Wikipedia talk:Notability

RfC on wording of GNG guidelines, and SIGCOV in particular

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

---

Question: Does Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline impose a strict requirement, that in each and every article being evaluated for notability under itself; that Significant Coverage can be shown ? Jack4576 (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Comment: Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline states:

"A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

Is it possible (under any circumstance) for the subject of an article to be deemed notable, despite this presumption not having arisen?

As an example, if reliable sources point to the existence of a subject, and verifiable facts exist to indicate to an editor that the subject is notable and encyclopedic; is it possible under any circumstance to regard that subject as being notable enough to have an entry; even if Significant Coverage does not exist?

If it is not possible under any circumstance, then I propose that the GNG guideline be reworded so as to read:

"A topic is only suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

This would clarify this section and bring it into alignment with a later paragraph on this page, WP:WHYN, that refers to SIGCOV as a strict and compulsory requirement.

My intuition is that there may be some limited circumstances where the subject of an entry is notable enough for inclusion; even where significant coverage cannot be established. Examples of such subjects may include individual examples of major bridges, infrastructure, roads, railways, schools, institutions, paths etcetera; in circumstances where the facts of the subject (case by case) indicate that it is of major importance; irrespective of the fact that its coverage only extends to passing mentions in primary sources.

I am keen to have this discussion, and gauge community consensus, as I have recently had multiple disagreements with various editors in the AfDs and am hoping to obtain finality on this issue. My personal view is that GNG should be read in its current state to allow for notability even where the presumption hasn't arisen, in the limited circumstance that notability is overwhelming and manifest.

I am interested to hear other editor's thoughts on this, and I intend to follow consensus, thank you. Jack4576 (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

It is actually possible, in certain cases, to be considered notable without sigcov. WP:NACADEMIC is an example; most academics do not get sigcov anywhere. There are a few others with such guidelines. But for the vast majority of subjects, sigcov is what we're looking for. Valereee (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Your stated position here is actually my preferred position; I think it is clearly the common-sense position. I think it should apply to categories generally when a subject is manifestly notable even outside of specific categories.

SIGCOV should be what we look for, with manifest notability (as per David Eppstein's description below) as a rare exception to the rule. Jack4576 (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

This is a discussion on GNG, not on the SNGs. NPROF is irrelevant to our considerations here. JoelleJay (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, its relevant insofar as its a useful comparator Jack4576 (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Here's my opinion on how the big fuzzy wikipedia notability ecosystem works in respect to that: Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works. In short, GNG is the dominant criteria, but that 2 other factors (degree of enclyclopedicness and actual impact/importance/prominence) also affect it. And the GNG type sourcing comes into play a second time as a measurement of the final of those last two items. IMO We can never tidy up the notability guidelines until we acknowledge that. You are trying to derive a simple categorical rule which conflicts with that via an RFC. Thanks for that good effort but IMHO that is problematic. North8000 (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I am simply trying to obtain clarification regarding the SIGCOV rule.

In multiple AfD discussions, I have pointed out that a subject is (1) encyclopedic, or (2) has an actual impact/importance/prominence, and the response from other contributors has been: "doesn't matter, SIGCOV still isn't established"

Alternatively, some subjects are nominated for deletion (particularly schools, railways, etcetera), with simple 'lacks SIGCOV' in the nomination, with zero discussion or engagement with the idea that the subject may nevertheless be (1) encyclopedic or (2) actually important. Any arguments that the article should still be retained regardless, are ignored; with other contributors simply repeating the 'lacks SIGCOV' or claiming 'passing mentions only'; instead of actually engaging in a discussion about a subject on its own terms re: encyclopedic merits.

I prefer the fuzzy interpretation, I think it is more realistic, more flexible, and ultimately more encyclopedic. What I am attempting to obtain clarification on is whether or not this overly legalistic interpretation of GNG is something that we as editors are stuck with. If so, if that is the consensus, then I'll happily submit to it. But I'd like for there to at least be some form of discussion given how impactful the SIGCOV rule is across a great deal many of AfD discussions on this site. Jack4576 (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Having significant coverage is HOW we determine that a topic/subject is important and has encyclopedic value. Blueboar (talk) 16:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboar. LibStar (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboar's points. Of course GNG on it's own right also factors into those. North8000 (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you think it is -impossible- in -every circumstance- to determine with finality that a subject is non-notable, if SIGCOV does not exist? Jack4576 (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, could you restate? I'm not sure I'm following, maybe too many negatives? Valereee (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Without SIGCOV, do you think it is -always- impossible to reach a determinative view as to notability?

Do you think that such a thing is outside the realm of possibility? Jack4576 (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

No, it's possible, and in some areas we already have policy in place to determine notability without significant coverage; WP:NACADEMIC is one. Valereee (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Why not extend that to GNG more generally? Why have categorical exceptions like this ? The problem is not unique to any particular type of subject. Jack4576 (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

You may be seeing the fuzzy system at work. If the topic is marginal regarding those other attributes, then others will tend to be stricter on the GNG sourcing interpretation. North8000 (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

What if the topic is strong on those other attributes, and GNG sourcing interpretation is still lacking ?

