Wikipedia talk:Notability

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 controversy 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)

  If you believe that affiliated with ... the article's subject has a very clear meaning that invalidates the source in question from being considered independent of long-dead athletes, I suggest that you obtain consensus for your reading of GNG in an appropriate forum. That isn't the way I read the paragraph in question, nor am I seeing consensus for your reading in the discussion here. Newimpartial (talk) 16:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

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

  But I don't think anyone has proposed that Olympedia is an independent source about the Olympics. The question under discussion in this subthread is whether it is an independent source for biographical information about people who are long-dead. And I for one don't see any financial or legal relationship between Olympedia and such topics. Newimpartial (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

  I've only popped in here sporadically, so, is that really what this subthread is about? If so, it seems like it should be suspended, because that means it's become a discussion of WP:V, whereas this page is for discussing WP:N. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Largoplazo (talk • contribs) 16:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC) 16:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

  The Olympics has a financial and legal relationship with Olympians, and is financially interested in promoting coverage of itself and particularly its own history. JoelleJay (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

  The idea that the Olympics has a financial and legal relationship with long-dead athletes reads to me like an EXTRAORDINARY claim. And this discussion is not about the Olympics having an interest in its own history but rather in the biographies of deceased people. If it were found that Olympedia published puffery or bias in their biographies, then I could see that their RS status could be questioned, but I haven't seen that alleged.

  At the moment, the argument I have heard would imply that any of a national granting agency provided financial support for a biographical project (such as the Dictionary of Canadian Biography), that the resulting biographical entries were not independent because they covered (long deceased) citizens or residents of the nation in question. This doesn't seem to be a criterion that we have used to evaluate independence of sources on WP. Newimpartial (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  Significant coverage of an organization's history written by the organization itself is merely an indication that the organization finds that information noteworthy, not that people independent of it do. A neutral and comprehensive biography of someone by their child does not contribute to notability even if it has no written puffery or bias. The choice of the subject itself is where the bias exists; it does not represent the real-world degree of interest in the subject. Providing a source of funding is very different from overseeing a project. JoelleJay (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think you could make a very plausible argument that "the Olympics" (which is a rather nebulous concept) oversees Olympedia in a notably stronger sense than Heritage Canada and its predecessors have "overseen" (through the outcomes specified in various funding arrangements) the Dictionary of Canadian Biography. And there is no more bias in writing about Olympians than there is in writing about Canadians, or women for that matter, in terms of bias in the choice of subject.

  There are biographical projects specific to various groups, and their avowed objectives of publishing biographies, but only of lives having certain characteristics of interest, doesn't make them non-independent in any way relevant to enwiki P&Gs.

  Biographies of deceased athletes are not coverage of an organization's history any more than biographies of deceased Canadians are "coverage of an organization's history" or biographies of deceased women are "coverage of an organization's history". They are all just biographies, good or bad. I don't know how many Olympics participants you have known, but the one's I've known have simply been on their own life trajectories which intersected at one or two points with an Olympic Games. Writing about their life as a whole isn't COI, and this should be clear to everyone in the case of those who are long dead. Newimpartial (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  An organization writing about its own members, past or present, is distinct from a government funding an org that writes biographies of the country's citizens. Most organization websites contain a detailed history of themselves that may go into much greater detail on the founders etc. than just their time at the company. That obviously doesn't make such profiles independent coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 20:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  To add: when the choice of which profiles to write is directly and inextricably tied to coverage of the org itself, the coverage is not independent. JoelleJay (talk) 20:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  You are writing about "the Olympics" as though it were a membership organization. To the best of my knowledge, there is no reason to interpret the situation in this way. Treating long-dead athletes who competed in the Olympics more than a century ago as though they were akin to the founders of Ford Motor Company or the NAACP seems to be based on a misreading of how the modern Olympics were actually founded and how they are actually run. I would most certainly oppose treating "Olympics"-supported publications as independent sources for members of the International Olympic Committee, but that is the farthest thing from what we are actually discussing here.

  Also, when you state that the choice of which profiles to write is directly and inextricably tied to coverage of the org itself, you seem to be assuming the thing to be proved. As I have said, I don't see any difference between Olympedia and the Dictionary of Canadian Biography, in this respect, and we currently mandate official national biographies as presumptive of notability, rather than treating them as suspect or COI because each one has a mandate to promote a nation's own citizens and residents. Newimpartial (talk) 19:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  "Membership" does not have to mean "due-paying member".

  It's coverage of the participants of an event, by the event organizers. That has long been considered non-independent. And "the country of Canada" is not an organization, nor is a national biography entry on a person who is Canadian directly and inextricably tied to coverage of Canada or the Canadian government or whoever commissioned the piece. A profile of an Olympian from Olympedia will always, inevitably contain direct coverage of the Olympics. JoelleJay (talk) 02:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, such a biographical entry will contain mention of the Olympics, but that isn't the use of the source under discussion here (it is not independent for discusion of the Olympics, but any source is reliable or not only in the context of specific statements). Such a source is independent for the parts of the biogrpahy that aren't about the Olympics - most of the biography, and the use under discussion here. "The Olympics" has no legal or pecuniary interest in the rest of these people's lives, or the rest of their biographies. You can claim that "the Olympics" claims long-dead athletes as "members" and is not independent of their lives aa a whole, but I haven't seen any evidence for that EXTRAORDINARY interpretation. These are not "founders", and I have seen no evidence of bias in the biographies - only bare assertions of the thing to be demonstrated. Newimpartial (talk) 03:48, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

  Such a source is independent for the parts of the biogrpahy that aren't about the Olympics - most of the biography, and the use under discussion here. That's like saying that IBM, when writing about its early executives solely because they are its early executives are independent for the parts of the biography that aren't about IBM - it's nonsense.

  The IOC isn't writing about Olympians for altruistic reasons; they're writing about them to promote and maintain the Olympic brand. Arguably, they're less independent than IBM in my example because IBM's early executives don't contribute to the current IBM brand; the early Olympians do contribute to the current Olympian brand.

  This is a long-settled question and I don't know why we are re-discussing it; for example, Manchester United writing about early Manchester United players has never been considered an independent source, and the IOC is no different. BilledMammal (talk) 04:07, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

  The Olympics aren't "promoting the brand" of the Olympics by publishing the biographies of long-dead athletes any more than the Canadian government is "promoting the brand" of Canada by publishing the biographies of long-dead Canadians. The proposal you are trying to enshrine in policy, BilledMammal - that the former aren't independent but the latter are - has no evidentiary or policy basis that I can see. You can repeat that long-dead athletes are like long-dead corporate founders, but I can't see anything in that comparison except for your bald assertion.

extended content

I hope the relationship between the IOC and long-dead athletes is not a "long-settled question", because the settlement you are proposing seems contrary to policy. Now you are making the comparison with Manchester United, which is a team and the (presumably former) employer of the players you are talking about. This is as though biographies were being produced by a national Olympic team. Olympedia is more comparable to, say, the English FA publishing biographies of long-dead players, and I can see why that could be independent in a sense that a team publishing biographies of team members would not be. You seem determined to compare apples to cucumbers, for some reason.

• Taken to its logical conclusion, the principle BilledMammal is advocating here would justify an argument that discussion of Physicists in Physics journals is not independent - and therefore not RS - because Physics journals exist to promote Physics and are therefore COI for physicists. This seems to me like a fairly absurd extension of a principle that should be limited to cases where an actual legal or financial relationship exists. Newimpartial (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Of course the Olympics covering itself is promotion of the Olympic brand. Unlike the Canadian government or "physicists", the IOC/Olympic Movement is an organization that relies on revenue generated through selling a product, and promotion of that product through institutional advertising and engagement is a crucial part of its business model. Biographies of Canadians funded by the Canadian government are not coverage of the Canadian government or of "products" it sells, nor are they promotion of its "brand". Biographies of physicists in a physics journal are not coverage of the journal's editorial board or of the journal itself, nor are they promotion of content the journal funded. Biographies of Olympians commissioned by the Olympics are coverage of the Olympics and function as brand storytelling and promote engagement with its products. Why would the Olympics purchase Olympedia otherwise? Corporate history is always an integral part of institutional advertising. And unlike the concept of "secondariness", "independence" isn't discretized to apply to some information and not other information from the same author within the same source.

  Olympedia is more comparable to, say, the English FA publishing biographies of long-dead players, and I can see why that could be independent in a sense that a team publishing biographies of team members would not be. Sports organizations are not independent of the individuals under their purview. Several hundred AfDs reflect the consensus that the FA is not an independent source on its footballers or their opponents. JoelleJay (talk) 00:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  This reading of the political economy of "the Olympics" and of its related knowlege production, while interesting from a Foucauldian perspective, appears to be original research. I don't see much prudence (and certainly no consensus) to interptet enwiki P&Gs on the basis of this interesting reading. And I still don't see how any effort by "the Olympics" to promote awareness of and engagement with long-dead athletes is any different from the efforts of nation-states to primote awareness of and engagement with their long-dead citizens - and the latter are not only not seen as potentially reliable, they are also enshrined in WP:ANYBIO for presumptive notability. Newimpartial (talk) 01:56, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  If the Canadian government were to produce a work that presented a biography of every Canadian, as Olympedia lists every Olympic athlete, then it would likewise be false that the subjects are independent of the publisher and inclusion in that work is a sign of notability. Is there such a work? Largoplazo (talk) 22:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  In what bizarre dictionary do you find that comprehensiveness is the same as independence? Why should the comprehensiveness of a list of Canadians, or a list of Olympians, have any bearing on whether it is considered an independent source? Your comment makes no sense to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:00, 4 July 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)

  @David Eppstein, about there being no justification in GNG for treating sources differently depending on how thoroughly they cover other related topics: Some small-town newspapers review every single restaurant in town, just because they're there, and they can. I have twice lived in towns small enough that the weekly newspaper could review every single restaurant twice a year, with extra weeks leftover to cover the concession stands for each sport. Big city newspapers can't do this because of the number of restaurants in the city substantially exceeds the number of publication days. We're kind of stuck with either saying small-town restaurants are more notable than big city ones – because they get reviewed twice a year by their indiscriminate but independent newspaper – or that we should treat sources differently depending on how they choose to cover some subject areas. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

  @WhatamIdoing: you write like you really want to be using a significance-based notability standard instead of the publicity-based standard that we have in GNG, but can't quite bring yourself to say so explicitly. If you really had faith in GNG's promise that we can have an article whenever we have adequate sources for an article, you would not see a problem in having articles about all small-town restaurants with enough local newspapers to provide two independent sources, while not being able to cover big-city restaurants or one-newspaper-town restaurants. Those are the ones we have adequate sourcing for, and we can only follow what the sourcing gives us, not try to make our own separate standards. If, on the other hand, you want a restaurant to be somehow important or significant, beyond merely being multiply-reviewed, in order to justify having a Wikipedia article on it, then what you want is not GNG, which is not based on importance, but some other standard.

  Don't try to make GNG what it is not. Trying to do so only ends up warping GNG out of recognition, confusing editors who think it should mean what it says, failing to adequately provide the significance-based test that you want, and instead pushing the encyclopedia even farther in the direction of being based on publicity rather than significance. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  I believe there is widespread support for something that leans towards a significance-based standard, rather than a purely we-can-source-it standard. This support appears in the form of complaints that "WhatamIdoing's Gas Station" is a violation of WP:IINFO, or in the form of proposals to merge (e.g.,) small-town businesses into the article about the town (per "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article" at the top of WP:N). WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• This is sprawling, but to the original point: I don't think you're wrong, but what defines a selective/indiscriminate source? There's an example above of an Olympics Encyclopedia. It is arguably selective in that it doesn't include any non-Olympians and arguably indiscriminate because it includes all Olympians. Is a source which includes every US President or every species of bird indiscriminate, or just a specialty source? If an Olympics encyclopedia is considered reliable, that's what matters. Is appearing on the cover of Time magazine better than a profile in a specialty publication? Sure, but at that point we're talking about extra notability. If it's in-depth coverage in a reliable source and independent of the source, it helps towards GNG. Doesn't really matter how selective it is. If its lack of selectivity hurts the extent to which it's reliable, that's fine, but then that's an RS issue rather than a WP:N issue. The only real exception to this that I can think of is like WP:CORPDEPTH, where there's less consideration of industry publications. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, I think the real answer to your question is just a variation on ILIKEIT. If a source reports on 100% of _____, and I think _____ is a worthy subject for an encyclopedia, then it's "not indiscriminate". But if I don't think _____ is a worthy subject for an encyclopedia, then it's "indiscriminate" and any other smear words I can think of.

  If you wanted a "real" answer, then one approach is to consider whether a similar type of publication (e.g., newspaper) in a different circumstance (e.g., a much larger city) would have done the same thing. All local news outlets cover the mayor; not all local news outlets cover the 100% of the restaurants in town. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  To answer I think that you need to acknowledge the notability ecosystem does some screening beyond just determining if there is enough material in RS's to build an article from. And, where applicable, the fact that a source has decided to cover them in particular in depth, and the prominence of the source enter into that evaluation. And, in that context and the OP question, "indiscriminate" means that no such particular decision has been made (other than meeting the general criteria that applies for the entire list/set) by the source. North8000 (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  OK, this is one of these things that really confuses me: the notability ecosystem does some screening beyond just determining if there is enough material in RS's to build an article from. Sure, the creeping tendency towards exclusion and hierarchy is always with us and frequently takes advantage of the surface ambiguity of the term "notability" to sneak some sort of significance criterion into conversations where it should be categorically disallowed. But the unfortunate fact that this happens doesn't make it any less contrary to the purposes of notability in particular and Wikipedia in general -- or any less harmful. The logical jump from "members of the community sometimes make this mistake" to "therefore it is not a mistake" is IMO a very hazardous one. -- Visviva (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

  Is significance really a problem?

