these. --Masem (t) 23:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Masem:Here's where I learned about the "general notability guideline" for leagues. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lao_Division_1 Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Yup, FOOTYN is not a notability guideline in any way, and anyone using it as a sole reason for keeping an article at AFD. That essay almost needs to be deleted, it feels inappropriate to keep around if it leads to AFD arguments like that. --Masem (t) 17:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the overall numerical flooding described above, they are the hundreds of articles that I decided not to review and developed this impression from. I didn't keep a list but will note the next ones here as I find them. I intend to add them without re-signing. These are not the slam-dunk deletions, these are ones likely to remain as articles:

• 2019–20_Bashundhara_Kings_season
• 2020_Leinster_Senior_Football_Championship
• Muévelo (Nicky Jam and Daddy Yankee song)
• Electoral results for the Northern Metropolitan Region Because coverage probably exists; barely passes wp:not
• Electoral results for the Northern Victoria Region Because coverage probably exists; barely passes wp:not
• Electoral results for the Eastern Victoria Region Because coverage probably exists; barely passes wp:not
• Electoral results for the Eastern Metropolitan Region Because coverage probably exists; barely passes wp:not
• Electoral results for the South Eastern Metropolitan Region Because coverage probably exists; barely passes wp:not
• Electoral results for the Southern Metropolitan Region Because coverage probably exists; barely passes wp:not
• Electoral results for the Western Metropolitan Region Because coverage probably exists; barely passes wp:not
• Electoral results for the Western Victoria Region Because coverage probably exists; barely passes wp:not
• Interserie (1994 season) Because coverage probably exists; barely passes wp:not, SNG possibly gives it a pass.
• Last Man Standing (season 8) Good example. wp:notable series, but an article like this for each season? One sentence and then a lot of data. Barely passes wp:not. IMO sourcing barely passes wp:GNG

North8000 (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know anything about sports coverage so I can't comment on those, but for the Last Man Standing season, it's very common for national TV shows to have season articles like that. I would understand your point if it was full of original research speculation or commentary from unreliable sources, but the episode summaries, cast lists and ratings charts are all worthy of being included in this enyclopedia. I agree that it should have more introductory text, but that's something that normal editing can fix. So: yeah, an article (more or less) like that for each season. Why should we not? — Toughpigs (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I just grabbed a bunch of examples in response to the question. I might have picked the last one to rule out bias because I really like that TV show. My thought was that it illustrated: 1. Making one article into 20 articles. 2. Something that passes wp:not but with the article being just a collection of data, listings and plot summaries, didn't pass with flying colors. Maybe I shouldn't have listed that one or chosen a less notable series. North8000 (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

There's a handful of several interesting here:

• We have articles that are easy to create because they seem like important data to keep but it is because it is easy to make all-stat based articles, which itself is against WP:NOT#STAT. Stats are supposed to be presented in context of relevant information. For example, take all those election results and compare to , say, 2017 New York City mayoral election which at least tries to establish some of the issues at play. Can those election ones be improved? Maybe but it will take serious work. Again, just dropping stats into an article is not appropriate but that's a NOT issue, not a notability thing. We need editors to wrap context around stats before starting such articles. Same with sports seasons.
• There's also the idea of presumption of notability. There's no reason to believe any of these can't be improvement with better GNG-type sourcing, but if they cannot be improved (and because they are all recent topics, this can be shown through Google searches) then AFD is an option. This is not something we want AFC/Page Patrollers to decide - that's beyond their scope, though they should tag such articles as requiring more third-party/independent sourcing.
• To that latter point, this is where I would agree that academic topics like the Acar should get a better pass at AFC compared to topics that fall into more "comtemporary culture" where finding sources should be much much easier. To get that point at AFC, I'm not sure how we can stress that point, though. --Masem (t) 17:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

A couple of sidenotes. From what I've seen, only a small fraction of new articles go through AFC. Also I'm not sure what you meant by "This is not something we want AFC/Page Patrollers to decide". Of course, any editor can nominate an article for speedy deletion or the AFD process, including new article partollers. But beyond that, nominating articles for that when appropriate is expressly defined as a responsibility under that process. Finally, repeating the structural note that I opened with, the first 10% of this guideline is structurally something broader than just notability, it is Wikipedia's main "merits an article?" definition. It utilizes the last 90% of this guidleine, the SNG's and wp:not in that definition. For example, it puts the last 90% of this guideline and the SNG's in their place.....for example saying that neither is binding because each could bypass the other.North8000 (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I was trying to get at is that AFC should be more forgiving on articles getting onto WP, at best rejecting articles using criticism only slightly more stricter than the CSD (eg we want AFC to kick out selfpromotion, unsourced BLP, etc.) and let articles have a chance to grow, and let PROD/AFD handle weeding out the articles that really don't have the chance. --Masem (t) 01:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Cool. North8000 (talk) 02:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

So most of the sampling in the list has these attributes:

• A "derived" topic that will tend to make many articles out of one article. E.G "The XXXX year of the XYZ type election in ABC location" or "The xxxx year participation of the ABC team in the ABC league" or the "XXXX year participation of the XYZ country in the ABC song contest"
• They have one sentence of text and are never going to have more than one sentence of text. And then the rest of the article is data & statistics
• Sourcing given does not satisfy wp:GNG. But one could credibly argue that it probably exists somewhere
• Is in a gray area at wp:not but is not stopped by wp:not because wp:not is necessarily squishy on this

A guess is that there are about 300 per day of these going into Wikipedia (getting passed or autopatrolled). Maybe having a million of these articles in Wikipedia is a good thing. If not, a note in the opening 5% of this guideline (which is not just about wp:notability) is a good way to help. Which was to add the following to #2: " Add the following to it: "Extra consideration should be given to topics which easily comply with wp:not, and extra scrutiny given to topics which only marginally comply with the policy." North8000 (talk) 13:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Just a comment in passing about the elections articles: my own, perhaps curmudgeonly, view is that *all* elections of public officials *anywhere*, that are reported by reliable sources, ought to be documented in WP. This is a case where NOTPRINTENC is the decisive factor: the idea that some electoral results are "notable" or "encyclopaedic" and some are not strikes me as ethnocentric (since those making this argument at deletion almost never consider non-English language coverage when they discuss notability) and a complete misunderstanding of what an online encyclopedia is, or can be.

What seems to me less obvious, in such cases, is what level of geographical detail should be used to organize these electoral results, and that might depend on both the levels in scholarly studies of electoral outcomes and those used by journalistic sources. But I would defend a strong presumption of notability to prevent any governmental election result anywhere from being deleted as content, either through Notability arguments or as UNDUE (in content discussions within articles). Newimpartial (talk) 13:57, 27 March 2020 (UTC)