The above scenario is the cause of many problems in my opinion. Jack4576 (talk) 17:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

It is not possible to write an acceptable encyclopedia article without summarizing significant coverage of the topic in reliable sources. If such sources cannot be found, how can anyone determine that the topic is worthy of a freestanding encyclopedia article? Sources first, articles second. Cullen328 (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

See: David Eppstein's comment below. Jack4576 (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

It is certainly possible to have an encyclopedia article that is reliably sourced, from many sources, but where each individual source contributes only towards a small amount of content, to the extent that no single source can be said to have significant coverage. It is my understanding that such an article would not pass GNG, and I have no interest in weakening that aspect of GNG. But that is not something that is necessarily true about how to write source-based encyclopedia articles; it is merely something we have chosen to do as part of our thresholds for what to include or what not to include. Other SNGs that are independent of GNG do not require this, and should not. One should also bear in mind that the word "significant" here is extremely subjective, and is often used as a proxy by AfD participants to hide preferences for certain types of topics over others; the actual wording of GNG is that the coverage must be in-depth, reliable, and independent, not that it must be prominent. For instance, in any objective sense, a non-paid local-newspaper obituary of a small-town hero (say a beloved elementary school teacher) meets these criteria, but would often be deemed "not enough" for vague and indefensible reasons by AfD participants, because we don't want our encyclopedia overrun by such content, rather than because they are actually following what the criterion says we should include. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Indeed my concern is that frequently, and in fact concerningly often, analogous scenarios to your example above are occuring in AfD.

If the intention is to exclude articles as per your first sentence, so be it, (if we have consensus); but for the benefit of all, (especially new editors) I think it would be worth re-wording the actual guideline to make that requirement more clear and explicit.

As the whole page is currently worded I think there is a fair argument to be made that such a requirement is not made out unequivocally. Jack4576 (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:Basic clearly provides "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". The problem with making a hard-fast rule on what constitutes sigcov (and I have literally seen people argue that articles must have specific word or page counts) is that standards change. For example, even 50 years ago, covering people of color, ethnic events and achievements, or women would have been the exception and not the norm in an encyclopedia. To include information on those types of historical topics, it is often necessary to combine multiple sources to reach a level of sigcov and I absolutely would not be in favor of any type of definition that prohibits our editing from addressing these types of gaps. SusunW (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree completely.

It would be good if that policy provided at WP:BASIC was made available for all topics, such as by bringing it onto the GNG page.

As it stands the sentence you've quoted is only able to be relied upon in AfD arguments for the context of WP:BIO articles.

I think its a concern, and a gap, especially in the way it exacerbates biases in coverage on this site; and its an issue I'm trying to highlight by opening this RfC. Jack4576 (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it is ridiculous to assume that academic coverage has "caught up" with thousands of years of omissions within the last 50 years. Thus, to my mind, on historical subjects, we have to be able to use realistic goals to cover topics that are clearly notable because they are covered in varying degrees of depth in various sources, but do not have deep coverage in a single source (hopefully yet, but academia moves slow). I would absolutely be in favor of incorporating the basic provision into GNG for that very reason. SusunW (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Susun I may open a more specific RfC in relation to your proposal once this one is finished. Will tag you when that happens. Jack4576 (talk) 02:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

David, IMO what you describe is the Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works fuzzy ecosystem at work. Your hypothetical example was a topic that we not very enclyclopedic and weaker on real world notability and so the GNG sourcing criteria was more strictly enforced. North8000 (talk) 18:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

And since it's not really defined, all kinds of things can happen. IMO if we acknowledged how it actually works, we could tidy things up and make them clearer. North8000 (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Your "not very encyclopedic" is difficult to distinguish from "I don't like it and therefore I'm going to ignore the actual wording of GNG and declare its sources to be inadequate despite their depth, reliability, and independence". I don't disagree with the outcome in this hypothetical case, but I think we might need a better mechanism than the existence of publicity to distinguish encyclopedic from non-encyclopedic in such cases. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm trying to describe reality without commenting on what reality should be. But once that it is accepted it can be refined to clarify. A good guide to "how enclyclopedic is it?" is degree of compliance with WP:Not.North8000 (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

The "has a true full GNG source" that is implicit in your example IMO is not what this is about. The typical example is what to do with the typical case where it 3/4 complies with the letter of GNG and other factors influence whether or not to consider that to be good enough. North8000 (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• I feel like a bit of context is missing here. One of the AFD's that spurred this RFC were one where Jack is arguing that a minor passing mention in one source should be enough to argue that the GNG is met, a sentiment I've never seen succeed in my decade plus at AFD. I don't bring this up as an effort to canvass, but rather, as a concern that these contextless discussions here may embolden him to further this...fringe... approach he attempting here. Sergecross73 msg me 19:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I would weigh in as "merge" on that one and don't agree with Jack's arguments regarding wp:notability there. Also all statements there need to be taken and interpreted in the context of the particulars of that article. North8000 (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to get distracted by specific cases as it is a general guideline. I do think significant coverage is required, not just a line or two. But, I also think that it should not have to be met within a single source or two. I don't think 15 sources mentioning the same fact counts as sigcov ever, but some overlap is bound to occur over time in varying articles about a subject. My take is that we have to have sufficient sources to answer who was involved, what was it, when and where did it happen, how it made an impact, i.e. cover it in sufficient depth to confirm it is notable over time. SusunW (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

See, regarding that, you are stuck on the ‘passing mention’ aspect to discount notability; where I am attempting to argue that the case-by-case qualities of a subject may make that subject notable, in exceptional circumstances, even where we don’t have significant coverage.

You might disagree on that case-by-case evaluation, that’s fine, we can reach community consensus on that.

This RfC is not about that though; it’s about obtaining some clarity on the GNG rule, and determining once and for all whether SIGCOV is a strict requirement for every article or is actually just an important factor (perhaps even usually the most important factor)

As SusunW has noted above, in the WP:BIO context the line: “ If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability” is available as an exception to SIGCOV. And there are cogent policy reasons (especially social justice ones) why that exception is worthwhile.

I am also wondering whether it is possible to identify a subject as notable even where that isn’t the case. If consensus is never, then fine, it’s a regrettable consensus but one that i’ll follow. Jack4576 (talk) 02:58, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm unclear what you're advocating for here. As far as I can tell, everything you're saying here is "notability should be handled on a case-by-case basis, with specific consideration given to how notability might look different for different topics," which is exactly what AfD is for (and why topic-based SNGs exist). Whether coverage is significant enough to establish notability of the subject is a very common topic at AfD. What do you want to change here? Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 04:50, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, ideally that is what AfD ought to be for in my view.