  Because of the way the economics of news worked, many people, and nearly all businesses, living in a small town in the American West around 1900 were probably mentioned in the local newspaper multiple times: Miss Helen Smith married Mr Robert Brown, with the usual seven paragraphs on the wedding: the basic information on the ceremony, her dress, her family, his family, the bridal party, the food, and the gifts displayed, in that order. In due course, they had two children, and each time mother and baby were both doing well and looking forward to visitors on an upcoming Tuesday afternoon. Her great-aunt came to visit from the East Coast, visiting Smallville for the first time in thirty years and stayed with the Browns for three weeks (the newspaper tactfully doesn't mention why Great-Aunt Sarah left in the first place). Mrs Brown was inducted as a member of the Ladies' Auxiliary, and elected vice chair two years later, and she therefore hosted the Ladies' Auxiliary committee meeting in her home every eight weeks until she managed to get off the committee. Her family won the float contest for the Independence Day parade. She sewed the costumes for the children's play. She was elected chair of the Garden Club and promised to raise money to plant trees in the city park. She was in a car wreck on Main Street, but fortunately nobody was hurt. She won the blue ribbon at the county fair for pickles. Her daughter got married, with the regulation seven paragraphs about her wedding in the newspaper. The arrival of each of her grandchildren was briefly reported, both when they arrived on earth in the first place and also when the out-of-town grandchildren came to visit her, usually twice a year. The Browns held an open house to celebrate their 40th wedding anniversary. Her funeral got the usual four paragraphs: the date of her death (cause was considered tacky unless the death was itself a news event, like a car wreck), the funeral service, the survivors, and the burial service.

  Would you write an article about Helen Smith, or the dozen other ladies, and probably fifty men, in her small town who ended up in the paper for similar reasons? We'd have enough material to write something, but I'm not sure that what we would end up with would be an encyclopedia article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:06, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  That is addressed with NOTNEWS, as such material is clearly routine. What we should do is emphasize somewhere that this sort of coverage is not contributory to notability, to prevent editors from using it at AfDs. Or even better, ban all coverage local (and of clearly local interest) to the subject from counting toward notability... JoelleJay (talk) 16:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• Late coming in here, but I'm just going to lay down a marker that I do think the proposition advanced is wrong, on at least two levels. First, it is no coincidence that IINFO is not a source evaluation guideline. Trying to retcon some sort of consistency between two unrelated rules can be fun as an intellectual exercise, but has no place in a serious debate with serious consequences like AFD. Second, this proposition relies on improperly equating notability and significance. To the extent a notability inquiry is valid, it basically follows three steps: (1) is there a decent amount of solid material for an article here; (2) if not, is there some agreed criterion by which we should either assume that sources are very likely to exist, or recognize that the reader will be well-served by an article on the subject regardless; (3) if not, is there a decent merge target for any encyclopedic content. Bringing the "indiscriminacy" of a source into the step 1 inquiry conflates steps 1 and 2; but if we have adequate material for a solid article we have no reason to consider step 2 at all. -- Visviva (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

  You are forgetting the very big requirement at N that the topic does not violate NOT, as well as the potential arguments for NOPAGE. JoelleJay (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  There's also a requirement that editors use their best judgement about separate pages. It is not enough to be able to write an encyclopedia article; it must also be about a subject that isn't banned by WP:NOT and that editors agree to have. Perhaps Mrs Brown (née Mary Smith) should be merged to the town she lived in or to an article about the Townville Garden Club. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  Of course, but that's not what we're discussing here as I understand it. WP:NOT isn't part of WP:N or vice versa; they represent separate questions. The question wasn't whether IINFO and N are both principles that we follow in the organization of content, it was whether IINFO can be incorporated into N to make it more exclusionary. But making Wikipedia any more exclusionary than necessary diminishes our comprehensiveness and is contrary to our purpose for existing. -- Visviva (talk) 03:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  All of WP:NOT is already incorporated into WP:N, and has been for years and years now. It's right there at the top:

  A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

  1. It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right; and
  2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.

  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  Right. And as that passage makes clear, they are two separate inquiries. I guess we could have an interesting theoretical over whether every mention of one PAG in another PAG constitutes an incorporation by reference, but I'm a bit lost as to what that has to do with the question on the floor. -- Visviva (talk) 04:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

NOT is also incorporated into consideration of what constitutes SIGCOV, e.g., NOTNEWS employs the term "routine" to describe coverage (of any subject, not just of events) that is non-encyclopedic and therefore does not contribute to notability. JoelleJay (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Looking at NOTNEWS, I notice that it specifically says that routine coverage is "sometimes useful" but not "by itself" a justification for creating an article. That suggests that routine coverage contributes to notability but cannot "by itself" be considered fully sufficient.

(Also, SIGCOV isn't really related. The amount of information in the source ("SIGCOV") has nothing to do with whether the information is WP:ROUTINE.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Notability and list selection criteria

Over in this talk page discussion there is disagreement about whether notability can be used as a list selection criterion for a list of 'Notable persons' that appears as an article section. This guideline says The notability guideline does not apply to the contents of articles. It also does not apply to the contents of stand-alone lists, unless editors agree to use notability as part of the list selection criteria. - is it really the intent of this guideline to allow for the possibility of using notability in a stand-alone list, but not if a list happens to appear as a subsection of another article? - MrOllie (talk) 23:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

This discussion from 2018 at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) may also be helpful; it resulted in these changes to Wikipedia:Notability (people). (Sorry for not sharing this with you already, MrOllie; it took me a while to dig this up from nearly five years ago!). ElKevbo (talk) 00:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Notability can be used as an inclusion requirement for a list, as long as there is local consensus for that, but WP:N does not require that notability be used as a factor.

Most lists of people that would potentially include a large number of non-notable entries (such as alumni for schools) use notability as the inclusion metric. Masem (t) 00:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

How can notability be used to determine the contents of an article when this guideline explicitly says that it does not apply to the contents of articles? Please note that we're discussing embedded lists, not standalone lists.

If notability can be used to determine the contents of embedded lists - and this is certainly a very common practice (this specific discussion was initiated by a longtime editor doing just that) - then this guideline needs to be edited to reflect that. ElKevbo (talk) 00:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, notability can be used for inclusion. We technically separate stand-alone from embedded lists, but don't actually have guidance for embedded lists like we do for stand-alone lists. The result is we often apply WP:SAL, etc. to embedded lists (and thus WP:CSC and WP:LISTPEOPLE, which involve notability). YMMV. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

That's not what the guideline says. It would be helpful if it were edited to reflect actual practice. ElKevbo (talk) 00:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Common sense means that there must be some selection criteria for many lists, fully comprehensive lists for articles like Monterey,_California#Notable people or List of people from Birmingham could, of course, not contain every single resident of those places in all of history, and as such, some objective selection criteria is absolutely necessary. "Has a Wikipedia article" is a perfectly fine selection criteria, and does not conflict with any other guideline, and if you insist that it does, you're just being overly pedantic, and I have no time for that. "Has a Wikipedia article" is functionally synonymous with "Meets WP:N." We don't need to change anything about the guidelines or how we work. Guidelines such as WP:LISTPEOPLE, which states, "Because the subject of many lists is broad, a person is typically included in a list of people only if both of the following requirements are met: The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement, The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources." and that is sufficient, especially in light of the exceptions also listed on that page. --Jayron32 10:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

"'Has a Wikipedia article' is a perfectly fine selection criteria, and does not conflict with any other guideline" except for this one that explicitly says that it doesn't govern the contents of articles. Why in the world do you insist on allowing this blatant contradiction between written policy and practice? Wouldn't it be far simpler for everyone to just clarify this guideline? ElKevbo (talk) 12:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't forbid it either. Interestingly, I thought it used to explicitly do so for list articles and dab pages and other navigational aids, but it looks like it was removed at some point. We could just bring back the old text... --Jayron32 14:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

"The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles" is not ambiguous. If it's incorrect, it needs to be edited. ElKevbo (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Personally, though I myself have never found this confusing, it comes up often enough that I would support some clarifying text. Something like, (While the concept of notability on Wikipedia does not typically influence the contents of articles, in certain cases - like lists of notable people - it plays an indirect role in article content.). Newimpartial (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd be opposed to adding that, because it isn't notability that is affecting the content, it's consensus. Also, to ElKevbo, I see no contradiction, because the contexts are different. Mathglot (talk) 02:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm totally OK with that reading; I'm just getting tired of the mistaken view that community consensus cannot use the notability threshold as a bright-line for the inclusion of content, when obviously it *can* (but seldom does). Newimpartial (talk) 04:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, now I see what you are saying, I think: you want to short-circuit the misreading that makes some editors view notability threshold meaning that N is a no-go at all times for SELCRIT when that's not what it is saying at all. Right? If so, I agree with you. I might change the "does not typically influence", however, which seems to make N policy seem wishy-washy, when really it isn't at all, because N(ListArticle) governs whether ListArticle may exist, period, and does not govern the content. Confusing N(list-item) with N(ListArticle) may be to blame here for the misreading. If the included list items are blue-linked, then they have an article, and if editors did their job correctly, then those items happen to be notable in their own right, but there's no requirement for it a priori. If editors *choose* a WP:SELCRIT of "being notable in their own right" by consensus, as they have every right to do, then that's what the criterion is, and "notability" is not influencing the article content, consensus is. So, maybe some wording that removes "doesn't typically influence", which muddles the picture by conflating N(item) with N(ListArticle), and instead let's use some declarative (i.e., non-negative) wording that perhaps links SELCRIT and NNC and CONS, pointing out that editors at the article may choose any reasonable selection criteria for the items, including N(item) which is specifically mentioned at CSC as one possiblity. Perhaps we just need to repeat that here. Also, as a corollary, I'm not sure the "seldom does" is even true, but I haven't checked it out. Mathglot (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I like this approach. Jclemens (talk) 23:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

"it isn't notability that is affecting the content, it's consensus" But that local consensus cannot override this project-wide guideline. Rather, in practice editors agree to do this - use notability to determine whether items can be included in embedded lists - very, very frequently. That indicates that this guideline is out-of-step with practice and thus needs to be tweaked or we have to get a whole lot of editors - including most who have participated in this discussion - to change their editing practices and that doesn't seem practical. ElKevbo (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Going off Mathglot's comment above, perhaps language like "Notability is only used on a routine basis as a guideline to determine the appropriateness for a topic to have a standalone article. The contents of an article on a given topic are not required to be based on the principles of notability. However, editors may opt through local consensus to use notability as a guideline for inclusion or exclusion of content, such as the inclusion of names on a standalone or embedded "List of people from X". See WP:SELCRIT for more details." might be better. --Masem (t) 00:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Draft RfC to bring this guideline into alignment with prevailing practice

It's clear that this guideline - and the notability guideline for people - is contradicted by prevailing practice and many - likely most - strongly prefer the current practice. I have therefore drafted an RfC seeking to bring these two guidelines into alignment with the prevailing practice. I welcome help with this draft and constructive criticism. ElKevbo (talk) 01:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Concerns about NBAND #5

I would like to open a discussion with the hope of eliminating ambiguity that is vulnerable to subjective interpretation. I am opening the discussion here rather than WP MUSIC so the discussion wouldn't be entirely controlled by that Wikiproject.

The current phrasing in WP:NBAND#5: Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable is problematic because of some of Wikipedia community's tendency to circular reference to NBAND#5 about record labels when the label's notability with respect to WP:NCORP is questioned. Essentially, this allows a band that has been with any independent label that has been in business for "more than a few years" to automatically become notable, because "important" is extremely subjective. Graywalls (talk) 11:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

This entire criterion strikes me as fundamentally subjective; what constitutes a „major“ record label, and what does it mean for an indie label to be „important“? All of this should be based on descriptions of the labels in reliable sources, but instead, it‘s very subjective and unclear to editors not intimately familiar with the context of this industry.

There‘s also a certain circularity to the argument; bands can be notable if they have released under an important indie label, and indie labels can be important if they have a „roster of performers“. All of this should go back to reliable independent sources, but at least the way it is written here, it doesn‘t. Actualcpscm (talk) 11:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

You say, I am opening the discussion here rather than WP MUSIC so the discussion wouldn't be entirely controlled by that Wikiproject, but surely their input would be useful, right? Wouldn't it be prudent (and respectful) to at least notify the Wikiproject of this discussion? — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 02:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Remember, per N, a corporation (including a record label) is notable if it passes the GNG or NCORP. Jclemens (talk) 03:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I did notify what I felt was relevant here. I just notified Wikiproject Music discussion as well, just now. Graywalls (talk) 03:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jclemens that's generally a yes regarding SNGs, except NCORP. Other SNGs allow things that might not pass GNG an alternate way to pass. The higher standard of NCORP would be entirely useless if the standard GNG was all that was needed to be met. Since NCORP is referenced within GNG, I believe the expectation that companies need to satisfy NCORP is a reasonable interpretation Graywalls (talk) 03:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

The relevant part of N says It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right and, of course, NCORP is in the box on the right. If you want CORP to be a super-SNG that excludes the GNG, N needs to be modified to allow that. N is the only thing that makes any SNG anything more than an essay. Jclemens (talk) 03:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

That's wrong. We had a huge RFC on this, and developed the relevant section WP:SNG. SNGs can supercede the GNG, but this pretty much only in the case of NCORP (due to the AUD and COI issues) and NPROF (due to existing before WP:N in general). Masem (t) 04:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

That's my understanding as well, but WP:N really should be re-worded directing companies/organizations to NCORP. Essentially, the NCORGraywalls (talk) 04:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Masem, while I'm not unsympathetic to what you think the community has decided, that's not what N says, even in the SNG section: SNGs can also provide examples of sources and types of coverage considered significant for the purposes of determining notability, such as the treatment of book reviews for our literature guidelines and the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies. Some SNGs have specialized functions: for example, the SNG for academics and professors and the SNG for geographic features operate according to principles that differ from the GNG. Nothing in there about superseding, just operating differently. The fix you believe has consensus--and again, not disputing that RFCs may have been held on this--is not reflected in the wording of N. CORP can be as strict as it wants, but an article is still notable via either GNG or SNG as paths to notability for any sort of topic. Jclemens (talk) 06:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, but here's the rub with NBAND (which I firmly believe is a hot mess): who established those criteria in the first place, and what evidence has ever been presented verifying that those criteria really do reflect genuine notability? Ravenswing 07:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

If a corporation has in-depth sources but not sources that pass the strict requirements of NCORP, I don't think it will or should be considered notable. This is true even if those sources (without the requirements of NCORP) might otherwise be considered enough for GNG. In that sense, NCORP strengthens and thereby supersedes GNG.

Wikipedia:Notability (music) is unfortunately much more vague than some other notability guidelines about its relation to GNG: does it create a presumption of notability that can only be confirmed via GNG (as most SNGs do), is it based on GNG but with stricter sourcing requirements (as NCORP is), or does it stand separately from GNG (as PROF does)? I would guess that it should be a presumption of notability but maybe this needs to be clarified. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

As I've explained several times now, and as literally stated in the text you quote, NCORP describes what coverage counts toward GNG. An org can't meet GNG without meeting NCORP, because the interpretation of what sources can contribute to notability is directly dictated by NCORP. JoelleJay (talk) 03:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I will make here my usual point that there are other SNGs that also "supersede" GNG, especially NNUMBER (which is extremely restrictive) and NFILM (also restrictive, especially for films that have not entered production). Both of these clearly supersede GNG in their respective domains. Newimpartial (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I should add or clarify that we are not talking about complete overriding of the GNG

- specifically the goal of showing significant coverage from independent and secondary sources - but do add limits on that, such as the selection of sources for NCORP or the point in time that a standalone makes sense like NFILM. Masem (t) 15:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not unsympathetic to your (collective) perspective, but that's not what N says. Jclemens (talk) 23:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

In the relevant section WP:SNG it absolutely does. Maybe the one line in the lede needs to reflect this but there was a massively long discussion and RFC on the relationships which the wording of WP:SNG reflects. Masem (t) 00:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I mean, maybe I'm blind, but I looked through SNG and I simply do not see what you believe to be there. Enlighten me as to where it says an SNG can trump the GNG? Jclemens (talk) 03:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

@Masem, the SNG section doesn't even conflict with the "GnG oR sNg" text because the section explicitly states that certain SNGs dictate what can be used for GNG. Unlike most other SNGs, NCORP doesn't provide any criteria that "presume" GNG or that offer alternatives to notability; the criteria all simply explain what sources contribute to GNG for corporations. JoelleJay (talk) 03:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

That's an interesting interpretation, but entirely unsupported by the text. The GNG is a separate section, and the relevant bits in the SNG section logically only apply to the SNGs themselves. This is the first time someone's adequately explained where they think the SNG section affects the GNG. That's lexically and logically incorrect, of course, but I can at least understand where the people who've participated in an extensive RfC might have been under the misapprehension that this section said that. Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 04:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

SNGs can also provide examples of sources and types of coverage considered significant for the purposes of determining notability, such as the treatment of book reviews for our literature guidelines and the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies. Are you arguing that the statements "examples of sources and types of coverage considered significant for the purposes of determining notability" and "strict significant coverage requirements" refer to a different meaning of "significant coverage" than that used in the WP:significant coverage section above? And that the "requirements" are not in fact required to "determine notability"? JoelleJay (talk) 07:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Of course those words apply to SNGs. They do not apply to the GNG. This is clear from the positioning in the text: if the quoted sections were to apply to the GNG, they would have to be mentioned in the GNG or overall notability section... or even clearly mention that they apply to ALL notability not just SNG notability... Hence my "lexically and logically" comment. Again, I appreciate that you finally clued me into your argument, but the reason I didn't even understand it initially is that it is neither obvious nor correct. Again, this is a fixable problem, but until it's fixed--and I would advocate that if that is indeed the will of the community the wording should be fixed--the words don't mean what you think they were supposed to have meant. Jclemens (talk) 08:11, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

This is not like language slipped in by a random user that we're trying to resolve - this was a massive consensus-based RFC only a few years old that decided that that was how to present the connection between the GNG and the SNG.

The way you are presenting your argument is in the realm of BURO - "Oh , it should be said with the GNG, not later!". If consensus understood what the addition meant and its implications, that's how we'll treat it. Masem (t) 12:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Masem, we've interacted for well over a decade here, and I trust you understand that I point out the error in the best interests of the encyclopedia. It doesn't say what you say consensus determined. That's a problem. I used to write policy for a fortune 50 company, and while Wikipedia doesn't need that level of rigor, we owe it to ourselves to make the policies clear. Again, it took several back-and-forths, months after I first raised the issue, for anyone to explain to me why they thought policy was clear on this. For those who watched the relevant RfC unfold, I suspect you suffer from over-familiarity with the topic: you see it, because you lived it being hashed out. I don't recall participating in the RfC in question, am relatively certain I did not, and I couldn't find what you thought was clear even when I was looking for it. Again, I'm not challenging the consensus, just noting that policy as written now doesn't clearly implement it and should be clarified so that there is no question about what it means. Jclemens (talk) 18:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Sure, it could be clearer, but I also did not (IIRC) participate in that RfC and the relationship between GNG and SNGs and N is quite apparent. The first paragraph in WP:SNG covers those SNGs which presume in-depth, independent, reliable sourcing (e.g. GNG) through meeting their criteria. The first part of the second paragraph covers SNGs that dictate what contributes to notability by describing the principles of GNG in the context of certain subjects. The second part of the paragraph discusses the SNGs that bypass GNG altogether. And I have mentioned this to you specifically multiple times. JoelleJay (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

As a matter of common sense, SNG's, like WP:NCORP, WP:NSPORTS, and WP:NGEO, that provide tighter restrictions than GNG must overrule GNG. The relationship between SNG's and GNG should be better defined, but the lack of definition doesn't permit overruling the consensuses that established those more restrictive rules. BilledMammal (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

You mean re-defined, because SNG or GNG has been the way it's been for well over a decade. In fact, an AfD vote that says "Delete, fails NCORP even if GNG is met" is a non-policy-based discussion in that it doesn't mesh with how N defines them as parallel. Jclemens (talk) 23:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

The issue with that is that you are arguing that the SNG with, probably, the most community support, has no weight. I'd also agree with JoelleJay that there isn't really a conflict here; GNG provides a base level requirement, and then some SNG's add an asterisk to that saying that certain sources aren't sufficient to contribute to it. Similarly, WP:NRVE provides a base level requirement, and then other PAG's (eg, WP:SPORTSCRIT #5 and WP:MASSCREATE) add an asterisk to that. BilledMammal (talk) 05:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I've argued nothing of the sort. Any SNG is one path to notabilty; the GNG is another. Are you a programmer? Let's use programming terminology: the requirements (NCORP and other exclusive SNGs are the only path for a corporation to be notable) are not coded properly (as articulated in N) to produce the expected result. That's either not a problem (feature), if you are OK with GNG always being an alternative to any SNG, or a problem (bug) if you want SNGs to be exclusive. Jclemens (talk) 05:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I've argued nothing of the sort. But you have; you have argued that In fact, an AfD vote that says "Delete, fails NCORP even if GNG is met" is a non-policy-based discussion in that it doesn't mesh with how N defines them as parallel. Given that almost all of NCORP is concerned with establishing standards stricter than base-level GNG (These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals., emphasis mine) you are arguing that it has no weight.

I don't see any problem here because none of these are alternatives to GNG or NRVE; they merely clarify how those principles apply in specific circumstances. In other words, "fails NCORP" means "fails GNG". BilledMammal (talk) 06:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

This is getting into WP:IDHT territory, I'm afraid. N says SNG or GNG. Do you understand what a logical "or" means? NCORP has plenty of weight as an SNG. It has zero impact on the GNG, which remains unchanged by anything in any SNG. Jclemens (talk) 08:11, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what I'm saying; I'm saying that some SNG's, like NCORP, impact what sources count towards GNG, meaning the "or" doesn't come into play here. This is supported by WP:N, which says SNGs can also provide examples of sources and types of coverage considered significant for the purposes of determining notability; there is no reason to believe that this statement, which speaks to notability generally, only applies to SNG's.

This is getting into WP:IDHT territory Given that your position has been routinely rejected by the community, as evidenced by the enforcement of WP:NCORP, I don't think that's an appropriate claim for you to throw around. Regardless, I think it's clear that we're not going to agree so I am going to back away from this discussion now. BilledMammal (talk) 09:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree with Jclemens here, but it seems to me that this discussion has been made more confusing than it needs to be because BilledMammal and JoelleJay are using "GNG" seemingly to mean "significant coverage in reliable sources", while Jclemens and others are using "GNG" to mean "the specific test for significant coverage that is set out at WP:GNG". It seems clear to me that certain SNGs, like NCORP and NNUMBER (and for that matter also WP:NBASIC, though that is more subtle) set out tests of "significant coverage in reliable sources" that are intentionally more restrictive than the test set out in WP:GNG. Within these areas, we are supposed to use the test in the SNG and not the vanilla GNG, as NNUMBER at least sets out quite clearly. This "stricter test" scenario is different from "bypassing" SNGs like NPROF and "predictive" SNGs like NSPORT. It seems to me that editors could have a better time discussing what they want from WP:N if they would recognize the complexity of what currently exists, and reiterating a blurring of the distinction between GNG as principle (significant RS coverage) and GNG as a specific test of significant RS coverage - well, it would at least make it easier to discuss what North8000 calls the "ecosystem". Newimpartial (talk) 11:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

The easy way to remember this is that the WP:N guideline is what covers that we want to see "significant coverage in reliable sources", whereas the GNG -- and many SNGs to a degree -- is a specific test of WP:N. What is happening is that the "significant coverage" is being mislabeled as the GNG. Masem (t) 12:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

This is helpful, Newimpartial. Within these areas, we are supposed to use the test in the SNG and not the vanilla GNG, as NNUMBER at least sets out quite clearly. Um, where, for any topic, does it outright say that the SNG should be used instead of the GNG? If that's what we want, we should say that. Right now, the lead of N makes it very clear that GNG or SNG (as listed on the N page) are alternative paths to notability. My argument, again, is that if we want to make the hierarchy of notability you quoted normative, it needs to be both explicit and in the basic N formulation, not oblique and in a sub-paragraph. Jclemens (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

To answer your question about where any SNG says that it must he used in place of GNG, NNUMBER for one (sic.) seems quite clear:

text from NNUMBER

These guidelines on the notability of numbers address notability of individual numbers, kinds of numbers and lists of numbers. In the case of mathematical classifications of numbers, the relevant criteria are whether professional mathematicians study the classification and whether amateur mathematicians are interested by it. Therefore, the first question to ask is: Have professional mathematicians published papers on this topic, or chapters in a book? This is the question that will apply, only slightly reworded, to each of the kinds of articles about numbers we will consider.

This text doesn't allow for alternate paths to notability for sets of numbers outside of the criteria given.

Likewise, WP:ORGCRIT says,

text from ORGCRIT
These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals. The guideline, among other things, is meant to address some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion.

The differences between NORG and the GNG that ORGCRIT acknowledges would not make sense in relation to their avowed goals - "to prevent gaming of the rules" - if they could simply be bypassed by an appeal to GNG.

As far as the first section of WP:N is concerned, the way I have parsed the element numbered 1 in the guideline that for a number of years amounts to, "the topic meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right, or both, depending on the subject area to which the topic belongs". I am fully aware that the italicized text is not in the guideline, but more anything else WP:N says or could say, it reflects the way the SNGs and GNG interact in practice (namely, "it depends on the topic area").

digression on NOT

I would also point out another deficiency in that passage, in numbered point 2: it seems from this text at the top of WP:N that NOT is a separate criterion untouched by notability guidelines, but in reality a number of the SNGs essentially "codify" NOT (WP:NFILM comes prominently to mind here) or even, like NAUTHOR and GEOLAND, codify some of the "opposite of NOT" (which wikipedians so often seem shy to talk about, for reasons I can't quite grasp): namely, encyclopaedic considerations that weigh in favor of the creation and retention of certain sorts of articles.

Newimpartial (talk) 18:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Sigh. Thanks for doing that--I really do appreciate it. However none of the SNGs you quote ever says "This SNG applies, and only this SNG applies, to this sort of article. A GNG pass is not enough." or anything close to that. Even if they did, of course, an SNG is hierarchically inferior to N, so SNGs only get to make special rules for the entire encyclopedia, if N says they can which it does not. I don't mind being in WP:1AM territory here, but the more folks here try and convince me that N currently says that SNGs are the ONLY way to notability for certain topics, the more I wonder if this is some sort of elaborate prank. Surely I cannot be the only one who sees the deficiencies in the logical structure of N that prevent the consensus interpretation argument from being derived from the plain language of the guideline as written? And yet... here we are. I've pretty much said everything I can say to encourage a dialogue towards cleaning up the written policy to match the stated consensus... Y'all can work with that, or not. Jclemens (talk) 02:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Jclemens: I sympathize with your frustration at the suboptimal writing of the first section of WP:N, and share your desire to encourage a dialogue towards cleaning up the written policy to match the stated consensus. However, your elaborate prank reading of the situation seems to overweight a doggedly literal reading of that section while underweighting certain key facts that really ought to be part of your mental frame when deciding on the actuation.

extended content

1. In spite of your claim that SNGs are hierarchically inferior to the GNG or WP:N, I don't don't see any reason to see things that way, especially in terms of WP:CONLEVEL. After all, many SNGs have been around for longer than key elements of WP:N, such as GNG, and while some of them acknowledge the GNG (or NBASIC for biographies) as an alternate path to Notability, others like the two I mentioned are clearly written as the only path to presumptive notability within their scope. The fact that they are written this way, and have the same CONLEVEL as the WP:N opening section, really ought to influence how any editor understands the relationships between GNG and SNG. 2. I don't see any reason why the first section of WP:N should be read as "taking precedence" over the SNG section, either - if anything, the SNG section should have precedence, as representing a more recent consensus. The SNG section specifies a number of NOT considerations and sourcing requirements that make clear - at least to my reading - that there is no "end run to GNG" available to topics covered, for example, by NORG or to which BLP1E considerations apply.