Unfortunately however, AfD tends to degenerate into a legalistic discussion as to whether or not a subject has met SIGCOV.

I understand topic-based SNGs exist, this discussion is about whether or not it is possible under the existing rules for a subject outside of a topic based SNG; to nevertheless meet notability for inclusion, in the absence of significant coverage.

Plainly I think it should be possible in some exceptional circumstances, (or alternatively, that SIGCOV ought to be able to be established through multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability for articles other than WP:BIO, as SusanW has suggested). I'd like to canvas the community's views on this point.

If the conclusion is that this is not possible, I think there is a fair case to make that the requirements in GNG ought to be made more explicit for the sake of avoiding confusion; and clarifying AfD discussions. Jack4576 (talk) 06:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Jack4576, there is no need to make "more explicit" things that are already well understood. New discussions of things that are already well understood are not productive. unless you have some new insights. And to date, you have not offered any new insights. Cullen328 (talk) 06:28, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

As can be seen from the comments of others in this thread I am not the only person of the view that WP would benefit from clearer wording on this issue. Jack4576 (talk) 06:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

The argument over what counts (or should count) toward notability is perennial. There's a spectrum among editors about interpretation of notability, and it has very little to do with clarity of the wording. In any event, clarifying your own interpretation into policy would require a community-wide RfC, as drawing some bright line would be a major change. Valereee (talk) 12:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, anyone, feel free to hat this tangent. My fears have been dispelled. Sergecross73 msg me 12:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I am not seeking a clarification on notability generally Valereee, I am seeking clarification on whether SIGCOV is actually a strict requirement for GNG or not. From this thread, it appears opinions vary. Jack4576 (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

No, opinions do not vary. A couple editors have brought up some non-GNG notability guidelines that don't require SIGCOV, as well as the murky guidance at NBASIC for biographies, but none of that is stating SIGCOV is not required for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Simply spend some time at AFD and it'll become rather clear to you that, yes, the community is generally looking for SIGCOV. Sergecross73 msg me 17:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree with JJ and SC73, the opinions here are not about not requiring sigcov, they're about how we assess it. I don't think anyone has said sigcov isn't or shouldn't be required? Valereee (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

This user has been making similar arguments in a lot of AfDs: that his personal opinion that a topic "is notable" or "is encyclopedic" should outweigh a lack of in-depth independent secondary coverage in RS. I would suggest before participating in any further AfDs, he read a few dozen closed large AfD discussions that resulted in deletion so he can develop a better understanding of our P&Gs. JoelleJay (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

(1) Determining whether a subject is notable or not requires an intellectual engagement with what a subject is and what a subject is not, for the purpose of obtaining whether or not that subject is relevantly notable enough to be encyclopedic. That I have made arguments about the qualities of certain subjects on a generalistic GNG basis without reliance on the legalistic SNGs rules; does not demonstrate my lack of understanding of the GNG rules. Your comment here demonstrates you yourself are ignorant of the rules actually, because if you read those rules, you'd appreciate that raising subjective criteria is a very relevant argument to make in an AfD thread.

(2) AfD arguments are not precedent, and in any event, the incumbent WP consensus on what is / isn't notable leaves a lot to be desired; especially for reasons of its Anglospheric bias. (Note how much more difficult it is for a local politician to have an article in Jamaica than it is in New York. Do you really think politics is less important in the global south than London, NYC and Tokyo? Afd seems to think so). Jack4576 (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I think local politicians in large cities like NY, London or Tokyo are dime a dozen and thus often much less important than local politicians in other parts of the world.

That said… “importance” is not quite the same as “notability”. Sure, there is overlap… however, a person can be “important” but not “notable” - and a person can be “notable” but not “important”. Blueboar (talk) 17:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

That I have made arguments about the qualities of certain subjects on a generalistic GNG basis without reliance on the legalistic SNGs rules; does not demonstrate my lack of understanding of the GNG rules. What does this even mean? There is no "generalistic GNG basis"; GNG explicitly says

A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

Nowhere does GNG bring in subjective assessments of topic importance other than as a reason to delete an article that otherwise meets GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

GNG itself may not explicitly bring in "subjective assessments of topic importance". But AfD participants do tend to bring in their biases, and use them to color their decisions on whether coverage counts as "significant", which can be very subjective. If you think that GNG is a purely objective standard, you are fooling yourself. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

And to your second point, AfDs that received a lot of good-faith discussion and resulted in delete will almost always have a statement by the closing admin summarizing the relevant P&G arguments proffered by participants, which will give a good overview of consensus interpretation of those P&Gs. Someone with zero experience at AfD should not be jumping in to dozens (100+??) of AfDs in just one week (under 7% of the AfDs you're in have even been closed!) claiming their idea of GNG is "correct". JoelleJay (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Completely agreed. Sergecross73 msg me 20:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks that the GNG is less "legalistic" than SNGs has not spent enough time in contested deletion debates where all sides were wiki-lawyering the GNG.

Of course, that can be a good thing. Nobody has lain on their deathbed wishing they spent more time wiki-lawyering the GNG. XOR'easter (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Taking this RFC in context, I don't think that the GNG needs to be updated or changed. The question I always come back to is how anyone is supposed to write a reliable, neutral article without significant coverage in a reliable third-party source. WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs aren't enough.