So, look: I would be happy for us to rewrite the first section of WP:N to acknowlege more precisely how GNG, SNGs and NOT are actually related. But the infelicity of the existing langauge doesn't in any way change the way things work in practice, which is that orgs that "pass" GNG but "fail" NORG are typically not kept at AfD (and, I would argue, this is clearly the "right" result when taking into account all relevant consensus determination on enwiki over the last 5 or 10 years). Newimpartial (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

NBASIC is clearly less restrictive as it permits piecemeal SIGCOV. But we've been over this many times. JoelleJay (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

But JoelleJay, GNG also permits essentially the same thing using different language.

texts and exegisis

From GNG: There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. If there are any meaningful differences between "the number of sources required depends on the quality and depth of coverage in each source" and "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability", then the latter seems clearly more strict than the former. NBASIC demands a bright-line minimum of two, distinct, independent sources while SIGCOV is much woolier - but quite evidently more permissive, when the subsection titled "Sources" read together with that titled "Independent of the subject", in the GNG, by any plausible reading

While SIGCOV in particular is difficult for some editors to parse, it has always seemed evident to me that the requirement for "multiple independent sources" in NBASIC is restrictive in comparison to the GNG. Newimpartial (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

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. There is no interpretation of this sentence that permits SIGCOV in RS that are not independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability is pretty universally interpreted as meaning a non-SIGCOV (but still non-trivial) IRS source can be combined with another non-SIGCOV (but still non-trivial) IRS source. This is a departure from widely accepted reading of GNG as requiring each GNG-contributing source be SIGCOV in IRS. I know you disagree with that because "a single source can't be "sources", therefore no single source is required to meet each of the other bullet points in GNG either" (or something), but it's been the overwhelming consensus at AfD for many years. JoelleJay (talk) 00:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are talking here about non-independent sources in this context, since no-one else is discussing them.

discussion of SIGCOV vs. SIRS

The text of the "sources" subsection of GNG reads: There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. This seeems clear and is consistent with the whole of the GNG, that the the requirements for significant coverage is applied at the level of the sourcing of the topic as a whole, q.v. the opening line 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, This is a different logoc from WP:NORG, where WP:SIRS establishes a depth requirement (well above the exclusion of trivial mentions at GNG) at the level of each individual source, for the topics the guideline covers. I'm sure some editors have sloppily treated SIRS and SIGCOV as synonymous at AfD, and I have seen you argue previously that SIRS and SIGCOV are equivalent. However, I don't see any basis in GNG for this view, and I haven't seen other editors supporting your interpretation of SIGCOV as equal to SIRS in policy discussions, either.

The fact remains that, per the "sources" section, that GNG is different from NBASIC in being less restrictive - SIGCOV can be met by a single, independent RS while NBASIC cannot, for example. It seems pretty clear to me that NBASIC is stricter than GNG, and that if you want for GNG to function ike SIRS, it would require a community processes (and the eddorts I've seen in that direction have never met with much support...). Newimpartial (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Again, we've been over this many times, including in discussions where your piecemeal position was unanimously opposed. What you're nitpicking from GNG is also found in the language at ORGCRIT:

presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

GNG:

received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

The only difference between NORG and GNG that is stated in ORGCRIT is stronger emphasis on quality of the sources. Moreover,

multiple sources are generally expected is universally understood as "multiple with very rare IAR exceptions".

NBASIC departs from the expectations of GNG both in text and in practice by permitting non-significant sources to count toward notability. This is why it is employed as a clutch so routinely at AfDs when no one can find true SIGCOV of a person. JoelleJay (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are pointing to a passage where GNG and NORG run parallel while ignoring the subsequent passage that makes them different. There is no equivalent in GNG to Wp:SIRS, which states (in part),

Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other and meet the four criteria below to determine if a source qualifies towards establishing notability...An individual source must meet all of these criteria to be counted towards establishing notability; each source needs to be significant, independent, reliable, and secondary. In addition, there must also be multiple such sources to establish notability.

These statements are true of SIRS but are not true of GNG, and are only partially true of NBASIC. This is why NORG is stricter than NBASIC, which is stricter than GNG. It is simply incorrect to state that The only difference between NORG and GNG that is stated in ORGCRIT is stronger emphasis on quality of the sources - unless you are for some reason trying to exclude SIRS from being part of NORG, but I think I have been quite explicit in maintaining that SIRS is part of WP:NORG, just as it is presented on the relevant guideline page. Newimpartial (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Your belief (which I've only seen expressed by one other regular user) that a source can count towards GNG (which is distinct from notability) when it isn't secondary, independent, or SIGCOV as long as there are other sources that each meet at least one of those criteria has been repeatedly rebuffed elsewhere, including by the literal wording of GNG where SIGCOV must be contained in independent RS (that "should be" secondary). We also had 4+ highly experienced editors at the AfC discussion addressing exactly this question who stated the standard interpretation of GNG was that each source must be SIGCOV, independent, reliable, and secondary, with minor topic-dependent leeway for how much text counts as "significant" and the use of more "holistic" impressions of encyclopedic merit for PAGEDECIDE rather than GNG purposes. This is further concordant with the overwhelming interpretation of GNG at AfD (which you don't seem to have much experience in?); in particular, the looser standards of NBASIC are frequently used at athlete AfDs as a crutch in the absence of GNG sources (which I'm sure Ravenswing and Reywas92 in this thread can attest to). JoelleJay (talk) 23:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I feel as though I have entered a bizarro world in this discussion. Why would you hold that NBASIC allows more flexibility than GNG in the assessment of sources? NBASIC has a bright-line of two independent sources, GNG does not, and the depth of coverage that must be contained in the independent, reliable sources that are used to establish significance is no looser than GNG - or at least, you have not shown any evidence that it is.

Also, it is not my current view (and also not an assumption of my comments here) that a source can count towards GNG (which is distinct from notability) when it isn't secondary, independent, or SIGCOV as long as there are other sources that each meet at least one of those criteria. Only the significance requirement is fungible in this way, in the sense that one mention in great depth can compensate for all other independent RS mentions being brief (though non-trivial), and likewise a large number of mid-complexity sources can compensate for the lack of two deep ones. But this isn't really quite the right way to think of this; GNG SIGCOV has always been something arrived at by summing the independent, reliable sourcing for something and seeing whether that total is significant, and not by assessing whether the two "deepest" independent RS are each deep enough. I understand that the latter is often done at AfD, and that many SNGs work that way, but the GNG is actually rather clear on the point - but enwiki is quite given to urban legends of this kind, especially when they align with the prior convictions of many editors.

As far as the AfC discussion you have linked is concerned, I do not see 4+ highly experienced editors agreeing with your interpretation, and I see at least one very experienced editor saying that AfC is not the right place for that discussion, so I'm not sure what that link is intended to demonstrate to is here - which actually is the correct venue for such exegesis. If you are trying to discredit me by citing views I once held but no longer do - well I'm not sure how that is a productive use of anyone's time. Newimpartial (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment - I would be inclined to read NMUSIC in parallel to WP:AUTHOR - just as the author of any two notable (i.e., independently-reviewed) books is presumed Notable, a band that has released two notable (i.e., major label or notable indie) albums is presumed Notable. As other editors have pointed out, NMUSIC is rather more vague than NAUTHOR and NBOOK about all of this - I have my suspicions about the reasons for this, but unless someone wants to ask me so doubt my various speculations on that are very important. The point of NMUSIC in this context ought to be that we can identify notable albums, and bands that have released at least two notable albums are presumed Notable. (The one additional comment I will make about the NMUSIC text is that, while I understand the "major label" and "notable indie" concepts historically, I think the reference in NBAND5. is unfortunate and a simpler reference to "notable albums" would work better.)

The other point I would make is about encyclopaedicity - I think it should be clear to any editor able to step back from their personal preferences that, in the domain of recorded music, readers of an online encyclopedia benefit the most from fully navigable (and categorizable) sets of articles for all notable bands, for all notable individual musicians who have at any time been members of those bands (and even marginally notable individuals who have been members of multiple notable bands, especially for navigation and categorization), and for all notable albums that those bands have released (on which the individual performing musicians are often also visible). Readers of an online encyclopaedia do not benefit by efforts of editors to restrict articles only to especially "significant" bands, especially "significant" performers, or especially "significant" albums, above a typically modest threshold of Notability. Newimpartial (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Missing the point there: you're making a completely subjective value judgment just like most other people seem to be. What does "notable" mean to you? And no, not by falling back on a set of very flawed criteria. What defines a "notable" band, as opposed to a "significant" one, beyond semantics? Why should two "notable" works be the minimum requirement, as opposed to four, or six, or one? Ravenswing 11:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

To answer your question, what I mean by Notability here is "meeting Wikipedia standards of notability", which aside from special considerations in a particular domain amounts to, "having a credible claim to significance and discussed in independent, reliable sources". I think for recordings we would be much better off simply treating them like books and films - they are notable if people independently recognize them e.g., if people write criticism about them. And bands should follow the principle embedded in NCREATIVE (and the explicit restriction to clarify that NOTINHERITED is not an issue here) - bands that have released multiple notable albums are themselves Notable. Our readers benefit when this is done, and there isn't any completely subjective value judgment - if critics that are independent of the subject have reviewed multiple albums, then the band should be deemed to meet Notability criteria. A "notable" band is a procedural question of what the sources say, while "significance", as you imply, would involve subjective judgement and is unhelpful in this domain IMO. (The "credible claim to significance" is, of course, a term of art from WP:PROD that I would like to see more widely used - examples of a "credible claim to significsnce" ought to include "has released multiple notable albums" just as "having published two books that have received RS reviews" already counts as a credible claim to significance, in terms of enwicki P&Gs.) Newimpartial (talk) 12:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I've not used PROD much so I could be wrong, but I've never heard of CCS used in that context (I guess it could be used as a reason to deprive but so could anything). The way it is used for A7, etc, is explicitly distinguished from notability. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I checked at the history of music notability page. The gist of the wording hasn't changed since 2005 or so. Another thing I remember being used by a keep advocate somewhere was the album's gold status. This means sell 2,000 copies in Slovakia and the passes Wiki notability. List_of_music_recording_certifications 2,000 is all it takes in Slovakia for gold. Graywalls (talk) 03:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

And in 2005, we were mostly spitballing. What determined SNGs back then were a handful of editors (or one eloquent one) tossing up criteria that seemed to them good, and declaring them the notability standard. I suspect the sound of crickets in response to my ongoing question as to what evidence anyone has produced linking these criteria to meeting the GNG translates to "Not a shred, and we know it." Ravenswing 11:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ravenswing, if you want another perfect example of this just look at the essay WP:NJOURNALS... JoelleJay (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Is that essay widely vetted on? Graywalls (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@Graywalls I don't know what you're asking. JoelleJay (talk) 02:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Chubbles:, you've cited the #5 several times in AfD related to recording label businesses. Previous discussions supporting acceptance of such is appreciated. Graywalls (talk) 03:45, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not interested in discussing policy at this venue; I volunteer here to write about music. If and when the music-focused editors revisit this topic, I may contribute. Chubbles (talk) 05:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@Chubbles You don't have to take the time to discuss. All I am requesting is you provide links to RFCs or discussions that lead up to strong appearance of consensus starting to build up showing NMUSIC #5 is even remotely relevant to record label notability. Graywalls (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Refocus the discussion re NBAND

Folks, I think we have wandered off topic… the question is: 1) do we need to amend NBAND #5 to eliminate the circular reasoning of “Band is notable due to label / Label is notable due to band”? 2) If so, how? Blueboar (talk) 12:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes. By making it so labels do not make a band notable. The difference here is notable bands are the main way a label becomes notable. The label is not the main way a band becomes notable -- there is a vast music publishing structure which writes articles about bands and albums, but rarely labels. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to say anything about the Notability of labels, but as far as NBAND #5 is concerned, I believe - as I stated above - that it would work better if it referred simply to notable albums, with that notability defined in the usual way as based on independent RS reviews, etc. This would run parallel to WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NBOOK, which I take to be the relevant comparison. Newimpartial (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Prominent labels used to be be a strong indicator regarding a band but they no longer are. North8000 (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Refocussing the discussion seems appropriate here. Personally, I would argue that we do need to rewrite this, because circular notability criteria like this contribute to a mechanism of bands/labels granting each other notability, which I think conflicts with the focus on independence that notability criteria are generally expected to have. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Whatever the rewording is, I am opposed to causing leniency to be opened up that allows record labels to be declared notable without having to meet NCORP. Many record label articles are made up of a large roster as the main content and when I look at the linked articles, many are clearly non-notable. So, "notable" means any bands that have a blue link?? Graywalls (talk) 23:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Definitely would not weigh notability of bands by their labels. Labels have little input into the creative process used to make songs, so they are less likely to be the subject of discussion compared to bands. A label with lots of GNG-notable bands but otherwise clearly GNG notable would still be reasonable to have an article for purposes of organization. --Masem (t) 00:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Bands are notable because they have received significant coverage in secondary sources. Not because they do what bands do. #5 should be eliminated altogether, as should most of the rest of the criteria besides #1. Or they should at least have to meet more than one of the criteria. Reywas92^Talk 01:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Eliminating labels altogether would be a fine step. That's always been a violation of NOTINHERITED; just remove #5 altogether. I also concur with Graywalls that the minimum level a label should meet is NCORP. Heck, the surest way to cure NBAND would be to strike ALL NOTINHERITED elements. An album/song is notable (or not) in its own right, and not dependent on its performers. A musician is notable (or not) in their own right, and not dependent on any associated group, album or song. A band is notable (or not) in its own right, and not dependent on the notability of its component performers. Ravenswing 04:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with the point here about labels and about non-inheritability from a band to its songs, but I disagee with the other direction. The language in NOTINHERIT itself that says that works make their creator notable (books making their author notable, etc.) should continue to apply to albums and bands. It is readers of an online encyclopaedia who benefit from being able to navigate from bands to component musicians to bands (and to albums), as musicians reconfigure themselves into different bands. The purpose of any encyclopaedia is to serve the needs of its readers, so let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Newimpartial (talk) 09:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

It is readers of an online encyclopedia who benefit from being able to navigate between notable articles which contain significant content. Too many of these coatrack band articles come down to "The band members were X, Y, Z and Notable Guy, and they came out with a single album that didn't chart, and broke up four months later, the end." Too many of these coatrack musician articles come down to "Soandso was a bass guitarist for Notable Band, CV included, and played in Notable Band for two years before dropping out to become a pig farmer, yadda yadda yadda, the end." This tells us nothing that can't be handled in the main article in a paragraph ... or in altogether too many cases, in a couple of sentences.