Something like WP:NACADEMIC at least tries to address this issue by saying that significant coverage about academic papers might be reasonably organized around the author, rather than the concept. This is where merging is often a good compromise to cover concepts that received some reliable third-party coverage, but might not otherwise be sufficient for a separate article. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• Yes it does, and it should, per multi-decade WP:CONS. No reasonable rationale has been given to change this. Mathglot (talk) 00:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The original post in the thread has prompted many good discussions and points. But trying to answer the literal question which is basically "is a strong requirement by wikipedia the OP-stated simple categorical rule?" is a fundamentally flawed approach to this topic and any answer on those terms would be misleading. IMO this thread should be ended. IMHO any further discussion should have a new thread not based on that literal question. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Support closing this RfC. I agree that the framing of the question is flawed—there is clearly strong consensus that SIGCOV is a part of GNG. Procedurally speaking I don't see any actual proposed policy change or clarification to be accepted or rejected here, and I think the discussion has run its course. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 17:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

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

WP:N and WP:IINFO

Hi, WT:N watchers! I'd be glad of your input here. In an AfD, I have just said: A topic gets more notable when a selective source has noted it. When an indiscriminate source has noted it, that source doesn't count towards WP:N. User:BeanieFan11 doubts me on that point, so let's check. Am I right?—S Marshall T/C 23:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• Yes. Indiscriminate coverage might be useful for writing an article, but it doesn't tell us anything about whether the topic is encyclopedic. BilledMammal (talk) 23:41, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
• More context here: Olympedia has listings on every Olympian of all-time. A mid-to-small portion of those have decent-sized biographies attached, including this one. Should that source be disqualified from counting as SIGCOV for being "indiscriminate" (something that I don't see applying at all)? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  See WP:RSPBTVA for a similar example. BilledMammal (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  I have no idea what "Behindthevoiceactors.com" is - but looking at the first citation to it using a wikipedia search (on Shaquille O'Neal) - it doesn't seem to be that in-depth, where as in some cases (like this one) Olympedia is. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  I have no idea what "Behindthevoiceactors.com" is Olympedia if Olympedia was interested in voice actors rather than Olympians. BilledMammal (talk) 23:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  If it's not an open wiki, it doesn't really matter. Either what it has is SIGCOV for the particular topic in question, or it's not... right? Jclemens (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  I think that at a Wiki-philosophical level, a comprehensive database can't ever be SIGCOV. We prefer academic or news media articles as evidence of notability, because if a topic has been the focus of a study or news media article, then a professional has selected that topic as an important or interesting one. Appearing in a comprehensive database is like appearing in the telephone directory. I mean, personally, I've written a book. It has an ISBN and a publisher, and it appears in comprehensive databases of books -- but that doesn't mean my book gets its own Wikipedia article. It would need reviews etc. before it becomes notable, right? And even more so for Olympians, who are so often living people so we need to be extra-careful about sourcing.—S Marshall T/C 10:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  IMO there are at least two different questions blended together there:

  • Does being an indiscriminate/comprehensive database categorically rule it out as counting towards wp:notability? For example, if even it has substantial coverage in a prominent such db? IMHO no.
  • Is being an indiscriminate/comprehensive database a minus when considering it's contribution towards establishing wp:notability? IMHO yes

  North8000 (talk) 12:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• I think that S Marshall's point has some validity....there are many wp:notability areas where the nature of the source figures into the equation, including how meaningful it was that the source chose the article subject, and the source being indiscriminate takes that away. But I don't think that the point is strong enough to exclude the source from the notability equation based solely on that point. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
• I like to think of it in the context of significant sources and supplementary sources. Short bios on databases or general passing mentions are nice supplementary sources to help fill out an article, but typically don't constitute sigcov on their own. Curbon7 (talk) 02:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
• While the general question is important looking further into this specific case it isn't relevant here; Olympedia is owned by the International Olympic Committee, and thus isn't independent and can't contribute to notability. BilledMammal (talk) 02:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Though, this says that it is "not an official IOC product" and is "a product solely of the OlyMADMen" (a group of Olympic historians including Bill Mallon). Wondering if that's sufficient to count as independent. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
    • Well, Olympedia is certainly independent of Gyula Iványi, so I'm sure it could contribute to his notability if it wasn't indiscriminate.—S Marshall T/C 15:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

      It isn't independent. It's the Olympic Games and writers retained by them documenting everyone who's competed in the Olympic Games. Largoplazo (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

      I agree with Largoplazo; an organization writing about people affiliated with their organization because they are affiliated with their organization isn't providing independent coverage. Another example of this is the NFL writing about NFL players; we've agreed that such coverage is usually reliable, but not independent. BilledMammal (talk) 22:19, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

      That reasoning can be taken to too much of an extreme: newspapers of [country X] writing about [person from country X who did something in country Y] because they are from [country X] would certainly count as independent, despite both belonging to a common organization (the country in which they are citizens or incorporated). The same might be said to be true for very large but subnational organizations that have independent media within them; a story in one of the US Army publications, about a member of the US Army, might reasonably be interpreted as being independent enough, as might an in-depth profile of an alum in a university alumni magazine. That said, I agree that a project of the Olympic Committee documenting all Olympians does not count as independent. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

      Subnational examples like most of the US Army publications and definitely university alumni magazines have long been considered non-independent in this context (for identical reasons to why we consider an employer to be a non-independent source on an employee even if there is no possible way the employee could influence the employer's statements). If substantial profiles by orgs a subject belongs to are deemed independent then please go ahead and undelete the thousands of articles on internet-era fourth-tier footballers and cricketers I've seen deleted at AfD due to only being covered by such hype sources. JoelleJay (talk) 00:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

      You left out the part about the "common organization" writing about all of its members because they're members. That was the point re Olympedia. The national equivalent is the phone book. At least in a small country. (Thinking of Steve Martin's character in The Jerk finding his name in the phone book and exulting, "I'm somebody now!") Largoplazo (talk) 01:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

      @S Marshall: re: Gyula Iványi and others (I appreciate this is a month ago...) - the extent of the prose content is what I would look at. Certainly nowhere near evert athlete has any significant prose, certainly not any that covers their wider life. If it does then that prose is coming from sources - they're not making it up! Those sources exist - the researchers who wrote the Olympia article found them (in the case of Gyula Iványi, there absolutely must be sources that deal with the Italian bit, the Great Silver Cup, his work life etc...). The question is, how in depth is the coverage in the Olympedia article and what does that tell us about the sources that have been used.