With that, allow me to correct you. The language in NOTINHERITED doesn't say that works make their creators notable. It states that there are four SNGs (involving books, artists, music and films) that proffer exceptions to the rule. These exceptions are lingering bad decisions made in the early years of Wikipedia, and they should no more be graven in stone than other contemporary rules in which their abuses became too much for the editing base to tolerate ... unless you're arguing for the reinstatement of WP:PORNBIO, or that WP:NSPORTS should again read that anyone who's ever played as much as five minutes of the top level of any sport in any country should be automatically notable thereby? Ravenswing 12:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Not disagreeing on the main point, but I would think that if, for example, we have a band that is not GNG-notable but has dozens of GNG-notable songs and albums (a condition I think near impossible to happen given how music coverage works), it would be reasonable for purposes of navigation to have a page about the band that includes their notable works. When that threshold (the number of required songs/albums) is passed, I don't know, but it definitely would likely need to be in double digits figures. Similarly for a label, having a dozen+ notable bands would be reason to have a page about the label for navigation purposes. Note this is far larger than what NBAND#5 sets. Masem (t) 13:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that such a scenario is nearly impossible, if one were to qualify that at all. But here's the rub: is it really in the encyclopedia's interest to have hundreds or even thousands of articles on fringe bands/musicians just because one such might -- and we are talking about a hypothetical here -- conceivably fall through the cracks? I don't believe so. Ravenswing 15:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Remember that, should a highly implausible situation occur, the community can always decide to simply WP:Ignore all rules. Thus a specific article can be kept even if it does not pass GNG or its relevant SNG. Nothing requires us to delete an article we think is beneficial. Guidelines should not need to account for every plausible rare exception. Blueboar (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Exactly this. Guidelines should be written for the majority of cases, not some hypothetical oddball edge case, as that is exactly what IAR is for. The example I give for that with some frequency is that we have exactly zero independent sources for the article on humans, as each and every one of those sources was written by a human, but no one would say with a straight face that we should delete that article. That's the odd edge case where applying the rules as written would result in an absurd outcome, so we just ignore them in that instance. But that doesn't mean we should scrap the GNG, it just means, as the very top of every guideline page says, that there is an occasional need to make an exception to them. But guidelines should be applicable to the 99.9% of cases, not the 0.1%. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

How often does IAR successfully get accepted anyhow? Graywalls (talk) 06:59, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

At AfD, basically whenever there are enough editors to form a local ILIKEIT consensus in defiance of PAGs. See all the AfDs ending in keep due entirely to the topic meeting the fake guideline NJOURNALS... JoelleJay (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

As I have stated in other contexts (e.g., here), I partially disagree with what Ravenswing says about what benefits the readers of an online encyclopaedia. My sense is that the current mood on-wiki, a sort of "hoist the depth requirements" stance that sees stubs and near-stubs as abhorrent, runs counter to the affordances of an online encyclopaedia and the expectations readers of such an encyclopedia typically have. Some editors seem to hold the view that it is always, or typically, better for readers to glom information into longer articles on an ad hoc basis without a consistent pattern - for example, to treat a musician's participation in two bands in those two band articles without the musician themself having even a basic article. As a preference this strikes me as un-encyclopaedic, as it tends to render the category system, the list system, the hyperlink system (for mentions in other articles) and the mouse-over text and google preview functions, well, dysfunctional.

extended commentary

I have the impression that some editors have in the back of their mind a conception of Wikipedia as a great body of text, in which article titles and articles themselves are essentially navigational aids within that (fundamental) corpus. And I suppose I have one of the most contrary views to that - I see wikipedia as an assemblage of nodes, of which conventional articles are one kind of node and list articles, stub articles, disambiguation pages, redirects and categories are, in their different ways, other kinds of nodes. Yes, these nodes contain text of varying kinds including hypertext, but it is the way the nodes themselves are organized that has the greatest impact, as I see it, to the health of an online encyclopedia. It is to feed this "node" system that article types like (sourced) geo-stubs, species stubs, and author and band near-stubs seem to me like a clear gain to readers, and their absence a clear loss. And taken as a whole, each of these article types is not a "nearly impossible phenomenon" that could be handled by IAR - and not a "mistake" arising from early wikipedians' recreational drug use - but an actual value that has been recognized in guidelines like GEOLAND, NAUTHOR and, yes, NMUSIC and whose erosion has a direct, negative impact on the usefulness and therefore the relevance of Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia by humans, for humans. If we wanted a corpus of summary text that would reflect proportionately the sum of human knowledge as recorded in writing, we now have algorithms that can (or soon will be able to) do that much better than Wikipedia ever could. The specific value of Wikipedia is found in human judgement, and organizing knowlege (as in the "nodes" I have just described) is one of the areas where human judgment is still essentially irreplacable.

Also, I don't really appreciate the straw goat-style slippery slope argunentation about NOTINHERITED. First of all, we should all remember - as NOTINHERITED itself reminds us - that NOTINHERITED is not a rule, nor does it even have the status of policy or guideline. Rather, it is one section of an essay and, represents, if anything, more of a post hoc rationalization than a principle IMO. Second, I for one don't actually object to "non-inheritability" as a general principle, but that essay section would align better with the Notability guidelines and effective article selection if the key takeaway were more clearly "Notability is not necessarily inherited" or "assiciation with a notable topic doesn't guarantee Notability", though the latter is perhaps more clearly a truism than editors who flog NOTINHERITED at AfD would be comfortable with. But finally, in any event, it seems to me that the "exceptions" recorded in NCREATIVE, NBOOK, NFILM and NMUSIC aren't really comparable to PORNBIO, because they actually address principles of "what makes a good encyclopaedia" that are more important for readers than the alternative criterion, preferred by some editors, of applying a uniform sourcing standard to all topics when determining Notability. I believe I have written quite enough, above, about why I believe this to be the case, but it seems highly relevant to the question of whether not to replicate the structure of NAUTHOR within NBAND, which I would find advisable. Newimpartial (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I apologize this is not going to be the post I had hoped to provide. I've been not very active here lately because of RL issues. Most good, some bad, one very bad, but with much improved outlook. I'm mostly going to be offline for the next few weeks to take care of the last issue. But I aplogize if I don't address several things I intended to directly, as I have very limited time even today.

The TLDR is that I don't think that NCORP is the best default notability guideline for record labels. I've explained my position at numerous record label AfDs. I beg that you read what I wrote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afternoon Records (3rd nomination), [[1]], Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Machine Group. These are not IAR arguments, but based upon WP:V, WP:WHYN and WP:PRESERVE.

Regarding NMUSIC#5, I think it is important that notability guidelines are not just for deletion discussions, but are a guide to content creators looking to see if a topic is worth writing. The criteria is an indication of notability, not proof of notability. It doesn't work in every situation. The role of record labels has changed significantly since 1889 (year of first commercially released recordings). The guideline does not work well for the 78rpm era, when "albums" were usually classical releases starting in the 1920s. Album sets of 78rpm popular music didn't really begin in significant numbers until the 1940s. I think the guideline is a good indicator of notability during the 1950s through the 1980s, when operating a label with notable artists was a much more difficult endeavor. It's a decent guideline for the pre-ditital era, where so many sources that would cover the topic are not available online. Since the digital era, the role and activities of record labels have changed significantly. You don't have to release a physical product anymore. The barriers are significantly reduced. I'm probably just old and biased.

I think it is very important to pay attention to what Blueboar said about circular reasoning. Walled gardens do not indicate notability. The guideline should at least add something like "and said bands are entirely notable outside of association with said record label." (I'm sure the group could come up with a vast improvement.)

Other previous discussions which may be useful are at [2], [3], [4], and [5]. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

RfC at WP:NOT

There is an RfC at WP:NOT regarding modifications to WP:NOTDIRECTORY that editors may be interested in contributing to. There are two proposals, which can be found here and here. BilledMammal (talk) 10:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Confusing passage

In section Wikipedia:Notability#Subject-specific_notability_guidelines, it reads Wikipedia articles are generally written based on in-depth, independent, reliable sourcing with some subject-specific exceptions relating to independence.

I find the wording "relating to independence" very confusing. Is it referring to source independence or something else? Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Correct. See Wikipedia:Independent sources for more. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@Ca, if you don't mind me oversimplifying matters, what it really means is: Wikipedia:Notability (academics) famously does not require independent sources. That guideline accepts not only articles written entirely from the subject's own writings, but also subjects about whom we are reasonably certain that nobody independent of them has ever written anything about them.

The sentence in question, though, as it makes a statement about article content instead of whether the subject qualifies for an article, could just be removed with no harm. Anyone who really needs an official sentence saying that articles should be WP:Based upon independent sources can quote from WP:NPOV instead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I knew that academics were exempt from our basic WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV requirements. I didn't know they were also exempt from WP:INDEPENDENT sourcing requirements as well. Wow. Cbl62 (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

The last time I tried to address that directly was about five years ago. I tried to change one of the lesser-used criteria ("a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions") to specify that your own employer's POV that you had a significant impact on higher education wasn't good enough to prove this. It was reverted less than two hours later. You can read the subsequent discussion in the archives. As nearly every editor who opposed independent sources in that discussion is still an active editor today, I doubt that the outcome would be any different today. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Reading the linked discussion, I don't see any editors "opposing independent sources". I see editors opposing the imposition of a new requirement for independent sources where one had not previously existed.

My own view is that while, indeed, Wikipedia articles are generally written based on independent sources, there are situations where it is appropriate to relax the requirement for independence - independence being perhaps the slipperiest of the IRS criteria. The examples that are most prominent for me are instances like ANYBIO 1 or CREATIVE 4(b), where editors will use an absolute requirement for independent sourcing to deny that an awarding body's announcement of a significant award or gallery or museum statements about the contents of their permanent collections can be used to grant presumptive Notability, as these SNGs are designed to do (both offering direct presumption of notability rather than being "GNG predictors"). Newimpartial (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

In past discussions, I was told that independent sources was simply too high a bar for academics to clear, and if we really required all articles to have independent sources, then we would have to delete most of the articles about professors (and especially about profs who hadn't been involved in a public scandal). It seems that academics are like the lady of a century ago, whose name was only to appear in the newspaper at her birth, her marriage, and her death.

The other story they tell is that articles about academics aren't really normal BLPs anyway; they're articles about the academic's research output, supported by non-independent primary sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Cbl62, while in theory NPROF articles should still be "based on secondary independent sources", in practice you're right that they can basically get by without any expectation that independent evaluation of their work exists. Or we get editors arguing that the professor's university awarding them distinguished professorship constitutes "independent" evaluation, or that speaker profiles on them from the hosts of conferences they speak at, or bios accompanying their receipt of an award published by the awarding org, are independent. That's why at the academic AfDs I participate in, if I end up !voting to keep based on the academic having substantially more citations and higher h-index than their peers in the same subfield, I generally also personally validate that they have SIGCOV of their work that directly attributes them as the senior or first author so that we can at least describe what their most important work is using independent sourcing rather than their own university website. The issue seems to be that some editors believe anything academic or involving academia (see essays-treated-as-guidelines NSPECIES, NJOURNALS) is exempted from needing IRS SIGCOV because such topics are inherently "encyclopedic" (even though I've never seen any other even specialized encyclopedia that covers every single species or reputable journal) and because they don't believe those topics can be promotional or can have non-neutral primary coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 16:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

A challenge to our fuzzy ecosystem of notability is that there is no "one-size fits all" approach to sourcing and notability. On on hand, our expectations for determining notability are somewhat lax (two or three significant sources). On the other hand, we know that coverage does not mean real-world significance or influence (such as someone receiving coverage for growing a large vegetable). Along the same lines, we expect independence in sourcing, discounting material from an employer's webpage, but if a journalist uses lots of that press release from the employer, suddenly the material is transformed and independent (and can be used for determining the notability of the subject). Now, I do not suggest we can our should change to a more subjective measure of notability and inclusion in this encyclopedia, but we must recognize that our guidelines are more art than science. - Enos733 (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Giant pumpkins are totally notable. ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

It is basically impossible for someone to obtain a position as a professor without some amount of "independent evaluation of their work". The issue is that much of this evaluation, in the form for instance of in-depth letters of evaluation from independent academics with subject-matter expertise, required at most hiring, tenure, and promotion decisions, are not available to us. Instead, when we deem someone notable through WP:PROF#C3 or #C5, we are relying on the assumption that the society or university that gave them an honorary level of membership or distinguished professorship did so through an independent evaluation of their work that might be unavailable to us. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

My problem with this is that, since it's unavailable to us, doesn't that mean that (assuming those are the only sources and that no published independent sources that would satisfy the WP:GNG exist at all), we will never be able to write more than a stub about them? Can a bare rewording of their institution's page about them really be called an article? --Aquillion (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Those bare stubs are highly valued, and they may be more valued for being stubs than for providing an complete evaluation of who disagrees with them or how many people consider their ideas less than the best. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Simply removing the words "relating to independence" changes the meaning of the clause, expanding its scope beyond the intended independence of sources only. If there is confusion, for clarity, perhaps it could read: "Wikipedia articles are generally written based on in-depth, independent, reliable sourcing with some subject-specific exceptions relating to the independence of sources"? (suggested change in bold) _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

It's a good start but I think it's too vague. A newcomer reading that would have no idea what this means. The word 'relating' should be replaced with a more specific word phrase. Ca ^{talk to me!} 09:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Or perhaps give an example or two. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

It sounds like two sentences would be simpler. Try something like "Wikipedia articles are generally based on in-depth, independent, reliable sourcing. However, note that, in some cases, WP:NPROF allows the creation of articles even if no independent sources exist".

Offhand, NPROF is the only (real/approved) SNG that accepts subjects without independent sources, but if there is another, we could name it here, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:NSPECIES? WP:NCITY? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

And multiple items in WP:GEOFEAT. Actualcpscm (talk) 19:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

How exactly does one have a source about a species, and the source has a COI? This is like saying a source has a COI with Algebra. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I think WP:NASTRONOMY provides some guidance there. A scientist who discovers an astronomical object (or a species ;)) has a direct interest in there being as much coverage of it as possible, because it supports their career and legitimizes further research funding; at least, that‘s how the argument goes. Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 07:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly the reason a labmate of mine created the wiki article (over my objections) on a phenomenon my lab discovered: it gets orders of magnitude more visibility now and that has coincided with a noticeable uptick in citations to our research. JoelleJay (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Remove confusing passage?

Why not just leave out that sentence? It's overall attempted meaning is to summarize the sourcing norm (presumably only to be a preface to the second half of the sentence) note that the SNG's make some exceptions to that and then to summarize the nature of the SNG exceptions. One sentence trying to do all of that is inevitably going to do a really really bad job at all of those, and there is no reason to attempt to do so in that section. Let the SNG's speak for themselves; trying to summarize them in 6 words does only harm. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. XOR'easter (talk) 21:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree, I'm not sure why that sentence is even necessary in this place. Actualcpscm (talk) 21:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

That was my logic when I tried to remove it, though it was reverted by other editors. The wording in its current state does more harm than good. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:06, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Support removal of sentence for the reasons given above. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I have no objection to removing that sentence, or shortening it to not mention SNGs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:15MOF" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:15MOF has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 2 § Wikipedia:15MOF until a consensus is reached. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Secondary Source Justification

This paragraph is problematic:

"We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with Wikipedia:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources."

No original research does not require all articles to based on secondary sources, rather the sources are reliable and that they state the conclusion stated in the text. While requirement of a secondary source to establish "notability" (whatever that may be) may be justified, this is not the justification. Jagmanst (talk) 02:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

This made me curious, so I tracked it down. It was added in October 2011. There was some brief discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 49 § Why. The secondary source part was disputed at the time (so it seems never to have actually gained consensus) but apparently not actually removed. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

If anything, I think the need for secondary sources - not just independent ones - helps to show that a topic has been covered in a manner that gives insight as to why it is important for an encyclopedia to cover. This is somewhat in the direction that the stricter NCORP AUD requirements are looking for.

An independent but primary source does not necessarily give that importance, and thus working only from primary sources to claim a topic is notable to be covered in WP can potentially be original research. Masem (t) 03:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

So, since this discussion is about the rationale for requiring secondary sources, rather than the actual requirement for secondary sources, you would be in favor of changing the language in the rationale from one that points to NOR to new language that discusses the idea that only secondary sources can speak to the significance of the subject? One issue here, though, is that although secondary sources can speak to significance, that does not mean that they always do. For instance, some biographical dictionaries will include seemingly random members of the time and place that they cover, chosen as representative people from that milieu rather than because they have any individual significance. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd rather make sure we're including it for the reasons we currently believe we should be including it, so discussion of better language is good to have.

And yes, secondary doesn't always mean that they are discussing the significance. But that is where the "multiple sources" and "significant coverage" come into play. If many works have in-depth, independent and secondary (here, specifically the "transformative" context of secondary sources) of a topic, that's a good reason to have an article on the topic. If you strip out the secondary factor, now you would have day-to-day type coverage, like primary news reporting, being a reason to keep which isn't good. Masem (t) 04:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

If we follow the letter of wiki-law, that requirement isn't actually in WP:NOR. The relevant line is, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Moreover, A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge (emphasis in original). If those straightforward descriptions are at least enough to start an article, why not use them to start an article? And in WP:NOR's discussion of tertiary sources, it observes, Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources. Are we really going to say that writing an article about a topic because university textbooks cover it is bad?

If the requirement that the bullet point is supposed to be talking about is that we need to comply with WP:NOR, then it should say that, not try to compress all of WP:NOR into a single line. For example, "We require the existence of sourcing good enough that the article can comply with the No original research policy." XOR'easter (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

wp:notability is a fuzzy ecosystem rather than tidy set of rules. Under that concept, the intent of the subject sentence can be seen as a bit of a gauge and influence on notability decisions per the considerations described in Masem's post above. North8000 (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. The problem is the current guidelines are circular. WP:N requires secondary sources to to meet WP:NOR. WP: NOR requires secondary sources to meet WP:N.

Jagmanst (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

True. I was only discussing the utility of secondary related to notability. One could argue that the operative statements in both are merely the requirement for secondary, and then giving compliance with wp:nor/wp:notability only as the rationale, but even that is a bad idea. North8000 (talk) 18:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

In short, WP:notability discusses the wp:NOR rationale, and wp:nor discusses the wp:notability rationale. We should probably take those out. North8000 (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the circularity is bad. Getting consensus for any edit to a policy would be an uphill task, but at the very least, we should fix the bullet point here. XOR'easter (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

As a policy page, NOR should not rely on a guideline to justify the policy. It can point to a guideline as an example of how NOR is practiced, however. Masem (t) 21:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Jagmanst, your statement is not true. NOR says that Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and it does not say that this is just to comply with WP:N. NOR does mention WP:N's requirement, but NOR also gives a NOR-specific reason: "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to...avoid novel interpretations of primary sources". Even if WP:N stopped requiring secondary sources, NOR would still have a reason to require them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOR says "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." and ""Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources."

The second clause "avoid novel interpretations of primary sources" is redundant, since the WP: NOR already proscribes novel interpretation of any type source.

The only purpose of a secondary source therefore "is to establish the topic's notability", the subject of the WP:N guideline, and has nothing to do with original research.

You can have a article devoid of original research and devoid of novelity. It shouldn't be in violation of WP: NOR but of WP:N.

My proposal would be to have WP:N to state secondary source is needed to establish notability, and remove notability discussion in WP:NOR since it is beyond its scope. Jagmanst (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

If the only purpose of mentioning the need for secondary sources in NOR's PSTS section was to establish notability, then we wouldn't have wasted all those words talking about other reasons. Just because you (apparently) don't see the meaning of those words doesn't make them meaningless. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

So what is this new elusive meaning of "avoid novel interpretations of primary sources" that wasn't by covered previously in the policy. Just because someone uses words, doesn't mean they are saying anything significant. Jagmanst (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Jagmanst, it looks like your account has been around for less than a year, so I'm going to assume that you don't know any of the history. The existence of the Wikipedia:No original research policy can traced back to the English Wikipedia's earliest days, and specifically to the days when a particular Usenet personality tried to use Wikipedia as a way to publish his own original "research" into physics. He thought he had disproved Einstein, and he lined up a bunch of primary sources (i.e., academic journal articles about physics experiments) to "prove" that he was right and the entire physics establishment was wrong. There were complaints about how the physics journals were wrongfully suppressing The Truth™ and some misplaced hope that Wikipedia would let him "correct" the public record by saying that he was right and everyone else was wrong.

So when we write things like "Articles should be based upon secondary sources [like grad school physics books]" and "Avoid novel interpretations [like saying you've just single-handedly disproven the entire theoretical basis of modern physics] of primary sources [like old physics experiments]", we are trying to help editors, and our articles, avoid sounding like that crackpot. This goal has nothing to do with whether an article should exist at all, because there has never been any question about whetherr we should have articles like Physics and Albert Einstein and Theory of relativity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I would say secondary sources are necessary for both notability and meeting NOR, and that both PAGs should reflect this. Simple primary descriptions of fact are strictly ITEXISTS verification; they neither demonstrate the subject is considered noteworthy/impactful (how could they if they're just recording it without analysis?) nor provide the basis on which to create an encyclopedic article on them (because NOT effectively excludes topics where coverage is merely documentation it exists, there implicitly must be coverage of a topic that can assert how it is notable, and such contextualization cannot be provided by editors' interpretation of primary material). JoelleJay (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Primary sources can state a lot more than mere existence. They cannot be used to source opinions, but since when has opinion-based content been considered a necessity for a Wikipedia article? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@David Eppstein, you have said several times, in unrelated discussions, that primary sources can't be used to source opinions, and I wonder why you believe it. There is nothing in NOR, or any other policy, that prohibits the use of primary sources to support a claim about the author's own opinion. Primary sources are cited to support opinions every day of the week, even in controversial subjects. Consider articles like Newspaper endorsements in the 2016 United States presidential election, which cite dozens or hundreds of opinion pieces merely to say what opinion the authors hold. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Speaking from one that edits SCOTUS cases, the reason for us not to cite the primary sources there (which includes the end decision as well as the briefs and amicus briefs) is that we as WP editors cannot be sufficiently expert to know which are the key points or the most important aspects/quotes of those documents - outside of the purely factual aspects like the holdings. Having those re-iterated by a non-primary sources that are analyzing the results (eg Liptak of the NYTimes) is fine. Masem (t) 23:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

That one shouldn't (ab)use a primary source for some purposes does not mean that one can never cite a primary source for any opinion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

"we as WP editors cannot be sufficiently expert to know which are the key points or the most important aspects/quotes of those document"- I fail to see how this is any different from quoting a secondary source. Jagmanst (talk) 01:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The difference is that secondary sources sometimes say things like "The most important point made by Alice Expert was..." or might be organized in a way that makes it clear what the key point is (e.g., "Conclusion: After reviewing every paper ever published on this subject, we concluded that..."). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok, maybe I should be more specific. Primary sources can't be used to state evaluative content rather than factual content in Wikipedia's voice. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Assuming that we have the same understanding of what "evaluative content" is, most sources providing such content would normally be considered secondary sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

No, lots of people and companies write evaluative content about themselves. It is unusable here. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent. You can actually produce a secondary source from your own primary sources. Scientists do this all the time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

RfC on the journal notability essay

Other editors are asked to join this discussion on whether inclusion of a journal in a selective citation index is sufficient for notability of the journal. JoelleJay (talk) 01:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

RFC regarding the life-extension practices of Bryan Johnson

There is a discussion at this talk page as to whether or not the life-extension practices of Bryan Johnson (entrepreneur) should be mentioned in the article. Given that it is what he is most known for by the general public and media, I feel as though it would be violating both notability and NPOV to not include it, as long as his practices are described neutrally. The other editor feels as though it is too fringe to include and that it cannot be properly contextualized. We would appreciate if others could give their input. Thanks! Vontheri (talk) 05:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Should relevant notability guidelines be edited to clarify that notability can be used as a criterion for inclusion in embedded lists?

Should relevant notability guidelines be edited to clarify that notability can be used as a criterion for inclusion in embedded lists? ElKevbo (talk) 01:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Survey re clarify that notability can be used as a criterion for inclusion in embedded lists

• Yes notability can be used as a criterion for any type of embedded trivia list to ward against spamming. I'd go farther and say this should be the general criterion and should only be occasionally varied from if appropriate to an article. Any kind of "trivia" list should almost always be limited to things with their own articles unless there is some other reason a list is a more fundamental part of an article and local consensus agrees, and guidelines should be modified accordingly. I would not apply this to stand alone lists of course as there are many lists that might not include notable items, and certainly there are lists that might be in an article which need not be limited to notable subjects (if the list is more intrinsic to the topic rather than tangential/trivia - the lists of individual parts using a GPU microarchitecture come to mind). Take for example Melusine#References in the arts and popular culture - I think this should be "Notable references" and only include works of art and cultural pieces which have their own articles, and not even necessarily cases where an artist has an article but the relevant work doesn't (but not as a strict guideline, just as a starting/general principle). —DIYeditor (talk) 03:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
• No While yes, notability can be used for inclusion criteria on embedded lists, the changes lists below are far too extensive, and knowing the hassle that some editors have with the language, this is too much of a change where the concept that embedded lists can use notability for inclusion criteria is very much implied by the existing language. --Masem (t) 03:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  It would be helpful if you could explicitly quote the parts of the guideline that allow notability to be used for inclusion criteria on embedded lists. As currently written, the guideline explicitly and unambiguously says that "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic may have its own article" and has an entire section labeled "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists." ElKevbo (talk) 03:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  As I said, its i.plied, but if a change is necessary the only place I think needed would be "It also does not apply to the contents of stand alone or embedded lists and tables, unless editors agree to use notability as part of their selection criteria. Masem (t) 19:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• Kinda, but not in this wording. I think this is mis-framed. The devil is in the details, and WP:Writing policy is hard. One problem here is that "used as a criterion for inclusion in embedded lists" strongly implies "forced inclusion" if something is notable, when a list might in fact have a very narrow purpose that a particular potential entry doesn't suit for some reason[s] other than its notability level. It would be better (for more than one reason) to invert this: A lack of notability should be permissible as a criterion for exclusion from an embedded list, as with a stand-alone list, if the list's scope is limited, by consensus at the article talk page, to only notable entries. There are many embedded lists that include non-notable entries on purpose, and this has always been the case. It may well even be most of them, and a good argument can be made that an embedded list of only notable entries that are blue links to extant articles is redundant, except when it is providing a WP:SUMMARY or related navigational purpose. Our ability to listify things (e.g. at List of experimental cat breeds as just one of probably thousands of examples) that are arguably encyclopedically relevant but not quite notable (and which would be subject to repeated bad-article creation if they did not redirect to list entries) is a routine part of WP:AFD. Entire classes of list articles, like Category:Wikipedia glossaries (along with shorter embedded glossaries in other articles) could not exist at all if we confined stand-alone or embedded lists to only notable entries, in a blanket manner.
  In short, there is a dual danger here of imprecise wording, that has not been fully "gamed out" in our minds to every possible WP:Wikilawyering interpretation, and recrafted to close such loopholes: Either A) wording that encourages the mass deletion of list entries on a notability basis even in absence of any clear consensus that a particular list should be limited to notable entries; or B) wording that encourages inclusion of entries on the bare fact of their notability in lists where the entries are not actually appropriate by reason of other criteria (either explicit or more often implicit in the nature of the list and its specific embedding context). As a simple example of the latter, at User:SMcCandlish/sandbox 22, where I'm working on splitting out all the tartan design and manufacture info into a side article because the main tartan article has gotten too long, I include a list [presently formatted as a prose paragraph, but that could change at any time] of major extant manufacturers of traditional tartan cloth, meaning of the usually-Scottish sort (wool, in 2/2 twill weave), from mills that specialize at least in part in this sort of cloth. But "notability can be used as a criterion for inclusion in embedded lists" could easily result in someone (including someone with a spammy CoI) forcing inclusion of a woollen mill, or even a non-woollen cloth factory, on the bare basis that the company is notable and has ever, at all, even once, produced cloth in a tartan/plaid pattern. At very least someone could argue and argue until everyone was sick to death of it, to include their pet entry. If you use my wording in the tq template above, that kind of wikilawyer game-playing is twarted, and so is doing awful things like reducing, e.g., Glossary of cue sports terms to zero entries aside from the notable ones that already have their own articles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  No, the only thing this would change is that it would make it clear that editors are free to establish a consensus that notability is a criterion (perhaps the only criterion) for inclusion in an embedded list. It's a very common practice now but it's not allowed by this guideline. If some alternative wording or change to this guideline - and any others that also need to be updated - accomplish the same thing then that's totally fine with me and I support it. ElKevbo (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  I know that's what you intend, but it is not what the wording you proposed would result in.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Lists are used in many different ways. Nothing in the current guidance requires, not prohibits lists from containing only subjects that are notable. That said, there are lists that provide a complete set of all who meet a particular criteria (such as a list of mayors from a particular town) and there are lists that are more illustrative (such as a list of alumni). Since writing policy is hard, any change must begin with the recognition that each list has a distinct purpose. --Enos733 (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
• No Whether items in a list can or should be restricted to notable items is not a matter for WP:NOTABILITY but, if anything, for WP:DUE. Thincat (talk) 16:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  FWIW, DUE is a part if NPOV and only deals wit viewpoints, not factual matter. This more likely is an aspect of NOT#IINFO. Masem (t) 19:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, that's right. Thincat (talk) 19:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• The unwritten "shall we prohibit" proposal is a bad idea To start with the structural problem, on it's face the proposal is proposing something that it already the case. WP:notability can be used. Perhaps the drafter intends that failure to reaffirm this can be taken as a decision to prohibit it? Assuming that "shall we forbid?" is being discussed (even if not proposed) the answer is clearly no. There are a million allowable criteria for a Wikipedia lists and yet we would specifically forbid wp:notability as being one of the possibilities? Makes no sense at all. North8000 (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC))

  My only intention is to fix the blatant contradiction between (a) this guideline's unambiguous statements that notability doesn't determine the contents of articles and (b) the very common practice of applying this guideline to determine the contents of articles, specifically embedded lists of "Notable _." ElKevbo (talk) 23:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: An analysis of the operative logic reveals that there is no conflict:

1. It (somewhat) defines wp:notability, and
2. Says that wp:notability is a requirement for existence as a separate article.