      In the case of Douglas Godfree (Olympedia article) I was able to find the original sources - almost certainly the same ones that were used by the Olympedia author(s). It's absolutely clearcut that if the Olympedia article goes in to some depth about the person's life that those sources will be there. The question we need to ask is, at what point do we make that decision. Godfree's Olympedia article is 252 words long; I think only 24 of those deal with his Olympic career. Gyula Iványi's Olympedia article is 87 words; 13 deal with he Olympics. In the case of Godfree I really don't think there's a doubt that the Olympedia article has enough in it to be a reasonable source - in looking at a few hundred Olymedia articles, not many have that many words in or deal with the subject in such a broad fashion; the way that Godfree is dealt with within the database is unusually detailed; maybe only 10% of entries have this level of detail? I don't know, but it's not many.

      At this point the indiscriminate nature of things doesn't fly for me. Gyula Iványi is more difficult because we're looking at someone where most of the sources won't be written in English. There's some detail, but I'm not sure I'd be happy to flat out say that there's enough there by itself to suggest that there's easily going to be enough to be able to write an article - of course, in this case the article written by Szabo Gabor clearly adds enough anyway, but if we just had Olympedia I'd be circumspect. I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand, but I'd probably want a bit more myself. In the case of, say, Adolf Schmal, Jr, which is much more basic prose, there's - in my view - clearly not enough detail. Here we're becoming more indiscriminate, and once you get to Albert Johnstone or Aleksandr Akhyun we're clearly at the indiscriminate database only level.

      If there's enough detail then the sources are there. Should we have to find them - as I did with Godfree - or can we accept that time limitations mean that we should just go with Olymedia? And at what level do we make that call? Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

    That article says Bill Mallon worked for the IOC and has apparently served as the "unofficial historian for the USOC since 2010". His group also worked directly for the Olympics from 2018 on. Plus some of the older entries at olympics.com link to "our description [...] at olympedia.org". That makes them even more non-independent than I realized. JoelleJay (talk) 01:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• Isn't this already covered by the first footnote? databases, [...] may not actually support notability when examined. If a sports database provides WP:SIGCOV (i.e. a few hundred words), then it should be fine. Otherwise, doesn't count towards notability. Using "indiscriminateness" as a factor seems redundant (and fuzzier). DFlhb (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  The first footnote doesn't say the database needs to provide a few hundred words before it's SIGCOV. Sadly, it's much vaguer than that.—S Marshall T/C 13:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  That's fair to say. Frankly I don't know what that footnote was intended to mean; that's the only way I can make sense of it. DFlhb (talk) 14:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  That's very old wording. "Directories and databases" was inserted on 3 Nov 2007 in this edit by User:UnitedStatesian, and it doesn't seem to have changed much since.—S Marshall T/C 15:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• This is one that has to be decided on a case by case basis. Some of the articles seem to provide SIGCOV, but others definitely do not. The site combines database with more in-depth coverage. Blueboar (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
• This is my understanding of it as well. WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE go hand in hand. I have often been tempted to change the section to "not a database" for clarity (but the current title isn't broken). Shooterwalker (talk) 02:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
• Drat, I'm not really seeing a consensus here.—S Marshall T/C 08:16, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  @S Marshall: IMO your point is good in the sense that it should weigh heavily in wp:notability discussions. And it touches on an often unacknowledged point in how the fuzzy wp:notability ecosystem operates. But you have proposed it as a categorical rule /exclusion which sort of conflicts with how the system operates. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

• Mostly, yeah. It's significant when a publisher treads outside of their normal wheelhouse to touch something adjacent, because it affects their normal subjects and readers ought to be informed on it. Writing about everything in a group, even if one is well researched and strongly reliable, still means that the subject is not special/worthy of particular interest. Applying this to the (now-withdrawn) AfD, Olympedia has the bar set at being an Olympian, not necessarily being worthy of interest, which N intends to gauge. SWinxy (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
• I think North8000 says it best - we have a fuzzy ecosystem, that works pretty well. There will always be edge cases that are difficult to adjudicate, but in general, categorical exclusions and inclusions may work better or worse in certain topic areas. One problematic aspect about Olympedia is that the editors/authors did not provide the sources they used to develop those articles. --Enos733 (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
• What about the World Athletics / IAAF website? I've created some pages that mostly use such websites and results as sources. Are these athletes notable? —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 19:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  I took a look at 4 or 5 of them. For those I would say these two things:

  • The sources in the articles did not establish wp:notability
  • If you searched and those are the best sources that you can find with respect to meeting GNG source criteria, then no

  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  @North8000: Then you can nominate them for deletion. I created them going by criteria at WP:Notability (sports) due to their participation in world championship events, but the standards may have changed. I haven't been following any edits to that notability guideline, so I don't remember what it said when I made these articles. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 21:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  That's not what I do unless forced into it by NPP responsibility. Here I was only trying to answer your question. You should also note the exact wording in my two items. Neither said "confirmed not notable". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  NSPORT has always required subjects meet GNG. Did you check that they did before making the articles? JoelleJay (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Governing sporting orgs like IAAF are not independent. JoelleJay (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Without offering a view on the initial question, I have read a lot of commentary above that (as often happens in on-wiki discissions) construes WP:INDEPENDENT as establishing requirements that it actually does not. The defining element of independence in P&G text is the absence of a vested interest, defined as follows: Interest in a topic becomes vested when the source (the author, the publisher, etc.) develops any financial or legal relationship to the topic. An interest in this sense may be either positive or negative. A fan group source may be unreliable or unsuitable for use as a reference, for various reasons, but not because the authors or publishers have a POV (positive or negative) concerning the topic. When it comes to long-deceased athletes, for example, it seems EXTRAORDINARY to me that anyone would consider any 21st-century source to be non-independent, that is, to have a vested legal or financial interest in their biographies.
• If editors want INDEPENDENT to mean what they seem to think it means, that would require changes (and probably affirmative consensus) over at the explanatory essay. Newimpartial (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  GNG helpfully defines "independent" for us as "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.

  Per this definition, Olympedia is not independent. BilledMammal (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  According to this maximalist interpretation of "someone affiliated with it", where Olympedia is somehow counted as non-independent because it is produced by people interested in the Olympics (but not by the IOC), only the sources that are completely disconnected from a subject would be allowed to be considered independent of it. Major national newspapers could not be used for news about events in their country, because they are in the same country. Research journals dedicated to scientific fields could not be used for articles in those fields, because they are affiliated with the same field. This is, to put it bluntly, nuts. The only reason for taking this point of view is to warp our notability standards beyond recognition in order to delete everything. It has no legitimate basis in quality control of our content. The real problem with all of these Olympic competitor databases has nothing to do with their independence nor their reliability: it is that they provide too little depth of coverage of most Olympians. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  Olympedia is owned by the IOC. BilledMammal (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  If we are talking about a long dead athlete, it is independent of the subject. The subject is the person not the IOC. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  The subject is an Olympian and they are being covered solely because they are an Olympian, by an entity owned by the IOC. That’s why it’s not independent, just as IBM writing about its early executives wouldn’t be an independent source. BilledMammal (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  The idea that an entity owned by the IOC therefore has a potential for personal, financial, or political gain in the biographies of long-dead athletes does not appear to be supported by enwiki P&G text - or at least not by WP:INDEPENDENT, which has been the principle invoked in this discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 23:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  Seems rather obvious to me that the IOC would want to make sure all Olympians, living or dead, would want to be well documented, and thus cannot be considered independent. It would be different if an entity with maybe a connection to one sport (say, the NFL) did the same thing but for any professional athlete regardless of sport, in which case the gain that entity would having in promoting their own players is significantly weakened.

  An equivalent scenario would be a university keeping short bios on all its Ph.D. alumni, past and present. Masem (t) 00:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  Seems rather obvious to me that the IOC would want to make sure all Olympians, living or dead, would want to be well documented, and thus cannot be considered independent. Particularly since the prominence of the Olympics compared to other sporting events comes from its history; promoting that history is essential to maintaining the prominence of the games. BilledMammal (talk) 00:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  The history point doesn't make a lot of sense from where I'm sat. See also FA Cup, The Ashes, Six Nations, World Series, Stanley Cup, the Brier, Grand Final, Grey Cup etc... Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  I don't understand the point you are trying to make; can you clarify?

  What I am saying is that to maintain and enhance the Olympic brand the IOC has an interest in promoting the history of the games, a history which extends to the competitors. BilledMammal (talk) 07:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  Lots of organisations and events have long histories. It's not unique to the Olympics.

  I think you're conflating owned by with have a practical influence on. I don't think I've seen anything on Olympedia that could be considered to be a puff piece; the writing seems factual and impartial to me. On the other hand, there is a set of lists that deal with doping irregularities, for example. Further to that, it seems to cover controversial stuff impartially as far as I can tell - Ernest Lee Jahncke (Wikipedia article) for example. That's about as factual as you could get there isn't it? Toni Merkens seems to be covered factually as well, as is Michael Phelps. In neither case is their either outrage or bluster. The entries on Helene Mayer (covered despite never competing I note), Gretel Bergmann, Elfriede Kaun and Dora Ratjen seem to written from an NPOV and in an academic style. They're almost exemplary in terms of the sort of coverage we should be looking for. All could have been written to express a POV. Tommie Smith and John Carlos are written about in the same, NPOV style, as are Boris Onishchenko, Władysław Kozakiewicz and Marion Jones. Honestly, find me the puffery; this stuff is well written and neutral; we should be embracing it, not rejecting it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  Lots of organisations and events have long histories. It's not unique to the Olympics. I still don't understand the point you are making? If the The Football Association publishes works about the history of the FA Cup then those works also lack independence - and the same is true with all of the other events you mentioned.

  we should be embracing it, not rejecting it - No one is saying we shouldn't use it, just that it isn't independent and thus doesn't count towards notability. BilledMammal (talk) 10:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  The Olympedia article for Douglas Godfree is clearly based on sources that I was able to find the originals of. If there's prose, it's because sources exist to provide it. If there's enough prose, I think we can suggest very strongly that NEXIST comes into play Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  And we need to identify those sources to ensure they comply with our policies - that they are reliable, secondary, independent, and contain significant coverage of the subject. Further, failing to identify them can result in NPOV issues, as due to its lack of independence Olympedia provides a focus on an individuals sporting achievements that can be undue. BilledMammal (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  The point isn't (only) that Olympedia is "influenced by" its competitors and therefore might provide unduly positive profiles on them (but of course that is true as well, because the infamy of an Olympian does reflect on and affect the status of the Olympics itself). It's (also) that the existence and amount of attention given to the subject by the Olympics is not a faithful representation of the subject's real-world renown--both because the Olympics is dedicated to hyping every Olympian, and because it is tied to its own self-promotion. An alumni magazine will spotlight an alumnus in great detail not because the subject is independently a noteworthy topic, but because the magazine has a direct interest in covering the achievements of alumni. JoelleJay (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  I provided 11 examples of athletes where there is clearly objective coverage of potentially controversial careers. Could you show me some where you think that Olympedia is in any way skewed to be overly positive or excluded key negatives? Any at all? I'm yet to find a profile that isn't simply factual in the way it presents information about an athlete. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  See my second point. JoelleJay (talk) 23:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  WP:INDEPENDENT is an essay. For the purposes of notability, the meaning of independence is the one defined at WP:GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  My understanding is that WP:INDEPENDENT is intensed to offer a definition of what counts as a strong connection to a subject, defining that as a financual or legal relationship. While many explanatory essays on WP are controversial in the clarifications they offer, I am not aware of any such conteoversy about INDEPENDENT. Newimpartial (talk) 09:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  My reading of GNG suggests that it is very clear on what constitutes independence and we don't need an essay that has not been thoroughly vetted by the community to clarify it. If you want to use a different definition of independent then I suggest you get a consensus to modify GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 10:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  Olympedia has a financial and legal relationship with the Olympics. JoelleJay (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  In practical terms it's independent; certainly the authors seem to be. There are times when you have to be pragmatic about this sort of thing. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• On the original question: @S Marshall, I don't think you're correct. I think it's more of a Bathtub curve: both completely indiscriminate and extremely selective sources are less than ideal. Indiscriminate sources don't give you the sense that the subject was deliberately covered by the source, but extremely selective sources are not evidence of "attention by the world at large". The best sources are the ones in the middle: inclusive enough that they cover many things, but exclusive enough that they don't cover everything. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  I absolutely agree, and after this discussion I now feel that I gave insufficient thought to defining my terms. I meant to say that coverage in a source that covers only selected Olympians should counts more than coverage in a source that covers all of them; but, for example, a source that covers only Olympians who participated in the 1936 Olympics----while admittedly "selective"----isn't as helpful towards notability as a source that covers only Olympic gold medallists and record breakers.—S Marshall T/C 21:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  There is absolutely no justification in GNG for treating sources differently depending on how thoroughly they cover other related topics. A series of biographical books on US presidents does not become less independent or less deep in its coverage merely because it includes all the US presidents, and not merely a selected subset of them. For the same reason, a source that covers all Olympic athletes does not become less independent or less deep merely because it covers all Olympic athletes rather than only some of them. What needs to be evaluated is the depth of coverage of the source, the reliability of the source, and the extent to which the source is connected to the individual subject. That is all.

  To put it another way: using the selectivity of a source to evaluate the significance of a subject is the sort of thing you would do under a significance-based notability criterion, one that evaluates subjects based on what they have done rather than on their depth of coverage. We have some criteria like that: WP:NPOL is an example, where national parliaments are judged as significant enough but city councils are generally not, for instance. But that is not how GNG works. If you want to evaluate athletes by their significance, you need to go back to the old evaluation criteria that said that certain kinds of athletes are notable (people who have walked onto the field in a top-level professional game or played in the Olympics) while others are not. We used to do it that way, but it was rejected by a broad consensus. Now we evaluate athletes by publicity, like most other biographies. An athlete is notable when their team's publicist has convinced enough magazines and newspapers to write in-depth profiles of them, producing sources that count as in-depth, reliable, and independent; otherwise they are not. If the IOC has succeeded in convincing enough people to provide in-depth reliable independent coverage of all Olympic athletes, then by that definition they are all notable. Don't twist GNG to be something it is not. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  As I showed above, the Olympedia article for Douglas Godfree s clearly based on sources that I was able to find the originals of. If there's prose written it's because there are sources to back up that prose - the authors of the Olympedia article found them and used them. Do we really have to find them again to justify an article? Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  Where the Olympian is a living person, yes you definitely do: policy lets us insist. The rule is Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. We know that every article started by Lugnuts is contentious, and unless RSN decides otherwise, Olympedia isn't a RS. Where the Olympian is deceased, as far as I can tell from policy the articles ought to be better sourced but (a) AfD isn't for cleanup and (b) there's no other venue with a deadline, so in practice you're allowed to defer any request for better sources indefinitely, and that seems to mean, forever.—S Marshall T/C 22:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  The sources that back up that prose could just as readily be from non-independent sources, so yes, we absolutely do need to find the originals. JoelleJay (talk) 23:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

RfC regarding individual area codes

You are invited to the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Telecommunications/Area codes RfC regarding the notability of articles about individual area codes. BilledMammal (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Minimum Number of Secondary Sources

The current policy only states that 'multiple sources are generally expected'; this means that anything mentioned twice in published sources technically meets notability guidelines. This standard is so low that many things that generally are not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia (i.e. local politicians, petty criminals, small businesses, etc.) would likely meet notability guidelines. Because of the wording of the policy, literalists will argue that such a subject meets WP:GNG and should, therefore, have a Wikipedia page. This results in low-quality articles that cannot be improved due to lack of sources. A higher minimum number of secondary sources doesn't necessarily have to be mandated, but if it was at least suggested or expected (changing the phrasing to something like 'at least five secondary sources are generally expected'), it would reduce the number of subpar articles created on the basis of being covered in only two sources. I would recommend five as the minimum, as five quality sources should provide plenty of material for a decent article. JMB1980 (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

No. Just no. We have been over this over and over and over again. It depends enormously on the quality of the sources. One source can sometimes be enough (even though it clearly is not multiple), when it is of sufficient quality (Dictionary of National Biography, for instance). Five sources might not be enough, when they are of low quality. Stating a number encourages editors to work towards that number instead of towards the high-quality sourcing that we actually want. The problem with not-really-notable topics, and especially in attempts at getting them approved from drafts to articles, is usually not the number of sources, because our reviewers tell the drafters over and over "we need more sources". This ends up packing the drafts with many many poor sources. We should be telling editors to use fewer sources, only the high-quality ones, so we can tell which ones those are. Your suggestion goes in the wrong direction, towards quantity over quality. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that quality should be emphasized over quantity. The problem is that the current phrasing of notability ability guidelines allows literalists to claim any subject that has been covered in any two sources has achieved notability. Perhaps, as an alternative, is there a way 'quality sources' could be more clearly defined? JMB1980 (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Notability is not based on the number of sources but the amount of significant coverage to the specific topic that the offered sources provide. As David says, one source may be sufficient to show that, while in other cases one might need ten or more. We.dont count sourcing because this is easily gamed. Masem (t) 19:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that insisting on some specific number of sources is the wrong approach. Even for the most mundane topics, it's usually possible to dig up 5, 10, or more really crappy sources. Quality of sources and WP:SIGCOV is much more important than quantity of sources, and we're just doing authors a disservice by implying that if they find N sources they'll be good. RoySmith (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree in principle that specifying a number of sources is wrong; however, the problem is that based on current policy it's possible for authors to dig up two really crappy sources and think that they'll be good if they find that many. JMB1980 (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

It's possible for authors to dig up ten really crappy sources and then not understand why reviewers keep telling them that better sources are needed. The problem is not that there are only two; the problem is that the sources are crap. Telling them to find more sources won't fix it. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

With rare exceptions, it should be easy to find five quality sources for a subject that is truly notable; I've created several articles and have never had difficulty finding at least five quality sources. If a subject truly isn't notable, it should be difficult to find five sources of any quality; I've encountered many subpar articles that cite exactly two sources. There is no perfect solution to this problem, but expecting (without requiring) a minimum of five sources would significantly reduce the number of low-quality articles while good articles would be unaffected in every or nearly every case. JMB1980 (talk) 00:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

It would expand the current emphasis on hype and publicity over substance and accomplishments. It would work fine for movie stars and footballers, not so much for other topics. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

In my experience, footballers and other ”pop culture” topics are far more likely to be included based on scraping by notability criteria than less popular topics. BilledMammal (talk) 05:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Ideally, notability would be determined by the quality and substance of sources rather than strict adherence to a number of sources specified in a guideline. Unfortunately, my experience is that the majority on Wikipedia focus on quantity over quality. There are a myriad of low-quality articles with only two or three sources that can't be improve because of the poor quality of sources, and usually can't be deleted because they technically meet minimum GNG guidelines. Setting an expectation of at least five sources would prevent many of the worst articles from being created and allow for the deletion of many of those already created, as most of the ones I've seen have fewer than five secondary sources. It wouldn't solve every problem, but it would be an improvement. JMB1980 (talk) 06:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Well...on the other hand, the current guidance already essentially sets the number at 2, with no entreaties for quality or amount of SIGCOV. We even have the option for some subjects to get by with zero SIGCOV sources and just a few scattered mentions that are "more than a directory listing" and "don't require OR to describe". JoelleJay (talk) 00:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

In fact, I believe that the notability standards should be further expanded: If something is found to have enough coverage to be a GA--and stay a GA even after a GAR if challenged--then whether it meets the GNG or any SNG is not the point: it's a decent encyclopedia article, so citing some arbitrary guideline (that is, intended to be flexible) to delete a good article is pedantic and Procrustean, rather than serving to help us develop the best possible online encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The inverse of that is citing some arbitrary guideline to create or keep a bad article; this also is pedantic and not conducive to creating a good encyclopedia. Expecting (but not requiring) more sources should help to reduce the number of bad articles while retaining flexibility. JMB1980 (talk) 00:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Bad articles can be improved much more easily than missing articles can be added, especially now that some of our tools go back and automagically remove red links. Jclemens (talk) 03:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

[Citation needed]. My research suggests the opposite is true; if the creator of an article doesn’t expand it, no body will. BilledMammal (talk) 05:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The GA criteria do not require independent or secondary coverage. A "good article" could be written almost entirely from the subject's own professional profiles, interviews, press releases from affiliated orgs, statistical data, etc. Moreover, GAs only need one reviewer to pass, which can easily lead to special interest wikiprojects nominating and reviewing articles that would not be accepted outside their walled garden. JoelleJay (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

GA requires V sources. I proactively addressed your objection by noting GAR exists to correct inappropriate GA passes. Jclemens (talk) 03:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I can assure you that people would be able to write a high-quality (GA) article sans secondary sourcing such as with fictional characters or works, which no, we have moved way past that. That's why WP:V requires third-party sourcing for any topic, and N/GNG emphasizes that this should be significant coverage from secondary sources. There are reasonable exceptions to this (hence why WP:N is a guideline) but its needed to meet WP:V and WP:NOT#IINFO. Masem (t) 00:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Much like JoelleJay, you're assuming non-RS, which is fair enough since I didn't specify. But what I'm actually talking about is non-SIGCOV independent RS'es that, in sum, can provide enough V content, in aggregate, to write a legitimately good article. Jclemens (talk) 03:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The community has rejected the idea that a bunch of sources that only name-drop a topic or that may have a whole sentence or two about it (aka "listicles") do not contribute to determining notability. We need sources that have in-depth sigcov to have a hope of writing a cohesive article in the first place. Masem (t) 03:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't say exactly that, but I have said something similar. XOR'easter (talk) 01:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I’m not overly convinced that providing a set number of sources would help - instead, I think we need to be firmer about those sources being high quality and actually containing usable significant coverage.

For example, see this ongoing discussion at NBOOKS, where I am proposing we require that the sources actually contain sufficient information to write an article that goes beyond a plot summary.

However, changing “multiple” to a slightly better defined word like “several” may be a good idea; as JoelleJay points out, “multiple” is almost always interpreted as a flat two, which I think was neither its intent nor a good idea. BilledMammal (talk) 05:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Clarifying terms like 'significant coverage' would help a lot. The reason I proposed an expectation of five sources is because there's an excess of arguments stating that any subject covered in two sources is notable because GNG only states 'multiple sources' are needed and two sources are technically multiple sources. Much of the language is too vague and subjective, which is a problem when so many interpret Wikipedia policy in the most literal sense, which I don't believe was the intent of the authors. JMB1980 (talk) 06:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)