The statement you refer to merely emphasizes that #2, the requirement established in this guideline establishes the requirement only for the existence of articles. It does not forbid the wp:notability attribute from being used for other purposes.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment From reading over the comments above, it seems everyone agrees that notability can be used as a selection criterion in both embedded lists and stand-alone lists, but it's not clear that editing the notability guidelines page is the way to clarify this. Possibly the issue would be better addressed by adding something at MOS:EMBED to make it explicit that the guidelines for selection criteria given at WP:LISTCRIT (in the stand-alone list guidelines) also apply to embedded lists. Robminchin (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  It would be nice if all of the people who "agree that notability can be used as a selection criterion in both embedded lists and stand-alone lists" would also agree to fix this guideline so it doesn't blatantly prohibit that practice. "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic may have its own article" is not ambiguous or confusing - it's very clear, plain spoken, and contradicts the common practice. ElKevbo (talk) 23:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  If there was an emphasis here that lists should only be of subjects that are notable under our guidelines, I fear there would be more discussion to remove non-notable entires WP:Wikilawyering than what currently exists. - Enos733 (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

• Sure, I can see why we might want to specify that notability is acceptable as an exclusion criterion in lists that serve as examples of a larger set. It's also a decent enough proxy for balance and NOT. JoelleJay (talk) 00:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
• Mu The situation is far too complex for such a blunt tool. WP:CSC is already in our guidance, and has served us well for decades. It literally says both that "Every entry meets the notability criteria" and "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria" are valid selection criteria for a list. The former is used for unmanageably large lists, like "List of people from foo" type lists, where limiting them to WP:N-type notable people keeps the list reasonably small, and the latter works for situations where the individual items could not each support a stand-alone article, but where they make sense to be categorized together. We need flexibility to create properly useful lists, whether as a stand-alone article or as an embedded, and that requires use to use whatever criteria makes sense in context of the particular list. There's no need to demand that all lists have identical criteria. So yes, I am okay with saying that one is allowed to use WP:N-type notability as a criterion in some cases, so long as we don't say that it is mandatory to do so. --Jayron32 18:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

  I am okay with saying that one is allowed to use WP:N-type notability as a criterion in some cases, so long as we don't say that it is mandatory to do so. That is precisely what this proposal is attempting to do. ElKevbo (talk) 21:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

  Then it is better to remain silent than say anything. Once you put it in writing, you create the impression of policy (even if it isn't the intent). "That which is not forbidden is mandatory" and all that. --Jayron32 01:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  I don't see how it would be detrimental for us to change the guideline from saying "notability does not apply to content in articles" to stating the practical consensus that "notability can be used to determine the content of embedded lists if there is consensus"? JoelleJay (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• No. First, as others have noted, there is not actually a contradiction here. Nothing in WP:N prohibits list editors from adopting notability as a list inclusion criterion. And in the absence of a problem to be solved, the best way to minimize WP:CREEP is to maintain policy stasis. Second, because the proposed additions would add nothing to the textual meaning of the guideline, by the maxim of quantity these additions would inevitably be read as implicitly endorsing such criteria. But we should not encourage notability as an inclusion criterion for lists because: (a) the notability guidelines are a complex and highly subjective mess, poorly suited even for their primary purpose, (b) using this guideline outside of that primary purpose by applying article-worthiness as a test for things that are not articles is guaranteed to result in malformed outcomes that disserve our encyclopedic mission, and (c) because "is this notable" is a much messier criterion than "does this have an article", disputes will be difficult to resolve efficiently even when everyone is participating in good faith, and our principal existing process for adjudicating notability is unavailable for resolving disputes over list inclusion. Third, most of the de facto inclusion criteria that we're discussing here are not, in practice, "things that are notable" but (as IMO correctly summarized above) "things that [already] have their own articles". (Hence WP:WTAF and the vast body of practical experience it represents. Hence also the fact that 2/3 of the examples cited in the discussion section involve removing list items because they do not have articles, rather than on notability grounds.) "Things that have their own articles" is far more straightforward to understand and implement -- even if it is still encyclopedically suboptimal, being pretty much the "we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas" of list inclusion criteria -- and if we must encourage something like this we should be encouraging "blue links only" over "notable topics only". But in any event, opining on list inclusion criteria is and should remain out of scope for this page, which has plenty on its plate already. -- Visviva (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
• Yes if we're talking about lists like "List of alumni" in an article about a university of "List of people from X" in an article about country X, where the list is open-ended and wouldn't include all alumni or all people from X. In that case, I don't see why we shouldn't explicitly spell out that this is OK given that we spell it out for stand-alone lists at WP:CSC. No for lists that are defined by the entirely of their membership and that are, indeed, not so large that they beg to be spun off to a stand-aline list. For example, in an article on some committee, if a list of members is provided, it should include all the members, rather than just the notable ones. (I'm trying to decide now if I've made a circular argument. Eh.) Largoplazo (talk) 00:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion re clarify that notability can be used as a criterion for inclusion in embedded lists

Many editors, including those with significant experience and administrators, limit material in embedded lists of "Notable _" (often lists of people such as "Notable alumni" in articles about schools and "Notable people" in articles about geographic locations or organizations) to entries that meet the notability guideline. Commonly, editors remove entries in those lists that do not have articles, sometimes citing WP:WTAF in their edit summary or discussion. Recent discussion in Wikipedia talk:Notability reinforced that many editors agree that this practice is permissible and often desirable.

Examples of these embedded lists and recent edits that apply the notability guidelines to remove or limit content

These examples have been taken from my watchlist - they were not identified or sampled in systematic way and are purely a convenience sample from the most recent 1,000 edits to articles about U.S. colleges and universities on my watchlist. Coe College‎ diff hist −608‎ Countercheck: deleted two non-notable alumni. The subjects must have a Wikipedia article about themselves. St. Olaf College‎ diff hist −21‎ AlsoWukai: rv non-notable University of Wisconsin–Green Bay‎ diffhist −48 MarconiCheese: Undid revision 1171767554 by UWSHistorian (talk) no article = not notable

However, this very common practice contradicts several of our written guidelines:

1. The "This page in a nutshell" summary at the top of the notability guideline unambiguously says that "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic may have its own article."
2. In its lede, the notability guideline says: "[The notability guideline does] not limit the content of an article or list, though notability is commonly used as an inclusion criterion for lists (for example for listing out a school's alumni)."
3. The notability guideline has a section explicitly titled "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists".
   1. That section says: "The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guideline does not apply to the contents of articles. It also does not apply to the contents of stand-alone lists, unless editors agree to use notability as part of the list selection criteria. Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight, balance, and other content policies. For additional information about list articles, see Notability of lists and List selection criteria."
4. The notability guideline for people has a section titled "Lists of people" that says: "Inclusion in lists contained within articles should be determined by WP:SOURCELIST, in that the entries must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines (including Wikipedia:Trivia sections)."

To correct this contradiction between practice and policy, this RfC proposes the following edits to the notability guideline:

1. Edit the "This page in a nutshell" summary at the top of the notability guideline to say that "Generally, the notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic may have its own article."
2. Edit the lede to say: "[The notability guideline typically does] not limit the content of an article or list, though notability is commonly used as an inclusion criterion for both standalone and embedded lists (for example for listing out a school's alumni)."
3. Edit the notability guideline so the section that is currently titled "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists" to "Notability guidelines generally do not apply to content within articles or lists".
   1. Edit that section so it says: "The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those typically applied to the content inside it. The notability guideline does not generally apply to the contents of articles. It also does not apply to the contents of stand-alone lists, unless editors agree to use notability as part of the list selection criteria. Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight, balance, and other content policies. For embedded lists that explicitly include "notable" in their title (e.g., "Notable alumni", "Notable people"), editors can choose to limit inclusion in those lists to subjects that meet the relevant notability guideline(s) or standard(s). For additional information about stand-alone list articles, see Notability of lists and List selection criteria."

This RfC also proposes the following edits to the notability guideline for people:

1. Edit the text in the section titled "Lists of people" to say: "Inclusion in lists contained within articles should be determined by WP:SOURCELIST, in that the entries must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines (including Wikipedia:Trivia sections). For embedded lists that explicitly include "notable" in their title (e.g., "Notable alumni", "Notable people"), editors can choose to limit inclusion in those lists to subjects that meet the relevant notability guideline(s) or standard(s)."

A few other essays and advice articles (e.g., WP:ALUMNI) that incorporate the current guideline's language about embedded lists may also need to be edited if this RfC passes.

ElKevbo (talk) 01:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Summarizing several posts, editors have a choice of millions of different attributes (including wp:notability) that can be used for list criteria. And there is no basis for saying that wp:notability can't be used as a criteria. This guideline (somewhat) defines wp:notability and establishes wp:notability as a requirement for existence as a separate article and clarifies that it is establishing this requirement only for existence of a separate article, not other things. It does not preclude editors using the wp:notability attribute for other purposes. So there is no such conflict in wording. It would be out of place to start specifying in the notability guideline what editors can and can't use as list criteria. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

What part of "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic may have its own article" is ambiguous or unclear? It's a very clear, simple, and incorrect statement that needs to be changed to align with practice. ElKevbo (talk) 21:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

It is very clear. But IMO you are misreading it. Reemphasizing something from my previous post. The main points were that the standard does two things:

1. Creates the definition/concept.
2. Establishes the requirement including (limitations on) the requirement's scope of applicability.

IMO you are mistakenly taking the applicability provisions of #2 as being a prohibition against using #1 for other purposes. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

That is the clear language of the guideline. If that is not how it should be interpreted, it needs to be changed. I am very puzzled and disappointed but this continued insistence that the clear language of the guideline should be interpreted in this bizarre, byzantine way that is contrary to the plainly written statements in the guideline. ElKevbo (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

It is a clear statement of #2; the requirement being established. It is not a prohibition of using the attribute for other purposes. It even explicitly reinforces that by explicitly acknowledging that editors may and sometimes do use it as a criteria for individual inclusions in a list. North8000 (talk) 01:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Notifications

I have placed neutrally-worded notifications about this RfC on the following Talk pages: Wikipedia talk:Notability (people), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Article advice, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools, Wikipedia talk:College and university article advice, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Higher education. Please let me know if there are places or people who should be explicitly notified. ElKevbo (talk) 01:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Notability guideline for police/law enforcement/similar bodies

Hi,

Would someone smarter than me be aware if there is currently a page (or section) on notability that describes how the notability of a policing body, law enforcement agency or similar should be determined?

I’ve done a bit of searching and found a couple of failed proposals, but haven’t found anything current as of yet.

All the best, A smart kitten (talk) 07:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

In my view, A smart kitten, the General notability guideline applies. If the depth of coverage is strong, then a freestanding article may be appropriate. Otherwise, such agencies can be covered in subsections of articles about cities, towns, counties, states, provinces and so on. Cullen328 (talk) 08:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) also applies. It is not limited to profit making businesses. Cullen328 (talk) 08:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Thanks for the pointers! A smart kitten (talk) 08:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:ATD-M into the next closest actually notable article. Page size permitting... Graywalls (talk) 07:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Defining coverage

The bit in the GNG that fails to define significant coverage has long irritated me, and I have a proposal for fixing that. The current version says:

• "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

I suggest changing that to something like:

• "Coverage" is the amount of information in the source that is realistically usable in an encyclopedia article. The source must address the subject of the article directly and in detail. To qualify, the extent of the source's coverage of the article's subject must be significant; this means that the source contains more than a trivial mention of the article's subject, although the subject does not need to be the main topic of the reliable source.

(Note that I have removed the pointless "NOR" phrase as it is never an issue in determining SIGCOV, or even notability in general. NOR's banned everywhere, not just for the GNG.)

What do you think? Does this definition reflect what you are actually looking for? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:54, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I am not prepared to agree with the precise wording but I do agree that that clarification of the concept of "significant coverage" would be useful. Cullen328 (talk) 08:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

We need the NOR part. We don't want editors trying to scavenge claims of notability because their own synthesis of one or more sources; it needs to be reiterated even if NOR is a standard policy aspect. Same with the key focus on "significant coverage". There are lots of topics that get coverage, but that coverage is not significant enough for WP. Masem (t) 12:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Note, I'm not against more clarity on sigcov, just that these are necessary parts.

I would add that I think "usable in an encyclopedic article" may be better to say "usable in an encyclopedic article within Wikipedia's content policies." One could argue, for example, massive stat tables from sporting figures make them notable in an encyclopedia for that sport, NOT#STATS would make them irrelevant for us. Masem (t) 12:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't strongly object to leaving NOR in, but I think "within Wikipedia's content policies" is more relevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

How are editors even using SYNTH/OR to assert a particular source has SIGCOV of a subject? I've never understood the reasoning behind this particular phrasing, which seems to emphasize something no one is actually doing with any single source. This results in claims that any amount of detail beyond a literal directory entry is "SIGCOV" because it's possible to restate the content without doing any OR (this will be true for literally every source). JoelleJay (talk) 00:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I couldn't say that this never happened (e.g., before I started editing 17 years ago), but I don't think it's happening now. The story I remember being told, when I asked about this (approximately forever ago) is that someone might try to combine two tweets about getting married today and being in a city into a (possibly false) statement that they were married in that city, but (a) those tweets would be self-published and non-independent anyway, and (b) it's still not about how much information we have. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

That still requires synthesis of multiple sources, too...plus, the current wording doesn't even disallow sticking in both pieces of info somewhere in a bio, it just says not to synthesize them. JoelleJay (talk) 02:21, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Once you've got an article to stick them into. The problem of SYNTH isn't really a problem of whether to have an article in the first place. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I also think retaining the link to WP:NOR is important. It's what ties the GNG (which, let's remember, is a subsection of a guideline) back to a core content policy. I've personally never had difficulty understanding the existing definition—significant coverage is something you can derive encyclopaedic material from without OR—so I'd be interested in hearing what exactly you feel is ill-defined. – Joe (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

We need a clearer definition because not everyone understands it. Consider, e.g., Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 73#Definition of "significant coverage" and the "mammoth ANI thread" that prompted that. Look at the disagreements: "a paragraph or so" vs "Significant does not mean length" vs "disagree that a single paragraph constitutes WP:SIGCOV". Note the demands for SIGCOV to encompass the "quality" of the sources, which an editor asserts must provide "analysis" of the subject (i.e., not merely coverage, or even coverage that could be useful for writing an article, but a particular type of coverage; effectively, these editors say that SIGCOV is another way to spell secondary).

Of perhaps more importance, our failure to provide a decent definition results in many editors (and not just in that discussion) saying things like "Significant coverage means whatever the median AfD discussion determines it means" or "The definition of "significant coverage" is simply that if a particular editor thinks that a topic is notable then any coverage is significant, but if that editor thinks that a topic is not notable then no coverage is significant" and similar comments. When multiple editors, over several years, are making cynical comments like that, we've failed to provide guidance in the guideline.

I suggested in 2014 that we keep the NOR line and merely change the words "extract the content" to "write an encyclopedia article on the subject", but editors seemed uncertain that the point of the GNG was to identify subjects about which encyclopedia articles could be written (and to exclude the ones that couldn't be). Another editor made a very similar proposal in 2015. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

A parenthetical note: I haven't, personally, had an opportunity to !vote on one of the proposals mentioned, but I have for long preferred the "write an encyclopedia article" based phrasings over the (to me) more obscure ways to parse "significant coverage". Newimpartial (talk) 01:21, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@Joe Roe, what would be an example of a single source from which you couldn't derive encyclopedic material without OR? JoelleJay (talk) 02:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Any source, it depends on what topic you're trying to cover. I'll take the last source I cited in an article as a random example: Radner, Karen (1 January 2016). "3 Revolts in the Assyrian Empire: Succession Wars, Rebellions Against a False King and Independence Movements". Revolt and Resistance in the Ancient Classical World and the Near East. Brill. pp. 39–54. ISBN 978-90-04-33018-4.. This contains significant coverage of several Assyrian kings, and could plausibly be used to make a case for their notability, including one pretender that was flayed after his fall from power. But if I was trying to write on article on flaying in the Assyrian Empire, for example, I couldn't use this source without say synthesising the three passing mentions of it in this source with other sources to come up with some conclusion about the phenomenon in general, or interpreting one of the reliefs illustrated in a figure to conjecture how it was performed, both forms of original research. – Joe (talk) 06:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@Joe Roe, I believe the question is more like "Please name a single source, that would otherwise count towards notability under the GNG, from which it is impossible for an editor to derive any encyclopedic material without violating OR".

The GNG lists several requirements:

• independent
• reliable
• published
• secondary
• significant coverage

You are saying that bad things (i.e., subjects will be deemed notable when they shouldn't) will happen if the sigcov-based NOR mention is removed. So another way to put this is: Please give an example of a source that doesn't count towards the GNG now, due to the NOR phrase, but which would count towards the GNG in the future, were that NOR phrase ever removed in the future. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

What WAID said, and also, that sounds like a source that does not contain SIGCOV of flaying since it only has three passing mentions, so it wouldn't count towards GNG regardless. JoelleJay (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I think we're talking past each other. Significant coverage = "possible to derive encyclopedic material without OR". They're the same thing; one is the definition of the other. We could remove the explicit mention of NOR and it would still function in the same way to start with, because it still means the same thing in most people's heads. But it would make it less clear what the policy basis for this guideline is, and probably lead to semantic drift over time, e.g. towards an arbitrary definition of significant coverage ("three paragraphs is sigcov"). – Joe (talk) 04:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm still failing to see how the depth of coverage in a source has any impact on the ability to extract info from that source without using OR? JoelleJay (talk) 04:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

If it's not deep enough, anything you got from the source would be OR; if you have to do OR to use a source, it's not significant coverage. It's always seemed straightforward enough to me, but if this discussion shows anything, it's that this guideline supports a wide range of readings, I suppose. – Joe (talk) 05:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

So ...SIGCOV is pointless? Because either the source is completely useless, or it counts towards GNG?

Consider the non-significant example given: An article about Bill Clinton says "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice". Can you extract any encyclopedic information from that source without violating WP:OR? I can. Consider these potential sentences:

• Bill Clinton played in a band when he was in high school.
• Clinton played in a jazz band.
• Clinton's high school band, called Three Blind Mice, was a jazz band.

Do you see "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists" in any of those sentences? And since I'm sure you don't, do you think that a source containing only the single quoted sentence is actually "significant coverage"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

• I don't think you can define significant coverage in purely quantitative terms. I wrote an essay on this at Wikipedia:Minimum coverage, which is at least consistent with what I've seen for articles that are kept as separate articles. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure that "quality of coverage" is, technically speaking, a matter for SIGCOV. What you describe in the essay as needing to "establish the subject's significance to human knowledge" is what secondary sources provide for us.

  Consider it from the antonym: What would insignificant coverage look like? It could easily look like a source that says as little as "Experts agree that this is the most important public health discovery since the germ theory". Such a statement would "establish the subject's significance to human knowledge", and it would be a secondary source, but it's still an insignificant amount of coverage. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  This prompted a thought I've struggled to articulate - one of the competing ways editors want to use "significant coverage" seems to be "coverage that shows a source attributes significance to a subject". For that purpose, the brief sentence above could be considered SIGCOV, while a long anecdote (say from an an RS gonzo journalist) that is clearly long-form description of a subject might not "attribute significance" to that subject and therefore might not be considered SIGCOV.

  Speaking for myself, I think SIGCOV is better positioned to be a requirement criterion for articles than as a means of assessing whether topics are significant/important. Instead, I would prefer to use NOT and to elevate the WP:Credible claim of significance test used in speedy deletion to be more widely deployed in article merger, scope and retention decisions. Newimpartial (talk) 12:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  I think that that particular speedy criteria as a stand alone criteria would be problematic outside of it's current limited context. But IMO the notability ecosystem does consider "Degree and scale of real-world scale, prominence, recognition, impact and importance, weighted towards endurance of these qualities." not as a stand alone criteria but as a consideration. GNG sourcing, aside from being the main criteria in it's own right is also an indicator for this criteria.North8000 (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that we shouldn't twist SIGCOV into requiring a claim that the subject is significant. "Significant" is about the coverage, not about the subject.

  For example, we might well have a hundred lengthy sources speculating about who's dating whom, and directly saying that this is an important subject, but that doesn't make Love life of Prince Harry (2011–2012) a suitable subject for a whole encyclopedia article. Editorial judgment still matters. WP:NOT still applies.

  Perhaps the problem is that some (most?) editors want WP:ITSIMPORTANT to be one of the criteria, and since the GNG makes no concessions to that school of thought, they latch onto the single word that sounds closest to it. Thus, in their misreading, SIGCOV doesn't "coverage that isn't insignificant"; it is "significant" and (separately) "coverage", or "coverage of a significant subject". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  IMO the problem is that wp:Notability, to a greater extent than any other major Wikipedia area, is a fuzzy ecosystem (that mostly works) where we don't acknowledge what it does or what it's actual criteria are. Without that, we have eternal unsolvable quandaries such as this thread, AFD quandaries etc. But the good news is that it mostly works.North8000 (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

It's common for people to implicitly try to substitute large amounts of trivial or non-GNG mentions in place of GNG coverage. I'll call that "attempted notability synthesis" But that really isn't a case of wp:OR/WP:Synthesis and so the mention of no original research technically isn't relevant to that. Perhaps Masem's point is that despite that, for a typical reader, it tends to reduce "attempted notability synthesis" even if it is not what is covered by no original research. Perhaps some different wording that directly addresses that issue would be better. North8000 (talk) 14:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

IMO saying "more than a trivial mention of the article's subject," substantially lowers the bar (or can be used to lower the bar) for significant / GNG coverage and I don't think that that is a good idea. North8000 (talk) 14:35, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

In looking for some of the old discussions in the archives, I found several comments indicating that adding up multiple sources to achieve a total amount of coverage that is significant, even though the individual sources were not significant when considered in isolation, was generally accepted.

I'm not sure if that made sense, but imagine that a subject has to get a minimum of "10 points" in coverage to meet SIGCOV. (A "point" for this illustration is an arbitrary amount of coverage; how you would determine this is irrelevant for this discussion.) All editors would agree that a list of three sources providing 10 + 10 + 2 points is enough to meet the standard. Where they diverge is in whether a list of three sources providing 9 + 9 + 9 points is enough. Back in the day, this would have been accepted; now, I think at least some editors would reject it, even though the total "points" is higher. This latter group is excluding all sources that don't have 10 points, so they look at the first and say 10 + 10 + 2 = 20, so passing, and they look at the second and say 9 + 9 + 9 = 0, so failing. The original understanding was 10 + 10 + 2 = 22 and 9 + 9 + 9 = 27, with both passing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

That concept remains documented in WP:NBASIC "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability ..." but immediately continues with an ambiguous backtrack ending in a remarkable footnote with a provenance at least as far back as 2006.[6] Editors claiming strict adherence to the guideline obviously ignore this aspect. Thincat (talk) 19:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm curious as to what the 9/9/9 AFD was or an example of such.

I do think it helps to talk about the idea of scoring sources, though absolutely would not put that in writing as part of the guideline. But on that, it should not be the total score that matters. For example, for video game characters (particularly female ones) they tend to garner a lot of mention in "list of best X", which do not given significant coverage of the character beyond the brief mention, so at best these score a 2 on this scale. Just because you can find 15 such cases, and score a 30, doesn't make the character notable, whereas three dedicated articles (8s or 9s) that score in the 24-27 range is exactly what we want to see. This relates to the NOR issue I've raised above, because those 8s and 9s are content we can extract encyclopedic information from w/o synthesis, while we're stretching to do that with the 15 2s. Masem (t) 00:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Masem How would 15 2s be "stretching" NOR? Editors routinely cobble together a series of one- or two-sentence mentions in, e.g., game recaps/stats to "meet NBASIC", are you saying those might be violating NOR? And anyway at AfC and AfD SIGCOV is overwhelmingly considered a quality each individual source needs to meet to contribute to GNG, so how would NOR factor into that at all? JoelleJay (talk) 02:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

When SIGCOV is considered as a quality of each individual source, and no source whose depth of coverage is not deemed "significant" (according to the speaker's personal opinion, if we are to believe Phil ), then NBASIC is being disregarded (for those subjects to which NBASIC applies, which would not include video games, if those are treated as "products" and therefore fall under WP:CORP). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

With video game characters, we dismiss notability that is attempted to be justified to these types of brief 1-2 sentence mentions and no other clear sourcing under NBASIC, but that itself is tied to NOR that you can't pull notability together like that. I was using that as an example that tied well to your numerical evaluation of sources. Masem (t) 02:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

But again, where does NOR factor in in such cases? Do you have a concrete example of what NOR would look like when using a single source, or even multiple sources, where it would not be possible to use the source(s) without doing OR? JoelleJay (talk) 03:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Generally, I would expect that we can construct a good outline/plan for coverage of a topic from one, two sources with good significant coverage, with sources offering lesser coverage filling in gaps or other details. So if we're talking a video game character (or generally any fictional character) we are looking not only what can be pulled from the primary (which has zero contribution for notability) but information related to creation and development, and information related to reception as a character. For us, that means we can determine the extent of the article with no original research beyond the act of summarizing. If we only have this piddy bits and pieces, its extremely hard to know how to summarize properly without engaging in OR. Masem (t) 03:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

But how would extracting the info from a given source require OR? Like I said, wide swathes of sportsperson articles are based on a handful of sources that just say "X had this result in this event", "X had this result in this other event", "X was transferred from Y to Z", etc. It's possible to "summarize" or at least prosify these sources without introducing OR, and is thus considered by some as evidence that the coverage in each source is significant. JoelleJay (talk) 04:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

It is more related to what you do with material you get from the source. If I have a biographic work about a person (one of the best possible sources with significant coverage), I can flesh out a whole picture about that person from that source without engaging in OR. If all I have about that person is a bunch of mentions-in-passing from varied sources, even if many of them, while I can extract information from each case, putting them together in a cohesive way absolutely does require original research because one is guessing on how all those pieces come together to properly summarize the biography of the person.

Now, once you have the big picture from significant coverage in sources, using these other sources to fill in gaps or expand on more recent information is just fine (eg your sport examples). But otherwise those sources are just rote coverage, which is one of those things we do explicit disallow for notability support because they are rote. We want sourcing for notability to show why the topic merits more than standard reporting or recording. Masem (t) 12:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

So, if you have one source that says talks about Alice Expert's childhood and family life, and another that talks about her educational background, and a third that talks about her employment history, and a fourth that talks about her research, then you think that putting all of that together in the usual order becomes "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

That's a hypothetical which I think is unusual (where's it's really in depth coverage that is divided between sources.) and maybe not a good basis for advocating that. In reality when individual GNG type sources don't exist the multiple coverages are usual blurbs about commonly covered events....upcoming appearances, books or records released etc.. North8000 (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

While I would be delighted if GNG required at least one source to have "big-picture" coverage and excluded all single-topic mentions, I suggest you check out some of the sportsperson AfDs trending keep right now and the sources being used to allege GNG. It also makes no sense that OR would be synonymous with/a given for non-SIGCOV for GNG subjects but not for biographies, where NBASIC permits "non-substantial" source-cobbling. JoelleJay (talk) 17:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

That's a whole 'nother lions den that is enough to make me quit NPP, or to at least leave the sports ones for another NPP victim. North8000 (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Policy and guidelines are supposed to be decriptive, not prescriptive. So, following what actually happens at WP:AFD, we should replace this part of the guideline with "If an editor has decided that an article should be kept then the coverage is significant; if that editor has decided that it should be deleted then it is not." Phil Bridger (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

You forgot that it's also determined by the size of the Wikipedia fan club for the topic.  :-) North8000 (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

So "if a majority of editors have decided..."? We'd have to add something about WP:WikiSpeak#consensus, to ward off the "But consensus does not mean a majority vote!" comments. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Thanks! I never knew that that existed! North8000 (talk) 02:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

• The changes read like extra verbiage without adding any meaning. I would oppose the specific changes requested. --Jayron32 17:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC)