Wikipedia talk:Notability

Archives
2005–Sep 2006 (related to page now moved to Wikipedia:Notability/Arguments) Sep–Oct 2006 Oct–Nov 2006 18–25 Nov 2006 Nov 2006–Dec 2006 Dec 2006 Dec 2006–Jan 2007 Jan 2007–Feb 2007 Feb 2007 March 2007

N/A to article-content (continued)

(Continued from 'Does "notability" apply to the content of articles? -- Proposed add to guidelines: "N/A to article-contents"',above.)

Fifth draft

This is what was added to the guidelines 21:22, 20 February 2007 by Lonewolf BC, but then deleted from them 03:32, 21 February 2007 by Centrx. It's of two parts: The upper bit went at the end of the introduction of the guidelines, and the lower part was a last section of the guidelines.

Note that these are guidelines for allowable article topics within Wikipedia, not for allowable content within Wikipedia articles.

....

== Notability is not needed by particular article-content ==

These and all the notability guidelines are for allowable article topics within Wikipedia, not for allowable content within a legitimate Wikipedia article. Although issues of article-content are sometimes discussed, on talk-pages, in terms of the content's "notability", that is not exactly "notability" in the sense of these guidelines, which do not directly apply to such matters: "Notability", in the sense of these guidelines, is not needed in order for particular information to be included in a Wikipedia article. For such article-content issues, see the guidelines on verifiability, reliable sources, and trivia. (Note also, though, that within Wikipedia's guidelines, generally, the term "notability" means what it means in the notability guidelines.)

Discussion of 5th draft

Centrx's reason for deleting it (copied from "Problems with recent changes", above):
Also, as explained above, notability is relevant to whether article content is included. The notability of the information and the reason for the notability of the subject is explicitly referenced in WP:BLP and WP:RS, and otherwise is the major factor in whether information is included in an article and how it is organized. —Centrx→talk • 19:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Centrx, I believe that the aspect of notability of your concern was taken into account by the chosen wording. If you think otherwise, you must be more specific. Please either explain what you mean well enough that I can better accommodate it, or write a draft yourself that does so. Naturally, I have already consulted BLP and RS. I really do not see what problem you see. -- Lonewolf BC 01:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Okay, I think I might see your problem, now. You are construing the fifth draft as saying that notability, in the common sense of the word, is not a consideration for article-content, or at least you are worried that it might be construed that way. That is not the intent. The intent is to make clear that "notability", in the special sense of compliance with the notability guidelines, is not needed by each piece of article-content. (Indeed, this whole business arises from equivocation upon "notability" -- its common and special senses.) I'm still not positive I have rightly understood you, though. -- Lonewolf BC 18:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC-8)

One thing to consider is that if garage bands are not notable, would an article on Garage bands in the Detroit metro area be notable if it was just a compendium of non-notable article content? I would think no, but that is just MHO. And of course, if there were multiple feature stories on the bands as a group, that could make it jump the shark. Dhaluza 04:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Notability, in the special sense of the word, is relevant to whether article content is included. Article content must be relevant to why the topic is notable in the first place, especially for any biography of a living person and any weakly reliable source. Articles do not simply contain any and all verifiable information about a topic. —Centrx→talk • 07:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Your response leaves me puzzled, and thinking we have not been understanding one another at all well.
Who said anything about "...any and all..."? Certainly I did not, and that's not at all what I'm driving at. Nor do I think that any of the draft versions have implied such a thing.
I think we must have different ideas of what "the special sense of the word" is. I used it to mean the requirement for multiple, non-trivial, independent sources. If you mean that same thing by it, then you would seem to be saying that all article content must have multiple, non-trivial, independent sources. This goes right back to my initial question (now archived, unfortunately), and would answer it contrariwise to the way a number of other people did. I somewhat doubt that that is really what you mean, but if it is not, then just what do you mean? Likely it would help if you told me what is your understanding of the "special sense" of "notability". I'm thinking (and hoping) that it is something like what I mean by the "ordinary sense of notability" -- "worthy of note" -- which of course is relevant to what goes into an article, although not in an all-or-none way.
This brings me to your middle sentence: I believe that you are misinterpreting the other guidelines that mention "relevant to notability". For example, JRR Tolkein is notable for his fiction, not really for his career as an academic, and certainly not because his father-side ancestors were craftsmen with roots in Saxony, yet these are covered in the article on him, which was lately a front-pager. Scarcely anyone is notable because of where they were born, and in most cases the exact place makes no difference to their notability, yet birthplaces are ordinarily given in biographies. Rather, there are particular classes of potential content that need to be "relevant to notability" (controversial matter about living persons, particularly). -- Lonewolf BC 23:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Sixth draft

Notability guidelines do not specifically pertain to the content within an article. For content issues, see verifiability, reliable sources, and trivia.

Seventh draft

Notability guidelines pertain to article topics, but do not specifically limit content within articles.

• This one seems to be the clearest and most supported by the notability criterion: "a topic is notable if ..." -- Black Falcon 11:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Eighth draft

Notability guidelines pertain to article topics but do not specifically limit content within articles. For issues of article content, see especially the guidelines on verifiability, reliable sources and trivia.
I think that is still not immune to the pig-headed, but it would be better than nothing. -- Lonewolf BC 23:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Ninth draft

(to add at end of introduction)

Notability guidelines pertain to article topics but do not directly limit content within articles.

(to add as a last section)

== Notability guidelines do not directly limit article-content ==

These and all the notability guidelines are for allowable article topics within Wikipedia, not for allowable content within a legitimate Wikipedia article. That is, not all material included in an article must, in itself, meet these criteria. For issues of article content, see especially the guidelines on verifiability, reliable sources and trivia. Note also, though, that other guidelines refer in places to "notability", meaning notability as defined by these guidelines.

-- Lonewolf BC 09:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Induction vs. Deduction / Subjective (Dis)Like

A number of the comments on this page seem to be of the type: "Well, I want articles on topic X to be kept/deleted, so let's adjust the notability guidelines accordingly" or "Well, articles on topic X obviously do/don't deserve to be in an encyclopedia, so let's try to find a way that excludes them". This is really nothing more than adjusting guidelines based on WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I think it is counterproductive to try to change or keep the general notability criterion in order to allow/exclude certain topics.

Shouldn't the issue at hand simply be: is there enough information available on this subject to write (at least) a stub-class article? That there is plenty of information on Pokemon cards (an example from this talk page) or other subjects that some editors consider "crufty" is no reason to try to find ways to devalue those sources (that's a subjective preconception that Pokemon is inherently unencyclopedic). Conversely, that there are no independent, non-trivial sources on a Carthaginian general to allow us to write at least a stub-class article on him/her is no reason to try to find ways to get this individual included by changing guidelines (an example similar to one in discussion above). Exceptions can be made under WP:IAR, but the whole premise of a guideline should not be to make a positive or negative exception for articles on a certain subject. I urge all of us involved in this discussion to keep this in mind. Thank you, Black Falcon 11:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Actually there's more to articles than just whether or noth there is enough published verifiable information for a stub. For example, I could theoretically write a stub or greater size article summarizing everything discussed for a given issue of the New York Times. I could list all the headlines, give a short synopsis of every story, sum up all the editorial opinion articles and letters to the editor for the day, and provide a run down of any other notable bits from that day's paper. Clearly such an article would be verifiable and, so long as I kept everything objective, not original research. I imagine such articles could be reasonable in length, too. I also don't see anything that it would violate in WP:NOT either.

But despite meeting all those policies and passing the "stub" test, I'm fairly sure we have good consensus that Wikipedia isn't supposed to have an article for every daily edition of the New York Times or any other paper. So the question isn't just whether there "is enough published information for an article", it's also "is there more than just a few days interest in this specific subject?" Dugwiki 12:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I do not mean to suggest that sufficiency of information to write a stub should be the only criterion, but rather that it should be the minimal criterion, from which we may then move on. I am fairly confident the NYT example you bring up is a case for WP:NOT#IINFO point 6: Wikipedia is not an "annotated text". In any case, my comment was intended as a criticism of comments of the type, "well, this guideline allows for articles on topic X, which are inherently unencyclopedic, so the guideline must be changed". Such judgments about the inherent (un)encyclopedicity of topics are inherently subjective, except in cases of pre-existing definition. By "cases of pre-existing definition" I mean cases which are directly relevant to the Enligsh-language definition of "encyclopedia". For instance, the definition of an encyclopedia precludes it from being a dictionary (I realise that the former developed from the latter, but this development took place long ago and the distinction has existed for over a century). This distinction is expressed as WP:WINAD, but WP:WINAD did not create this distinction; it existed long before Wikipedia even came into existence. -- Black Falcon 13:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I think we're almost in agreement. I would say that there isn't a "single minimal" criterion for articles to be kept, but rather there are a handful of two or three loosely related criterion. One of these criterion is, as you said, that there should be enough verifiable information to produce more than a couple of sentences for the article. A second minimal criterion, though, would be that even if an article is verifiable that the information should be of less than completely fleeting interest to Wikipedia readers. That second requirement is defined in part under WP:NOT, and WP:N also is intended to help futher refine the definition.

Now obviously people are going to have different opinions on exactly where lines should be drawn in borderline cases. But I think almost all the editors agree that most (not all) articles which have at most one verifiable reference should probably not be included in Wikipedia as a practical matter for various reasons, even if they otherwise meet the policies. It's not simply a matter of "taste" or "bias against cruft", etc, but more of some actual limits on editorial maintainence, fact checking and helping readers by filtering out information that the vast bulk of the readers will probably never access. That trimming helps keep the encyclopedia more efficient for both readers and editors alike. And the guideline WP:N comes into play by trying to help make those trimming decisions as consistent as possible. Sure, editors don't HAVE to follow a guideline, but by and large its in editor's best interests to try and follow guidelines unless a good case can be made for an exception. That way article authors hopefully don't have a "moving target" they need to meet to avoid a possible editorial consensus against keeping their article.

For my part, my opinion is that WP:N should hopefully represent a bare minimum level of sourcing that almost all editors can agree to. That allows us to use WP:N to filter out the "worst case" offenders efficiently and focus our possible deletion discussions on the borderline cases. It also represents an increased challenge for borderline articles to be deleted, because if they meet WP:N there is an implication that by default the article should probably be kept unless there is some important reason not to do so.

My appologies for the somewhat rambling reply. Hopefully I was able to explain the points I was trying to get across. Dugwiki 14:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I would generally disagree to the "stub" test, we shouldn't have permastubs (articles which could never be expanded beyond a stub). We should be able to write a comprehensive article using only secondary sources about a subject, with primary sources relegated to a limited role. In terms of localities, above, census data and the like is not a source which allows a comprehensive article. Books and such on the location would be. Nothing is notable "because it's a...". It is either notable because significant amounts of secondary sourcing have been written about it, or non-notable because that has not occurred. That is not a bias. It is a prevention of bias. It places the determination of what's notable or not squarely out of the hands of editors, where it does not belong, and into the hands of those who write our source material, where it does belong. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 15:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)

User:Seraphimblade, I think you make some excellent points. :) Travb (talk) 08:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I think Seraphimblade's argument that "census data and the like is not a source which allows a comprehensive article" is demonstrably false. For example, see: Centre County, Pennsylvania. This is just one sample of thousands of similar articles created using only U.S.census data. It is far more comprehensive than many notable WP articles. Also, based on his argument that the guideline should reflect the consensus of what the community actually does, this means that the standard of notability that requires multiple secondary sources does not have consensus. I think the multiple secondary sources standard is applicable to a wide range of subjects, but as I have been trying to point out repeatedly, it is not universally applicable to all. Dhaluza 11:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)

WP:ATT (derived from WP:V and WP:NOR) is an official policy, the work of widespread consensus, and specifically states that primary sources should be relegated to a limited role, and should never be the sole basis for an article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 11:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Yes, but that is a relatively recent addition. When these articles developed, they were consistent with policy. And I think that the recent crusade to change these policies is misguided, as the example I presented is clearly encyclopedic, and it's loss would not improve WP. Continuing this would should not require following WP:IAR. Dhaluza 12:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I disagree with your declaration that WP:ATT specifically states that primary sources should be relegated to a limited role, and should never be the sole basis for an article. It specifically states both that Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible and that (m)aterial from self-published or questionable sources may be used in articles about those sources, so long as the article is not based primarily on such sources. Let's let the policies speak for themselves, rather than use our inferences of what they mean, it keeps everyone on the same page. Steve block Talk 12:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Agree with Steve block. While it may be possible to make such a restrictive interpretation of WP:ATT, that interpretation is not explicit in the policy and such an interpretation is most definitely not policy. older ≠ wiser 13:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Ah, but it states that more specifically. "Material from self-published or questionable sources may be used in articles about those sources, so long as: ... the article is not based primarily on such sources. (emphasis mine)." So yes, it very specifically states that primary sources should be relegated to a limited, supplementary role, and not used as the primary basis of any article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 13:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I think the point is that you appear to be conflating "primary sources" with "self-published or questionable sources". They're two quite different things. While self-published or questionable sources may also be a primary source, that does not in any way deprecate quality primary sources. older ≠ wiser 14:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Yes, I saw that. But here's how that works. If only very obvious information from primary sources is put in with no interpretation, we've got a directory entry or indiscriminate collection of information, which fails WP:NOT. On the other hand, if interpretation is performed which is not from a secondary source, it must have been performed by an editor here. That editor's interpretation is a questionable, unreliable source. So either way, articles cannot be based solely or mainly upon primary sources. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 14:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Well, in a sense that leap in reasoning you made there goes to the heart of the perpetual confusion on WP about what exactly is a "primary source" as well as other contentious issues. As a reality check, would articles about music albums that contain only track listings and production note and perhaps some sales figures would fail your test? I think that is probably a clearer example of the use of primary sources than place articles based on Census or Survey data. older ≠ wiser 14:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Yes, if that's all that's available, the album should be merged and redirected to its parent band, not covered in its own article. (We can even redirect straight to the album section, "anchored" redirects now work.) That's a very clear example of primary-source only articles. (Of course, if secondary source materials are later found, and the album can be expanded, it may then merit spinning back out.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 14:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

To a degree, I agree with this. But I wouldn't want to see it promoted as some sort of general rule (that stubs should always be merged) or even as s simplistic algorithm to determine which stubs get merged and which don't. Such merging requires a fair degree of skill to do it well. Besides, there are problems with anchored redirects that place limits on their usefulness. Subsequent editors may not consider the merged material to be sufficiently relevant to the parent article and delete it or whittle it away to a point of making the redirect useless. Or the section heading may be altered, making the redirect not go to the right section, leaving a reader wondering why a link took them to an apparently random article. older ≠ wiser 15:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

As one of the authors of that complicated policy, I'd like to pipe in here. I certainly am not claiming priority in interpreting what we were aiming at, but it was a very long, complex, adversarial conversation that led to the wording. Let me say, that *if* an article is based entirely on primary sources, then it probably does not pass the bar that states that it must be "the subject of multiple, non-trivial, third-party...". In other words, the issue should not come up *here* at all, since it cannot pass the lower bar. My second point is, that if I were to read an article which was evenly divided between paraphrasing secondary sources and quoting primary ones, that is 50-50, I'd have no problem with it. In fact I'd think it's quite good. And yes, I advocate, in all cases, quoting primary sources, not paraphrasing them. That way leads to madness. Wjhonson 13:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

So are you saying the example listed above (Centre County, Pennsylvania) "cannot pass the lower bar"? Dhaluza 13:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I don't think the sole criteria would be the amount of text attributed to primary sources, but rather their importance to the article. In some cases, an article 50-50 split between primary and secondary might be very clearly based on the secondary sources, in others it may mainly use the primary ones. As to Centre County, I'm sure plenty of secondary source material is available on any US county, scholars and analysts study at a county level all the time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 13:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

In this particular case, I quickly reviewed the article and note several statements of fact that could not come from Census reports. Simply because the Census bureau doesn't collect some of the facts that this article sports. So apparently there are other sources. The sources for the article are not named. Perhaps a tag could be added to try to tease them out. Wjhonson 13:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

FWIW, I don't think Census Data really qualifies as a "primary source", at least not in the form released by the Census. The actual survey questionaires and the raw tabulation, yes that is unquestionably "primary" material. But the data released for public consumption by the Bureau has been processed, even some corrections made, and I would hope some level of verification that the released data is accurate (at least to the standards used by the Bureau). It is not a primary source in the same sense as a collection of a correspondence or unpublished notes or a transcript of a dialog. older ≠ wiser 14:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

FWIW, better think again. From WP:ATT/FAQ: "Examples of primary sources include...census results..." Dhaluza 14:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Hmm, while I respect the hard work people have put into WP:ATT/FAQ, but it doesn't necessarily get everything right. It is not policy and isn't even an actual guideline yet. My point, if there was one, is that there are different types of primary sources and it does not help to treat all primary sources the same way. I mean, yes, census numbers are pretty much just data, and are primary in that sense. Drawing conclusions from the data is interpretive/analytical work. But re-presenting the numbers without additional interpretation is not a problem. I guess your objection would be that if the article contains nothing other than census data, there's no encyclopedic value. I disagree, and I think repeated !votes in the past to delete the Rambot-generated articles have failed, usually be a wide margin. I think a consesnus has developed within the community that such articles about populated places are valid encyclopedic topics and justifiable as placeholders for eventual expansion. older ≠ wiser 15:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Let's start a categorization

I've started this page to help us out in the case that we decide to rebuild this guideline. I think the steps on that page would allow us to write something useful and informative. The plan that I've outlined there obviously isn't in stone... feel free to tweak it. I've started this ahead of the outcome of the above because it will take some time to do thoroughly and with consensus at each stage. The first part doesn't take any time for people to contribute to: it's just a categorization of a bunch of topics onto each side of the notable/non-notable dividing line. Please add to this list. We might not end up using it if the decision from above is not to rebuild but it will be good to have in the case that we do. Sancho (talk) 10:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I don't understand what you are trying to do. We could just look at precedents from AfD, rather than building an arbitrary list. There is a page that covers this already: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. Dhaluza 10:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• Okay, we could populate it with common outcomes, that would make sense. I was trying to make a specific list of topics from a bunch of people so that we could see if other policies explain the division already. Hopefully people will put borderline cases that they feel aren't explained by the other policies. Then we would know exactly where the other policies are deficient and have clear direction for what this guideline needs to add that the other guidelines/policies don't cover.Sancho (talk) 11:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

The answer is easy anyway, without picking out a whole bunch of arbitrary examples.

• Notable for an encyclopedia: Anything on which we can write a good-quality article (not just a stub, stubs are acceptable, but not if that's all that can ever be done), from the use only of reliable secondary source material, with primary sources relegated to a limited, supplementary role.

• Not notable for an encyclopedia: Anything else.

Really, it is that simple. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 10:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• If that is the simple answer, why has it not been agreed to by consensus on this page? Sancho (talk) 11:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Why are stubs not acceptable? Won't they eventually get merged or expanded? Isn't that the point? And how do you know a priori that a subject will only support a stub? Do you already have a more comprehensive definitive reference? Dhaluza 10:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I'm thinking that he probably means "if it cannot be expanded beyond being a stub". In other words, if all we can write that satisifes Wikipedia policy -- especially the two core policies of WP:NPOV and WP:ATT -- is just a stub, it doesn't belong, as a stub that cannot be expanded is pretty much worthless. 74.38.32.195 12:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

When you write stub here, you clearly don't mean the same as Wikipedia:Stub. On some subjects you could write a thousand words, and it still would be a stub. On others, a hundred words might be the limit of the possible, so that a stub version there might be two sentences. The state of being a stub is only tenuously related to article size. People keep taking stub tags off articles because they're big, and adding them because they are small, but that's entirely wrong. The only way you can tell if an article is a stub is by trying to expand it. Easy? It was a stub. Hard or impossible? It wasn't a stub. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Then replace all instances of "stub" in my post above with "article which is very short or does not cover the subject comprehensively," the exact definition of "stub" was not the point I was trying to make. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 10:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Well, the point I am trying to make is that this is supposed to be a collaborative effort. Making an article comprehensive is a shared task, and we should not put an unnecessary burden on the original contributer. Dhaluza 10:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Please do not respond to a straw man argument, but to what I actually wrote. I specifically stated that stubs should be considered acceptable. What should not be considered acceptable are permastubs, subjects on which, using secondary sources, we could never write a comprehensive article. Not for lack of collaboration, not because no one's done it yet, but because the sources simply do not exist. There's a difference between saying that an article is now very short or uncomprehensive, and to say that the article will always be very short or uncomprehensive because we just can't do better. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 11:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Seraphimblade, could you give an example of what you mean by "permastub"? I think Wikipedia should have articles that will always remain short (say, 15 sentences) as long as their content is comprehensive. This seems to be the same as what you're saying, but could you please clarify with an example? Thanks, Black Falcon 11:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Well, hit "random article" ten times and you'll see plenty. I hit one the first time, have a look at Pierre Planus. The only thing I can turn up is mirrors of our own article, and some very basic, directory-style information on the guy. WP:NOT a team-roster directory, any more then it's any other kind. That article could not realistically be expanded beyond where it is now. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 11:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

L'Équipe has sixteen articles that mention him. Sudouest has 31 with his name in them. This turns up the interesting fact that Planus's brother Marc is also a footballer, and has played against him. That's the sort of stuff that fills up the Saturday sports pages, and sure enough, Sudouest had an article last year entitled "Planus versus Planus". His signing with Angers must have made the pages of Ouest-France. He may not be David Beckham, but Angers are a fairly significant team within the area that Ouest-France sells, and a new signing in the off-season will have generated press. It's a stub, and like any other stub, it can be expanded. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Having one's name in an article does not imply non-trivial coverage, nor do random bits of trivia imply that an article is not a permastub. I'll see if I can find another example with sources I can read though. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 11:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Here's several more hits of random article, let's see what pops up. SERVO Magazine, permastub, directory entry, I can find no secondary sources that mention the magazine. Next hit is Miss BC World, which is quite evidently notable and not a permastub. Grote Nederlandse Larousse Encyclopedie, it's a stub now, but I seem to find a lot of material in Dutch on that, so that's probably not a permastub. Estimated Family Contribution should be merged to FAFSA if the information can be sourced (which I'm sure it can), I'll probably do that myself shortly. It is a permastub as a standalone article though. Alabama (song), it's a state song and I'm sure secondary sources are out there regarding its history, adoption as the state song, etc. Certainly would not be a permastub. Val Fuentes, only things I can find on him are name-drops, should be merged to his parent band. Standalone, it's a permastub. Albarella, I can't find a thing for secondary sources on that, appears to be a permastub (and borderline G11). Oliver Dohnányi, currently is a terrible mess, but there is enough secondary material for an article. Not a permastub. Dexter Smith, permastub, all I can find is some directory/statistics information and a couple of very short quotations from him in sports media. Royalton Hotel, all I can find for it at first blush are ads, but there might be something on it. That one's unclear, but certainly may be a permastub. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 12:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• I am still a little unclear on what this attempts to do, but if it seems to be what I think it is, I oppose it: we should not build a guideline based on what topics we think are or are not notable. That is a purely subjective exercise that will only result in an outporing of expressions of individual likes and dislikes per WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I do believe (as I'm sure all of us do) that some topics are inherently notable or non-notable (such as heads of government and the scratching habits of my next-door neighbour's cat, respectively). However, I would not want these to be expressed in the form of a guideline or policy (in fact, I oppose notability being a policy at all). A suggestion to work our way down (e.g., continents are notable; countries are notable; provinces are notable; etc.) until we reach a lack of consensus would have been better, but I'm even ambivalent about and semi-opposed to that. -- Black Falcon 11:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
  • The purpose of this is to check if other policies already explain the division that we want to create. Sancho (talk) 11:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• • I agree with this approach. We have consensus and precedent that towns and villages are notable, but things in the town like buildings, shops, local streets, etc. are not. Heads of state are notable, but the mayor of a small town generally is not. In the military, the lowest ranking soldier can be notable for valor in battle, but most officers get promoted through the ranks while leading an undistinguished and non-notable career, so there is no particular rank that confers notability. Why can't we boil these non-controversial principles down to their essence, and create a reasonable guideline that really can archive a true, broad, and stable consensus? Dhaluza 11:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
    • This is also an direction that would be worth following. Sancho (talk) 11:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

And how do you know what is a "perma-stub"?

Without a WP:CRYSTAL ball? Dhaluza 11:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Well, it would be easier with a flowchart, but for a very simple test:

1. Is the article currently very short or has very little information? (Yes) go to 2. (No) go to 4.
2. Does the article cite any secondary sources? (Yes) Go to 3. (No) go to 5.
3. Could those sources be used to expand and flesh out the article beyond a stub? (Yes) The article is not a permastub. (No) Go to 5.
4. Is most of the information in the article based off primary sources or no source whatsoever? (Yes) Ignore all primary-sourced or unsourced information and go to 5. (No) The article is not a permastub.
5. Can more secondary source material be found with a reasonable search (Google, Google Print, other subject-specific searches?) (Yes) Examine those sources and return to 3. (No) The article is a permastub.

Very easy, and no crystalballery involved. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 11:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• OK, so if I read this right, would this be an example of a permastub: College Township, Pennsylvania -- Dhaluza 13:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• I'm able to find quite a few secondary sources on it, so no, that's not a permastub just because those aren't currently cited in it. Permastub means "not enough source material exists", not "not enough source material is currently cited". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 13:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• OK, that was probably a bad example. I took a random article walk as you suggested, and came across this one: Malé Ozorovce. Is this a better example? Dhaluza 13:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• The answer there is, probably not, I find a good deal of material, but since I can't read most of it I can't comment definitively. I posted some examples down below that I found on a random walk, hopefully those will be somewhat clear. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 13:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• I don't doubt that you can find lots of examples of articles we should not have on a random walk. But if you want to make a guideline (and especially if you want to promote it to policy) it has to be universally applicable. I think your method fails at step 5, because you are relying on the "Google Test", and although this is widely applicable, it is far from universally applicable. It obviously does not work with subjects not covered on the web, and with subjects in foreign languages, especially with a non-latin alphabet. So although you may believe in good faith that something is not notable, there could be plenty of source material in a specialized library somewhere not accessible from your keyboard. Dhaluza 13:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• Really? Non-latin subjects often have the subject written in that language, thus faciliating google searches even if one can't read that language. However, finding reliable sources is a different matter entirely. Plucking a random example, the first seven or so pages of the google search for Aiko District, Kanagawa gives nothing but maps, hotels, weather and places to live - stuff that would actually be relevant to people wanting to go there and stay. jawiki has quite a bit of (unsourced) history in it, so I'd imagine the info is somewhere in some history book. I do think this is of concern though - it just doesn't seem comprehensive, but I can't find an example where this would be the case (if someone wants to try, I'd suggest starting from Oceania and working your way up.) ColourBurst 14:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• Well, generally with foreign subjects, if someone known and trusted to the community claims to have read a foreign-language source and can explain why it's reliable and comprehensive, I'd tend to defer to that person's judgment. However, with Fuentes, he could easily be covered under his parent band, until/unless someone found enough secondary material to justify a separate article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 15:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Was this a bad idea? I thought the best way to learn a classifier of topics into the categories notable and non-notable would be to first find a collection of training examples, then to extract the features from those training examples that are most discriminating as regards their class membership (notable or non-notable), then to build a classifier that performs best on our training examples as well as a set of test cases that weren't considered during our building of the classifier. Is there a better way to build this guideline? If there is a better way, or if you just don't like this idea of learning an accurate classifier, then I can request that this categorization page that I started be deleted. Let me know... Sancho (talk) 13:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Don't worry, there are no stupid questions. I didn't mean to suggest that your approach was a "bad idea", just that I didn't understand it. And it started a somewhat tangential, but nevertheless active discussion. Dhaluza 15:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I don't think examples are generally a bad idea. I posted this above, but maybe it's more appropriate here.

Here's several more hits of random article, let's see what pops up. SERVO Magazine, permastub, directory entry, I can find no secondary sources that mention the magazine. Next hit is Miss BC World, which is quite evidently notable and not a permastub. Grote Nederlandse Larousse Encyclopedie, it's a stub now, but I seem to find a lot of material in Dutch on that, so that's probably not a permastub. Estimated Family Contribution should be merged to FAFSA if the information can be sourced (which I'm sure it can), I'll probably do that myself shortly. It is a permastub as a standalone article though. Alabama (song), it's a state song and I'm sure secondary sources are out there regarding its history, adoption as the state song, etc. Certainly would not be a permastub. Val Fuentes, only things I can find on him are name-drops, should be merged to his parent band. Standalone, it's a permastub. Albarella, I can't find a thing for secondary sources on that, appears to be a permastub (and borderline G11). Oliver Dohnányi, currently is a terrible mess, but there is enough secondary material for an article. Not a permastub. Dexter Smith, permastub, all I can find is some directory/statistics information and a couple of very short quotations from him in sports media. Royalton Hotel, all I can find for it at first blush are ads, but there might be something on it. That one's unclear, but certainly may be a permastub. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 12:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• • Supposing I wanted to dispute your examples, I could say:

1. Servo--I see no reason why there might not be articles referring to the magazine in reliable moderated robotics blogs. I accept these as a source. But i found two university official sites using it as a source, one for class assignments. 2. Dutch Larousse. I find refs to articles in it, but the others are just listings in library or book dealers catalogs. 3. EFCA is how to do it, and I doubt its encyclopedic nature or the authority of the interpretation 4. Alabama, OK I cannot find a way to dispute that one. 5.Val Fuetes, I see a few reviews in what might be reputable online sources. 6.Albarella. should be in at least 2 printed or online tourist guides. Just a lazy article that didnt bother to look. 7. Dohnany, yes. , but people have tried to delete similar as unsourced because they dont recognize the name & assume the links are spam. 8. Dexter Smith, again, I would need to check specialized publications. Many athletes below our usual current level will have articles somewhere 9. Royalton, there will certainly be travel guides. and given a history in 1898, printed newspaper sources. So it is possible to find agreement on some of the most notable. But not necessarily on any of the others. Its the others that are the problem. I'm not saying my arguments are necessarily right, just that arguments can be made, I can't decide on borderline cases at an article/minute. DGG 14:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

(I presume you agree on Miss BC World). The thing with the borderline ones there is, though, they could probably all be easily dealt with, if people would just leave it alone when someone does. SERVO probably would require deletion if nothing were available on it (blogs aren't reliable, even if moderated, they have to be editorially-controlled and fact-checked. Similarly, a name-drop of the magazine on "You may want to look at this" doesn't make any source material for an article). Dutch Larousse I honestly can't comment intelligently on, since most of the source material I found I can't read. If you can, I'd defer to your judgment on that. EFCA, yes, but certainly anything which is verifiable could be merged, anything else could be left out, and the article title made into a useful redirect to FAFSA. For Val Fuentes, I wouldn't say reviews alone are enough to write an article unless they're very in-depth, he'd still probably be better covered under his parent band. If someone can find tons of material later in the future, it always can get spun back off. Albarella, I did look. Tourist guides are probably biased sources, and shouldn't be considered reliable, everything else I could find was basically advertising. Probably handled better as a one- or two-liner mention in the parent geographic region (and, again, spun back out if better material can be found later), and in the meantime redirecting to the region. For Dohnányi, trust me, "I've never heard of it, delete" drives me just as crazy as "You hear about that everywhere, keep". For Smith, maybe he does, but he could be covered in the meantime under his team, and that article could redirect to the team. Once again, if a ton of sources come around in the future, it can always be spun back out. Royalton, same thing, probably could get a one-liner under its parent locality, redirect, and be spun out later if it turns out you're right.

I'm probably as much or more a mergist as a deletionist, I've got no problem with a merge and useful redirect when possible. What we need, though, is some way to make a merge "stick", and not just have people reverse it (which I've had happen more then once), or say "The parent article is too large" (if a parent article with very little secondary sourcing is very large, it needs cutting, not to have the unsourced information spread around to get even bigger). It's great that we grow so much, I just wish people would give less grief to those who cut. That's as necessary a part of editing as the writing itself is, but everyone seems to take it as some type of personal insult. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 14:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

And a thankless job it is. I have no problem with removing unsourced material that is questionable or controversial. And if there is nothing left, then the article should be deleted. But there is nothing inherently unencyclopedic about using primary source material. Yes, it's a great fancruft filter, but it is not applicable to everything. Dhaluza 15:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

This were mentioned as possible arguments, not as the views I would actually take. The comment about Dohnányi was merely mentioned as the sort of absurd argument that unfortunately is actually seen. But the question of RS for travel guides illustrates my point that the failure to have good N guidelines will turn the discussion to RS, sorry, ATT, and will not help much in resolving disputes--we will just learn to use different words. What we really have at issue is not wording or dividing up the policies, but basic differences about what the encyclopedia should contain. DGG 16:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Stubs

I am puzzled by all the discussion about stubs and permastubs. If you look at paper encyclopedias, you will find very long articles and very short, even two sentence articles. If there is little to say about something, but the topic is separate from other topics and the name is something a reader might search for, then we should have a small article. There is no need to merge it to something else. We can take off the stub tag, particularly if it is going into WP 1.0 or some more stable version. --Bduke 14:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Or we can merge it into a parent article, and redirect to that section (anchored redirects to sections are now possible, thank the developers!) That way, we've got the subject explained in context, we've added more information to an article which is about a notable subject, and the reader searching for something there still finds something. In a paper encyclopedia, "see related entry under X" type "redirects" are clumsy and awkward for the reader, as the reader may need to go pull out a whole different volume, find the other subject, find where under that subject the desired coverage is, etc. For us, redirects are effortless for the reader. If we design them properly the reader gets taken right to the heading in the other article. We do more of a service for our readers that way, since that makes the context readily available. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 14:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Yes, but that is mixing apples and oranges. Whether to merge or split content is an editorial decision that is based on the content and how it fits with other content. It has little to do with notability, which is the filter for what content to include. We should not merge the article about your car into the article on the make/model, we should delete it. Dhaluza 15:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Very true. But what should be in a separate article of its own should be based on notability. If the information is inappropriate period, as with the car, it should simply be deleted. If it's appropriate and sourced, but just insufficient for its own article, it should be merged. If a stub has significant, clear expansion potential, it should be left alone. That's somewhat related to notability, and maybe should have a place in the MOS as well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 15:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I still think you are mixing separate issues. If it's appropriate, then where it goes is an editorial decision. It can stay as a short article if there is no logical place to merge it. If there is some place it can be merged, that does not mean it should be merged just because it's short. It should be merged there only if it makes sense. Encyclopedias can have short articles, there is nothing inherently wrong with that. It's better than sticking a round peg in a square hole. Dhaluza 15:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I'm not seeing that, I guess...those things in separate articles should be separately notable. Those things which are not notable on their own but are relevant to a parent article should be merged to the parent article. Those things which are just totally inappropriate or non-notable should be deleted. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 15:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Yes, I agree, it just has nothing to do with being short. Dhaluza 16:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I agree with Dhaluza. There is no need to merge something that is self-contained and notable. Anyway, how do you determine what the parent article is? --Bduke 16:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Here's an example: Zax (tool). It's a short article, but what else needs to be said? Where would you merge it, to Slate? That makes no sense. Dhaluza 16:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

That one looks like a dicdef, probably a good candidate to transwiki to Wiktionary. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 16:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

You're not serious, are you? Just in case you were, here is the dicdef Wikt:Zax. Dhaluza 16:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I think he's totally serious. I think I'll slap a prod on it right now; that's not an encyclopedia article, it's a definition. Brianyoumans 17:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I was indeed serious. It certainly looks to me like little more then a definition, what appears to you to be more? (I would encourage Brian to remove the prod, though, obviously Dhaluza does not agree.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 17:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

One is 12 words, and the other is over 100. Can you see why so many people think this nonsense is elitist? Dhaluza 17:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I guess I'm not understanding what's "elitist", no. Everyone is allowed to participate in deletion discussions, policy discussions, everything else you can imagine. The only time we tend to get unilateral action from "on high" is on things that could place the product in legal jeopardy. That seems to me about as anti-elitist as you get. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 17:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

(To respond to Bduke) Sometimes it's pretty easy to determine (for example, a non-notable album by a notable band would be merged to the band article, a non-notable book by a notable author merged to the author bio, a non-notable fictional character from a notable work of fiction merged to the fictional work's article, a non-notable corporate officer from a notable corporation merged to the corporation's article, etc.) Of course, if there is no parent article and the subject has no notability of its own, that's a good indication that deletion may be in order. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 16:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

and if there is no parent article and the subject has notability that is a good reason to keep a brief article when only a small amount of material can be written about it. --Bduke 18:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Well...that depends how you reason notability. If you go with subjective guidelines, such as WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO, and the like, yes, that situation could arise. I define notability as the ability to write a comprehensive article, though I suppose sometimes an article could be comprehensive but extremely short, I would imagine that to be a rare case. (Also, unlike many who are more toward the deletionist side, I adore lists for certain purposes. The above "Zax" would probably fit very well on a "List of construction tools" or the like.) Lists would provide an acceptable solution to many short articles, so long as the concept is not overdone to the point of (removes beans from nose, this better never turn blue) the good old List of non-notable people. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 18:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I encourage editors to read the section on dealing with non-notable subjects in these guidelines again. Deletion is not the only way to deal with non-notable subjects. Nominating zax (tool) for deletion in order to make a point was poor form. The problem with that article was that no-one had yet written an article with a broader scope into which it could be merged. It is only as of today that we even have an article about the trade of slater. The zax is discussed in published works in discussions of slater's tools as a whole. The guidelines say very clearly to rename, refactor, or merge articles where the subject is discussed in published works as part of a broader scope, and to create any necessary broader-scope articles if they don't already exist. Stop treating deletion as if it were the only tool in the toolbox! You are Wikipedia editors. You can write articles, too, as well as deletion nominations. Please follow the guidelines. Uncle G 04:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• My nomination may have been a bit hasty; on reflection, the solution which you implemented was in fact the most sensible one. I guess I have been a bit discouraged by attempts to work through a merge, by, for instance, the hate messages I received about merging many of the Notre Dame dorm articles into a list (which I need to redo someday soon). Taking something to AFD gives a merge decision a stamp of finality and officialness which can sometimes short-circuit ugly tedious edit wars (especially ones that involve long complicated merges). And, I really hadn't seen something like Zax (tool) taken to AFD before and was curious to see how it would go; if there had been firm support for deletion/merge, I would have worked on merging more tool articles. After the AFD, I don't think I will, despite your own post-afd decision to merge. --Brianyoumans 05:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)
  • You shouldn't AfD things just because you're "curious to see how it would go". That's even more WP:DISRUPTive than {{prod}}ing it to make a WP:POINT. Dhaluza 05:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)
    • Well, without a comprehensive policy on what is suitable for Wikipedia and what is not - which I think we can all agree will never be formed short of dictates from above - I'm not sure how one is supposed to determine the sense of the community about a certain type of article except by sending it to AFD (or looking at the results of past AFDs, which is frankly not an easy thing to do, I've tried - ever try looking through the archives for a particular obscure type of article? Tedious and difficult.) If the community wants to keep a particular class of article, I don't try to delete them - I don't try to get rid of run-of-the-mill high school articles any more, for instance, although I personally don't feel they have a place on Wikipedia. On the other hand, after several AFDs of elementary schools in British Columbia passed, I am now slowly prodding the other 130-odd articles (at least, the ones where I can't find any possible notability). --Brianyoumans 06:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)
      • Well for starters, you knew I used it as an example, another editor de-proded it, and another, though sympathetic, thought you were being too bold. Did you try discussing it further outside of AfD to draw out other opinions first? Dhaluza 06:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)
        • I wasn't sure whether the opinions of people here represented the opinions of editors at AFD; as it turns out, they did. I thought the process was pretty quick and efficient, really - only 4-5 people posted to the AFD discussion before I withdrew the nomination. Is that much different from asking 4-5 people their opinion on their talk pages (and getting whatever sample error from choosing people who I selected?) And I would point out that, although there were better ways to do it, the somewhat anomalous end result - the merge to Slater - seems to be a solution that no one here is complaining about, and I feel is an improvement. Let's let the subject rest, or take it to my talk page if people wish to continue to chastise me for my wicked deeds. Brianyoumans 06:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)
• Excellent job, Uncle G. You actually went to the trouble of looking it up, rather than just saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT and trying to get rid of it. I'd say this misguided adventure in elitism was more than poor form--just look at the AfD discussion. Maybe this helps explain why so many people object to this Notability guideline and how it is misused. True, this case was based on a misapplication of WP:DICDEF, but it is illustrative of the larger problem. Dhaluza 05:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Wikipedia:Availability

I created this as a separate page, although it's mainly a renaming, in an attempt to clear a lot of things up about notability, and to hopefully replace it with a leaner, (not really) meaner policy. Ideally, we'd throw out all of the stuff that we use to explain to newcomers that "no we don't really mean the same thing by notability as the rest of the world" and make it explicitly clear that what we're talking about is a standard of availability of sources. I realize some may disagree with my characterization (those who view notability as a bar of historical significance or other higher standard than basic sourcing), but this is mainly meant to remove the subjectivity. If people really want significance as a standard, it shouldn't be conflated with sourcing. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Will our readers be interested?

As I noted in the straw poll above, I have serious issues with letting the availability of sources dictate our notability requirement (short version: the primary notability criterion confuses the concepts of notability and verifiability, and it leads to a lot of systematic bias since media coverage around the world is uneven). I have written down what I think is a better standard for notability, although I freely admit that it is highly subjective, and will be debated on a case by case basis if it were the only criterion. Here goes:

A subject is notable if we can reasonably expect a sizable number of people to be interested in finding an article about it in an encyclopedia.

I think this will include all towns and villages, as well as most islands, lakes, rivers and streams of reasonable size. People expect articles on settlements and major geographical features in encyclopedias. It will not include most car crashes because even though media might cover them, almost all people would turn to a newspaper and not an encyclopedia if they were interested in reading about such events.

As the only notability criteria, this definition sucks of course. I can see that right now, but if you want to point it out as well, then by all means do so. If this were the only criterion, we would never have any agreement on whether or not a sizable number of readers are interested in reading about an individual elementary school (it doesn't seem we are getting one now either but never mind that). I hold this standard only as a first iteration to defining notability in the context of Wikipedia. I am very much in favor of more specific guidelines for narrower categories such as WP:MUSIC. (Note how that guideline, instead of focussing on independent media coverage, focuses on things the musician has released and sold and performed, instead of what that is the type of thing which might make a person interested in seeing an encyclopedia article.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)

"Will people be interested in it" would be terrible. We don't have a means to survey and check any of these, so all we have is people's personal opinions. Why do we need a stricter criterion anyway? WP:NOT#PAPER, after all. We have room for all of those things, and the car crashes too. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I suggested "encyclopedic suitability" for a name-I think there should be some concept that stories are suitable for an encyclopedia, not just a newspaper. (We've currently got that going at WP:NOTNEWS, but I think it could be integrated into notability, or its replacement, with just a paragraph or two.) Also, WP:NOT specifically states some things are inappropriate, whether or not they're sourced-dicdefs, directory entries, howto manuals, and so on. We certainly could always add WP:NOT the newspaper there, and it would work. This project might not be paper, but that doesn't mean there should be no scope limitation, it just means that we should cover anything that falls within that scope. It doesn't mean we can't say "Well, that really falls outside our scope." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 08:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Why do things have to fall outside our scope? Dicdefs, howtos, etc. are a matter of content -- not enough content, or the wrong kind of content for an encyclopedia article. But if a topic has sufficient content available for an encylopedic article, rather than original research or pure plot summary, for example, WP:NOT#PAPER says that we don't have to limit the topics we cover. Every tiny town in the united states, for example. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Generally, unless there's some secondary coverage, pure coverage from statistics/census data/etc., maybe with GPS coordinates, is a directory entry. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 09:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Census data is secondary (since we're looking at it as description of the town, rather than writing about the census), it's just unanalytical. But you're right about many of our bare town articles being more directoryish. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)

"Primary" doesn't only mean "non-independent", though that's one way a source can be primary and that's a common error. A source is not necessarily secondary because it's independent. Raw statistics without interpretation are by definition a primary source (and also generally an independent one). Of course, if the Census Bureau then publishes a report interpreting those statistics (or a sociologist does so in a peer-reviewed study, or the NYT comments, or...) then those would be secondary sources. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 10:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Another problem with this concept is its circularity. Wikipedia, by its very existence, has already redefined what people look for in an encyclopedia. (I admit that I look here for TV episode guides, for instance.) We have a high enough profile that people will come here looking for whatever we provide; if we got rid of WP:WINAD, people would use Wikipedia as a dictionary.

If the idea is to restrict Wikipedia to things people would be interested in finding in a traditional encyclopedia, then it really just boils down to "articles must be encyclopedic", using readers' interest as a measure of what is encyclopedic. Since, as Night Gyr points out, we can't really measure readers' interest, I don't find that helpful. —Celithemis 18:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)

In many ways a valid point. I realize that the definition involves a lot of hand-waving. But we can for instance assume that if there is a musician with numerous released albums which sell reasonably well, there will be readers interested in reading about that person. Therefore, a musician which releases albums which sell well passes the WP:MUSIC guideline. Due to the sales, the musician will probably also receive the "non trivial references" in published sources. However, I think that it is not the sources we might gather which make the musician notable. It is the released albums which sold well which make their creator notable. (Sources do make the article verifiable however, which is also very important, but a different story.) I feel that the basic goal the community aimed for when constructing category-specific notability guidelines was distinguishing the subjects which readers do care about reading from subjects which the readers don't care about reading and where such articles would only make Wikipedia look like a random website where anyone could post their private resumes. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

You nailed it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 09:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Disagree with Jeff. I'm sure people are interested in reading a lot of things that aren't suitable for placement here. I know a lot of people who would be interested in reading the Seattle bus schedule, a directory of websites that sell music, the full text of Les Miserables, song lyrics, dictionary definitions, and a thousand other things. What we're doing is building a reference work. That means, above all, we must have references. We are also building a tertiary work, with a strict prohibition on original research, which also indicates that the vast majority of our sources should be secondary. This guideline assures we stay within scope. Yes, WP:NOT paper, but how quickly those who throw that overlook on the very same page that WP:NOT indiscriminate either. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 09:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I do disagree with you - references are absolutely necessary for accuracy, but have nothing to do with the things you mentioned. This guideline has nothing to do with staying in scope - if it did, it would have realistic expectations for "notability" instead of arbitrary hurdles. The subject-specific guidelines handle notability much better because of this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 09:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I guess I'm unclear on how this guideline is arbitrary (it requires that an article have sources, we're required to work from sources, I guess I see that as easily keeping us within scope), while the other guidelines (two gold records? Why not platinum? Why not one? Why not five? A "large fan base or cult following"? Who decides large?). Personally, I liked your "sufficient" idea, so long as we can agree on a definition of what's sufficient. "Non-trivial" is the only thing I see having any degree of arbitrariness or interpretation to it left in this guideline. I agree with you that a lot of people misinterpret notability (ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT, ITSPOPULAR/ITSOBSCURE, and many other similar ones), but that's the fault of the person, not the guideline. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 09:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Because sources don't indicate notability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 09:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Then, what does? And more importantly, how would we write about a sourceless topic without using original research? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 09:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

It depends on the subject. And I'm not saying we should keep sourceless articles around, I'm saying that we shouldn't be removing them because of notability concerns, but rather verifiability issues. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

So rename the page to Wikipedia:Applying policy to AfD. Done. Nifboy 12:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

What about Wikipedia:Encyclopedic suitability? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 12:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

No, because it again implies something that isn't true. I'd be fine with a rename to that if we rewrote the whole page - one section pointing to WP:ATT, the other to the subject-specific guidelines, but as currently written, it has nothing to do with policy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

The one thing we seem to agree on...

We need a page for, if nothing else, discussing AfD. There are a number of pages that discuss what gets deleted, and then there are the pages that describe what we want in an article. Lastly, there's a lot of sand in between where we draw lines.

What we don't agree on is whether the criteria, as written, does a good job of tying all these pages together. Nifboy 20:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)

However, letting someone crow "DELETE! Non-notable!" with no further explanation or policy-based argument and considering that a valid !vote is silly and unprofessional, in fact it is totally counter to the goal of a real encyclopedia. Making rules is easy, getting people to follow rules is not. We could have the most precise and exacting notability rule ever, but if everyone is allowed to say "It's not notable because I say so" and be accepted, then it does absolutely nothing but look nice. 74.38.32.195 12:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

please put up yiddish interwiki link

like this: [[yi:װיקיפּעדיע:מערקווערדיג]] thanks--yidi 06:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Done. —dgies^t_c 22:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Rewrite this page completely.

Per above, there's a few things we now know:

1. There's really no consensus for this as written or proposed to be written.
2. We can't really come to an agreement on this using the current template.

So I'm proposing a radical change to this entire page. The page is to exist at Wikipedia:Article inclusion (this text actually exists there now, and this should become a redirect) It should be in three sections. The first, the intro/lead section:

"Wikipedia has a series of tests that Wikipedians use to judge whether an article's subject is worthy of inclusion. These tests, based on various policies and guidelines reached by consensus, form Wikipedia's standards on encyclopedic inclusion."

The second section:

"All articles on Wikipedia must abide by our policy on attribution - articles should be well-sourced and verifiable, preferably with independent third party reliable secondary sources.

"All articles on Wikipedia should generally meet a standard for notability for the subject matter it falls into. For example, a musical act's notability is judged by our guidelines for music subjects, while web-content is governed by our internet guidelines. In the absence of a subject-specific guideline, sufficient third party information on which to base an article is generally enough to establish notability."

"Biographical articles on living people are held to a much stricter standard, due to legal and ethical concerns. While there are many nuances to articles concerning living people, the guiding principle, especially for controversial figures, is "Do no harm."

"Most importantly, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and subjects must have encyclopedic value. As Wikipedia is not a web host, a directory, or a dictionary, it is possible that some contributions may belong in other Wikimedia projects, such as Wiktionary or a Wikia site."

The third section:

"Articles that do not meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion are handled in a variety of different ways.

• "If the information is useful in a different article, or a number of smaller articles may be useful as a larger treatment on a subject, merging may be the most appropriate option."
• "Articles concerning unencyclopedic topics or subjects may be handled via deletion. Proposed deletion is a form of deletion for uncontroversial subjects, articles for deletion is a forum for discussion of an article's encyclopedic worth, and many articles qualify for speedy deletion if they do not assert basic notability, lack context, or are believed to be spam."

And that's IT. Finis. Done. Add some links to the bottom, don't tag the page, and we've reached a workable compromise - the subject-specific guidelines continue to act as the arbiters of notability, we have a page that reflects our policies for inclusion, and there shouldn't be any problems. So why not? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

The problem is, this is an unworkable compromise. Others would see the compromise (including me) as far simpler.

First and only section:

An article's subject is appropriate for Wikipedia if sufficient secondary source coverage is available to write a comprehensive, non-stub article on it. All articles written on subjects which do not fit this guideline should be merged into a parent topic or deleted as appropriate. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 14:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

"My way or the highway?" So how is it unworkable? Nifboy 14:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I think it's important to note that sources should be both independent of the subject (to avoid autobiographical bias) and have multiple sources that weren't written essentially simultaneously (to weed out things like sports articles about day-to-day games and local minor crime stories that were written about in multiple local papers). I think it also should indicate that it's possible to have an exception to the guideline, but such exceptions should have a strong rationale for why they are kept despite not meeting the guideline.

That's where the individual guidelines come in. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I like Seraphimblade's version because it's pretty concise and easier to understand, but I'd want to modify it slightly to address the issues I mentioned above. I could probably get behind something like this -

"An article's subject is appropriate for Wikipedia if sufficient independently written secondary source coverage is available to write a comprehensive, non-stub article on it. Such sources should be independent of the subject to avoid autobiographical bias, and should not all be written in the same one or two day period (to avoid things like local sporting events and crime stories that might have multiple independent articles about them at the time of the event). Articles written on subjects which do not meet this minimal sourcing guideline should be merged into a parent topic or deleted as appropriate unless a strong reason for an exception is presented."

That's just a possible suggestion, but it would get to about the minimal bar I'd prefer to see. If Jeff's much longer version could be modified to address the multiple independent non-simultaneous sourcing issues I mentioned, then I could probably support it too (although I think it's a big long). I'm also ok with the current guideline as is, since it meets my minimal general sourcing recommendations for keeping articles. Dugwiki 15:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I'd go for that as well. My main concern is eliminating the concept that subjective "secondary" guidelines can provide an exception to the sourcing requirement. We should work from secondary sources, no matter any other considerations. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 15:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Again - for establishing notability, sources are not the be-all end-all. I cannot stress this enough, and I cannot be clearer on it. Articles that are notable but still lack secondary sources will still be deleted for failing the core policies, so your concerns are unarranted. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

The idea is not to have an overreaching notability guideline - a one-size-fits-all approach doesn't work. I don't mind similar wording in the intro (I'm going to try and incorporate it now), but the idea is not to have a one-size-fits-all, but note that article inclusion is based on a number of factors. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I have gone and added some of what you wrote above. The last sentence duplicated information in the final section, and your nod to recentism is, IMO, unnecessary, as it's covered adequately elsewhere, but I think it ties together the section nicely. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Jeff's version seems like a good start, but note that WP:RS is now a redirect to WP:ATT. I prefer Jeff's version to SeraphimBlade's because I've seen the future, and it sucks as far as relying on WP:N goes. The webification of government means that any guideline which rests solely on the availability of independent reporting runs in to the OFSTED problem: every school and kindergarten in the UK is notable because OFSTED writes statutory reports on them. Regulatory agencies abound, and although most do not make their reports available on the web—not yet—they will. If a health inspectorate did, every kebab shop and curry house in Hackney might suddenly be notable. As written, every UK care home, and every temp nursing agency, and many more health service entities, would be notable. The statutory reports are on the web, and they are comprehensive. So let's not pin all our hopes on a sufficiency of independent sources. Mentioning NOT, and ENC, and ATT, and BLP, and so on, is a much broader approach, and less open to abuse. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

OFSTED reports are primary, as would be health inspection reports, so those wouldn't much matter. What we should be looking for is that someone who is not affiliated with the subject, and is not required to write about the subject, did so, in depth. Web or not shouldn't matter though, we should certainly be able to use offline sources as well as online to establish that. The only requirement is they should be secondary. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 15:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

OFSTED reports aren't really primary for the purposes of sourcing - they're secondary for the subjects they're writing about. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

As for WP:RS, I forgot about that. But it's apparently going to some FAQ, so that can be fixed when the time comes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

OFSTED reports would be primary per WP:ATT (and the normal academic definition of a primary source). They're a government report on a government entity. An example of a secondary source would be a sociologist using an OFSTED report as part of a study of a school, or a newspaper mentioning the results in context with an article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 15:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Reading the section at WP:ATT, I disagree, but that's really neither here nor there for the purposes of this discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

(Major edit conflict - I'll add it and then return) I have concerns that the phrase "sources should be independent of the subject" keeps being said without realising that this removes a great deal of material from articles and articles themselves that are perfectly encyclopedic. It over-complicates things and is far from what we actually do. I agree about autobiographical details. These should be avoided. I agree that some non-independent sources are biased or advertising. However in many cases they are just more accurate and more detailed than independent sources. One example I know about is that some readers want to know about a Scout organisation in a particular country. I do not come from the US, so let me talk about the Boy Scouts of America (BSA). Readers want quite a bit of detail and we provide it. Secondary sources, are by and large incomplete and inaccurate. This is not surprising. Why should a newspaper or magazine article go to a lot of detail? Books will only cover parts of what is needed such as biographies of key people. To get accurate material we go to BSA sources. These are perfectly OK. The crucial point is that independent sources should be required if anyone challenges anything in an article. Until they do, almost any kind of source is adequate to avoid OR. Verification is needed if a statement is challenged. I suggest the same should be done about suitability criteria. Let the Projects define it. Put their pages that do so in a category and let them stand until someone comes along and challenges one of them as leading to inclusion of material that is unsuitable for an encyclopedia. In fact the challenge would be best as a specific AfD proposal that challenged a Project's criteria. A successful AfD would lead the Project to modify their criteria.

A few other points:

• what does "is not required to write about the subject" really mean? A newspaper editor says to a reporter "Go and write about X". Sources are sources. Use them until the information is challenged.
• what is wrong with some primary sources if they give information that should be in the article. Again, use until challenged.
• The notions of primary and secondary sources are blurred. In science articles we use original research papers as well as review papers. Even review papers often include new work by the author or work that is cited as "personal communication".
• Angus McLellan is essentially correct. If we rely on sources, we will have articles that are really not encyclopedic. We need to decide on encyclopedic and then find sources to write an article. A good start is a whole series of things, like "teams in major leagues (defining that term specifically)", "country and state associations of international movements, but not individual groups/chapters/whatever in one town or village" and so on. All need debating by people who know the subject.
• badlydrawnjeff's ideas are closer to what I think is needed than anything I have seen so far. --Bduke 16:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Several things were added while I was writing the above leading to an edit conflict. I agree with badlydrawnjeff in the new discussion. --Bduke 16:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

This still does not address the subjectivity issue. Nothing I've seen, other than a single, uniform notability guideline, based on secondary sourcing and secondary sourcing only, addresses the subjectivity issue. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 16:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Notability is inherently subjective, so this isn't an issue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Regarding your concerns about independent sources, I should clarify that better and will do so following my reply here - I need to make it clear that the secondary is necessary only to establish notability. Regardless, pointing to WP:ATT is the important step there, so feel free to reword it. Regarding 'is not required', I don't know where that's coming from. Hopefully, I can get your continued support. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

(edit conflict again - in response to Seraphimblade) A single uniform guideline does not do it either. First, we decide what we are going to write articles about. Second, but more importantly, it is likely to be too brief to cover everything and we still have to decide whether the sources are reliable, or non-trivial. I remain convinced that consensus is the only way. We are writing an encyclopedia. We include stuff that is encyclopedic, with sources. Someone comes along and says "This kind of stuff is not encyclopedic". We discuss it and come to a consensus. We also already have a great deal of stuff that does exactly that - "a school play ground soccer team is not encyclopedic" and so on and on. We codify and build on what we have. Material based on "secondary sourcing and secondary sourcing only" can still be not encyclopedic. It may simply be too local or too trivial. --Bduke 17:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

But we should still write down an agreed definition or set of definitions for what "encyclopedic" actually means, instead of letting it be totally subjective, ranging from "I like it" to "6000 hits is kinda nice", "it's known in my hometown", "10 books were written", etc. even if it's not a single brief guideline, but a whole bunch of subject-specific guidelines. Relying entirely on unwritten rules is not a good idea. If we decide that X is non-notable and should be deleted simply because it makes our tummies queasy when we read it... Discuss and come to a consensus, but have consensually-agreed rules that provide rational, logical bounds for what can and cannot be a notability criterion. We cannot just have a free-for-all that changes with the wind and the phase of the moon. 74.38.32.195 20:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Above I have suggested that WikiProjects have a set of criteria and they stay until challenged at AfD. There could be other "subject" pages that are not covered by WikiProjects, although they are getting fewer by the day as more Projects are created. Anything not covered by a Project can be handled by AfD. Let people who know about a topic propose criteria. There are too many AfDs with inappropriate comments because the editor making them does not understand the topic. --Bduke 20:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

But "I like/don't like it" should never, ever be a good criterion. Also, N criteria should best be proposed on the N-related pages, not on AFD discussions. Also, are you saying that you (or whomever) may dismiss criteria simply because you think the proposer does not know enough, without any other argument or challenge to the proposed criterion itself? 74.38.32.195 22:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

That is essentially what I said. There would be N-related pages with criteria. However some articles may slip through the cracks and AfD could handle them. I understand AfD or Vfd predates WP:V and dealt with deletions perfectly well. No, I am not saying what you suggest about dismissing criteria. I am suggesting that good criteria will come from people who understand the area and the range of articles that exist and could exist. I think this is true whether we are talking about webcomics or quantum theory. I am not asking for "experts" to determine this. I am talking about the people who participate in a project because they are enthusiastic about the area. For example I am an expert, of a kind, on physical chemistry, having taught it for 40 years, but I am an enthusiast on wine but not an expert. I know about the articles on wine that do exist and might exist and I have some ideas about how detailed criteria could be written to allow some wine topics and disallow others. The criteria would need to gain consensus by the Wine Project, which has members who also have this enthusiasm and together have a broad international view of wine. Others would need to respect this by doing some serious work before rejecting the criteria, and not just say "It is'nt like the criteria for comics" or even "It is'nt like the criteria for food". We already have a lot of detailed criteria of the kind I am talking about scattered around, and it is often respected on AfD. We need to formalise that process and expand it, building consensus in the Projects and where necessary more widely. --Bduke 22:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Let me share with you a bit of history, specifically WP:WEB, which started off as the "webcomic inclusion criteria", and is probably the noisiest sub-N guideline in existence. Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics was started when someone in the webcomics community suggested that all webcomics with 100 or more comics should have a Wikipedia article.

We (in the loosest sense) haven't gotten along since. Nifboy 23:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

But how would one handle the AFD discussions when no N guidelines are in place for the topic yet? The thing is we cannot allow "I like it/I hate it" to be used. It's too subjective and free-for-all-y. Also, if a good criterion comes from a non-expert, it will still be considered, right? Expert contributions should be valued, yes, but less-than-expert people can still make a good contrib here and there. You also said that there are criteria scattered around -- should these perhaps be collected, formalized, and put together into a comprehensive "notability rulebook" of some sort covering all sorts of topics, with WP:N serving as a primer and "table of contents" to it? I'd also suggest it should provide pointers and procedure perhaps for dealing with topics where no subject-specific guideline set exists. 74.38.32.195 21:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

In particular the people interested in Webcomics have not agreed ever since. The debates on this articles at AfD show a consistently great disagreement about both the basic principles and their applications. If even in this one pioneer area there is no consensus, how can we expect to build a policy from individual subjects? The arguments about schools is another example--the basic ideas of what ought to be in included have never been resolved, and the same repetitive views are repeated time after time. There is a particular scientific subject--not chemistry--where many of the qualified specialists have very high standards for inclusion--much more so than those in other sciences--one even expressed the view that almost all university professors in the field are not notable--including himself. Shall we therefore base our selection accordingly, with sharp variation by subject? How narrow shall we go? The Wodehouse specialists may want standards of their own, and so may the Buffyverse fans. The people interested in different sports seem to have different standards. DGG 23:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

(Not sure where in the thread to put this, so I'll put it here at the bottom) There seems to be a some disagreement over whether OFSTED is secondary or primary, but that discussion is sidetracking the problem presented: that there will be a systematic bias in how many sources we have available between different countries and regions. OK, instead of OFSTED, let's look the Bergen Byleksikon (Bergen City Encyclopedia, definitely not a primary source) which gives a comprehensive coverage of all the geographical features in Bergen, Norway (which is my home town). This book has entries on

1. Every school in the city, including elementary schools. (Entries for high schools are longer.)
2. Every street, road, driveway, and alley in the city, with an description of where the road runs, and at least a short history describing when the road was named, and why it was named as it was.

Would this mean that every street, road, driveway and alley in Bergen is notable? I know there are some who regularly call for the inclusion of such articles, but in general AFD precedent has been to delete minor roads. Saying that all these roads became much more notable in 1994 when that book was published (thereby creating a secondary source was made which gave non-trivial independent coverage) simply does not make sense. Saying that the roads in Bergen are notable while the roads in Hamar are not notable because there is no Hamar Byleksikon simply makes no sense. Nothing changed about the roads themselves when Bergen Byleksikon was published. Whether or not those roads or streets are notable today, if they were not notable in 1987 they are not notable in 2007 either. The roads play an equally significant or insignificant role in Bergen as they do in Hamar. The difference between them, whether or not a source is published, does not do a good job of discriminating the notable from non-notable stuff in this situation. Sjakkalle (Check!) 23:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Notability criterion should involve sourcing?

Hi.

I noticed this on WP:ATT: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true.. On the old WP:V page, it said "The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth.". So, it's official policy:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true."

So, according to this, I think then that a source-based notability criterion for topics where there are no subject-specific criteria, like the one we have now, would make sense given Wikipedia's Official Policies. 74.38.32.195 22:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I suggest that this is talking about including the material. Of course it has to be sourced to be verified. Notability is somewhat different. It is the prior decision. Should we even consider adding this by trying to verify it through sources? The problem to me is that material can be "attributable to a reliable published source" but we still do not want to have it in the encyclopedia. This is why there is so much discussion about notability. We all agree that we are adding verifiable stuff, not necessarily true stuff. We agree stuff should be sourced. We do not seem to agree about what fits into an encyclopedia, although we agree about a lot that does not fit and about a lot that clearly does fit. We are undecided about criteria for a relatively small amount of stuff in the middle; the stuff that often turns up on AfD. --Bduke 23:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Part of the problem with this Notability guideline is that it conflates what should be included with sourcing. We already have the WP:ATT policy that deals with sources, so covering the same ground here is redundant at best. And a guideline should not modify policy, so there is no sense defining Notability in terms of sourcing. Despite the repeated drum beating over multiple secondary sources, they are valuable, but not essential. UncleG merged zax into slater using one tertiary source, not multiple secondary sources, in the example we just saw, so let's drop that red-herring. Dhaluza 00:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Again, notability is different from verifiability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

To reply to Dhaluza, you can write articles that meet all the tenants of WP:ATT but which are routinely considered inappropriate for inclusion. For instance, you can write an article about a local sports match that has multiple articles from the sports pages of the related cities, but we don't have articles about such games. WP:N is intended to present a minimal standard for the quantity and quality of references which otherwise meet WP:ATT and thus provide a minimal rule-of-thumb guideline that articles should meet. It is not redundant with WP:ATT, since WP:ATT deals with the reliability of various types of sources while WP:N is more of an extension of WP:NOT in that it handles articles which are verifiably accurate but which should nonetheless probably not be included in Wikipedia. Dugwiki 08:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Can't find info online proves what?

There's an AfD going on for Fazal Mohammed right now, and it illustrates one of the problems with this guideline. Basically, wikipedian sit at their computers and use google to decide the fate of articles, which leads to bias. There are a few mentions of Fazal on the web, but not enough to satisfy notability. He's from Trinidad, and he died in the 40's; of course he isn't going to have a large presence on the web. This page talks about how notability is generally permanent, then basically makes it impossible to save articles about subjects that are pre internet and not from the devoloped world. Can't we do better than this? - Peregrine Fisher 00:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

The problem you point out is real, but this article is not a good example, because it does not include even one source. If the person is worthy of inclusion, there must be something to verify their existence and claim to notability. Dhaluza 00:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Basically, Dhaluza said it. The "fate of articles" doesn't rely solely on Google; if you can provide appropriate secondary sources, such as magazine articles, reviews and so on, to demonstrate the notability of this person, then the article will be kept. Google is only used as a fall-back option for those articles with no sources, to test whether there may be sources out there that haven't been added to the article yet; an article will never be deleted solely on the basis of a low ghit-count when there are sources in the article to demonstrate notability. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 01:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Ditto the other responses. Verifiability is an important characteristic, in my view more important than notability, for any Wikipedia article. Even if a subject is notable, lack of verifiability can still doom an article. (This does lead to a systematic bias as well, but for something as important as verifiability, that is a price we must pay.) However, I think there is a fairly good chance that one might find some paper sources for the article if someone has access to a local library. Even if the article is eventually deleted for lack of verifiability, but someone then finds sources to verify the article, then the situation has changed, and that will be a definite thing people will care about on a DRV nomination. Sjakkalle (Check!) 02:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Fundamental misunderstanding of consensus

If we try to dig down to the root of the problem with this guideline, past the disputes over tags, and wording, I think you find a fundamental misunderstanding of how a consensus based organization works, and how that applies to a wiki. People who can quote chapter and verse about how you can't write a WP article without sourcing, seem to completely miss the corollary that you can't write WP policy and guidelines without consensus. Just as in journalism where "you can't write the, story you want to, you have to write the story you have the sources for" in a consensus based organization, you can't write the policy you want to, you can only write the policy you have consensus for.

Since policy has to reflect consensus, you can't beat people over the head with it, and maintain consensus. So it's futile to think you can get your ideas written into a WP policy or guideline, then quote that at AfD claiming it represents consensus, and get away with it for very long. That's just not going to fly. And I think that's what has happened here. Enough people saw enough nonsense at AfD, traced it back to the source, and said that's enough!

So I think it's time for people here to get off their soapboxes, and start listening to the different points of view, and look for common ground. If this guideline is going to survive at all, it's time to stop pushing pet theories, and see if there is anything we can agree on. Dhaluza 01:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I think the point is more that this shouldn't survive. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Someone Disagrees With This Policy

That person is me. Look, I want to have a wonderful free encyclopedia as much as the next guy, but I don't feel that this policy behooves that vision. The big argument for the notability policy is that it is conducive to an environment were people write poorly sourced articles, but there is already a policy regarding this matter, so the notability policy is redundant at best.Jamestown James 04:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Actually, there are things that this policy covers that would not be covered by core policy. To take an extreme example, I could write an article about my car that passes all core policies. That article would be neutral, would use verifiable, reliable sources (government documents and a police officer's accident report), and would require no original research. Such an article would not be a directory entry, crystalballery, or any other NOT entry. What it is, is non-notable. A good encyclopedia article should tell the reader "Why is this subject important or significant?" We could not possibly write a good article on Microsoft, or Albert Einstein, or agriculture, without explaining why these subjects are important and significant. So if the answer is "It's not important or significant", we shouldn't have an article on it. Seraphimblade

^{Talk to me} 05:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This is fine and all, but there are much more relevant AND sourced articles that are lined up to get the chop. Here are a bunch of articles with value that are nominated for deletion by this outrageous policy: Airship (Final Fantasy), Awakening (album), Krista Benjamin. Now, I admit that I don't care for the poetic work of Krista Benjamin, but there are people out there who buy her books, and read her poetry, and go to her readings; and they deserve to read a reasonably well written article on her. Look, if we are all together to create a free, international encyclopedia that is capable of storing most all human knowledge, why not blow twenty kilobytes of memory on the work of Ms. Benjamin?Jamestown James 00:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, none of those are nominated for deletion yet. I may nominate them, but first will do some looking to see if any additional source material is available. We don't go by our personal thoughts or opinions, we go by third-party published works. In the case of the Final Fantasy airships, I fail to see how they have notability or significance in the real world. They may be notable and significant within the fictional Final Fantasy universe, but that makes it suitable for a Final Fantasy fan wiki, not Wikipedia. (There are also way too many fair-use images in that article, I'll be cleaning those up as well. One would work to illustrate the topic.) In the case of the author, I can't find much at all. In the case of the band, I can't find anything besides that one web review.

What would serve you better than anything here, though, is to go look for sources. If you can prove me wrong, and go find a bunch of reliable independent source material for these subjects, there's not a chance in hell they'll be nominated for deletion. On the other hand, if the sources cited are all there is, those articles should be deleted. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how wikipedia would be lessened, exactly, by the presence of the article you've suggested above. If an editor can meet NOR, verifiability, and NPOV guidelines and is sufficiently motivated, there hardly seems to be a reason to deny that editor an opportunity to toil away in obscurity. To say that an encyclopedia article describes "why a subject is notable" really amounts simply to saying that an encyclopedia article describes a subject efficiently and well; articles on non-notable subjects can certainly meet that goal. Orphic 08:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

How so? We require writing from sources, notability requires sources. If very little sourcing is available, you can't exactly write a comprehensive article. As to lessening Wikipedia, there are a lot of things we are not, and an indiscriminate collection of information (even verifiable information!) is one of them. Every article we have requires continuous effort in vandal-patrolling, upkeep, fact-checking, and the like. We're not here to do that for people that want to write a vanity autobiography or a fansite for their favorite garage band or a memorial on their recently-deceased family member. We're here to write an encyclopedia, and part of that is some editorial control and a limitation of scope. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If we eliminate the Notability policy, we open the door to every crackpot 9/11 conspiracy theorist videologist on the planet. Let's not let Wikipedia become a soapbox and advertising vehicle for every Nutburger craptologist hawking Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 06:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Let the people say AMEN. Edison 06:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about?Jamestown James 00:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This is perhaps one of the most commonly held misconceptions of wikipedia, and one reason the notability policy is as entrenched as it is. Verifiability and original research policy are sufficient to deter the kinds of articles you're worried about. Frankly, notability is a very poor tool for this, as it's difficult to pin down and easy to subvert.Orphic 08:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Orphic, if an article can verified and is not controversial, then I don't see how it takes anything away from the rest of wikipedia, even if it doesn't add anything it me writing an article on Colemak keyboards,fx-82 calculators or the sort would take away from the any existing article on wikipedia. (please don't pin me down on the specific examples i give as there irrelevant and probably covert elsewhere in wikipedia so bad examples)Xbehave 15:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Independent+non trivial? Debretts, Whos Who etc

Opening statement

I would like to seek some guidance here on whether or not it is appropriate to consider entries directories such as Debrett’s Peerage & Baronetage and Who's Who (UK) as meeting the requirements of The notability criterion. If this is the wrong place to ask for guidance on interpretation, please redirect this discussion somewhere else.

Background

The problem relates particularly to the British gentry and aristocracy, especially to Baronets (a hereditary title best confering the title "Sir", a sort of halfway house between a knighthood and a peerage):

• There are a number of articles, particularly those on British gentry and aristocracy where these volumes have been cited as references, and claimed as evidence of notability
• So far I have seen three schools of thought:
  1. That holders of hereditary titles should be treated as inherently notable, since that is an inherent characteristic of nobility
  2. That in the UK, the only hereditary titles which confer a presumption of notability per WP:BIO are those which confer (or conferred) a seat in the House of Lords (the history of that subject is a little complex, and needn't concern us here); the other titles are irrelevant
  3. That most holders of such titles meet the criteria for notability through their inclusion in at several of the guides such as Debretts and Whos Who

The above is my attempt at a neutral summary of the discussions at WikiProject Baronetcies. I hope that I have summarised the position accurately, but if any correction is needed I would ask that people try not to rehearse all the details of the positions we discussed at great length, but just briefly add to or clarify the summary.

Assessment

The first position (automatic notability), is one which goes a little beyond WP:NOBLE, a proposed guideline which did not achieve consensus. I suggest that anyone is free to try to revive that process and seek consensus for a new guideline, but in the meantime, there is no such guideline, and that there is therefore no automatic presumption of notability for those such as baronets whose titles have never conferred a seat in the House of Lords.

The second position is roughly the status quo, strictly interpreted; it provides an answer only in conjunction with the third point.

The third point is the one which I am bringing here, because it seems to me (per my contribution to a recent AfD on a Baronet) that it offers a resolution to the dispute:

• If these directories do meet the critera, then articles referencing those sources meet the notability test
• If Debretts etc do not meet the notability criterion, then any such articles need other sources to pass the notability thresholds.

Caveat

Anyone reading the recent discussions will be aware that feelings are running very high on this question. Amongst the protagonists there are thoe who hold the British honours system in contempt, and those who revere it: both POVs are, of course, entirely legitimate and honorable, but unfortunately bring us no closer to resolving the dispute within existing guidelines, and our overriding requirement to neutrally accommodate all points of view. I would therefore ask contributors to this discussion to avoid those wider perspectives, and to focus solely on assessing whether volumes such as Debrett’s Peerage & Baronetage and Who's Who (UK) meet the the notability criterion. My proposition is that if we can resolve that relatively simple question, we will be much closer to reaching agreement on the fate of the individual articles

I personally lean towards a conclusion that those volumes don't meet the notability criterion, but it seems to me to be a very grey area and I have not made up my own mind. Here are the points which I have seen raised so far (I have labelled as pro those who reckon that Debrett's, Who's Who etc meet the criteria):

Notability criterion

1. The non-trivial test
   • Pro: Proponents of the directories argue that while the entries are tersely written, they are nonetheless non-trivial, and in some cases extend to a full page; opponents argue
   • Anti: Opponents argue that most of the entries are little more than genealogical lists and potted biographies like a condensed CV, and that many include only a short paragraph on each individual
   • but both sides seem to agree that no original research is needed to to extract the content
2. The Independence test
   • Anti: many of these volumes rely heavily on input from the subjects (when they are alive), and so cannot be counted as independent of the subject (e.g. subjects draft their own entries for Who's Who)
   • Pro: regardless of who drafts the entries, they are checked by the publishers, and any falsification would be rapidly noted by some of the many expert readers. Since falsification would be detected, it would serve only to damage the reputation of any individual who tried it
3. The Independence test, take two
   • Anti: there is ultimately a lack of independent sources for much of the material in these volumes, so they probably feed off each other a lot more than is acknowledged
   • Pro: That's inevitably the case with biographical data, but what matters is that there is proper checking of primary sources.
4. The reliability test
   • The two sides dispute both how much checking is actually done in compiling these volumes, and how effective those checks are
5. Secondary sources
   • I have not seen any dispute that these are secondary sources

Intention arguments

1. • Pro:Those directories are intended as directories of notable people, so inclusion in those directories is in itself evidence of notability, and it is not wikipedia's job to reject widely-accepted definitions of notability
   • Anti:Those directories have their own criteria for notability, which may or may not be wikipedia's criteria: we should not automatically presume that they are. In particular, Debrett’s Peerage & Baronetage is evidence of notability only if one accepts the premise that peerage and baronetage are inherently notable (though that does not of course apply to Who's Who)

So there's my summary. I've probably omitted some things and been mistaken in others, and welcome correction/clarification etc ... but please please please can we keep this discussion focused on the narrow question of which (if any) of these volumes meet the tests set out in Wikipedia:Notability#The_notability_criterion? Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

• Excellent summation. I would only add that the pro camp do not contend that acceptance of this perspective should lead to creation of numerous article on transiently-notable people (not that wiki allows such a concept). Also these books which send out proofs to the subjects invite inclusion of anticipated events - so errors do creep in but will be corrected in later editions. - Kittybrewster (talk) 11:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• This is a discussion better suited for WP:BIO, but these are reliable sources that are published independent of their subjects regardless of one's feelings about them, so it's not really an issue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I thought of WP:BIO, but I reckoned that a discussion focused on the notability criteria was better placed here. Elsewhere, another editor says that the discussion belongs at WP:RS, so I guess there's no place for it that will satisfy everyone. However, I'll leave a note at WP:BIO for folks to look here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, someone beat me to it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Looks like they're relatively reliable, but in and of themselves, relatively trivial and of questionable independence. In effect, those books would be the "nobility directory", and we wouldn't just automatically include anyone in them, any more so than we'd do so for the telephone directory. They'd be fine for supplemental material on people who have other material published about them, though. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The whole point of a phone book is that it includes everyone (unless you are ex-d) it is universal in nature. It is also very basis name/number/address. The various publications in question select for inclusion a small minority - in this case anyone they believe to be notable based on their criteria and give more general (sometimes substantial) discussion/details. If some fictitious sporting organisation produced sportsmen of the world I might quibble about any particular entry but not broadly that inclusion/exclusion and the infomation included must be some indication of notability. Alci12 14:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• I'd go for a liberal criterion, ie the first school of thought re nobility, and we should be comfortable with Who's Who and Debrett's for establishing notability, SqueakBox 01:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• The key here is whether these sources are independent, and I note that one source that is not, according to the guidelines, independent is an "autobiography". I do not know much about deBretts, since we here in the States had the good sense to get rid of the nobility a long time ago and now just debate the notability of D list celebrities who, at the least, are better looking, but Who's Who is essentially autobiography with perhaps a veneer of editing to the more flagrant abusers. There is absolutely no point in treating Who's Who, or anything like it, as a reliable source, given the lack of indepdence. As to whether nobility is inherantly notable, well, I will leave that to those who need to put up with them - certainly they are not inherantly notable outside the borders of their own country, where those titles may retain some meaning. A Musing 20:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• That is pretty much my take on it also, not only should an entry in Who's Who or Debrett's convey automatic notability I would also agrue that may they should not be used as they do not conform to to the critieria laid down in WP:RS due to their lack of independence and heavy autobiographical nature.--Vintagekits 13:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• A few years ago the foreword to "Who's Who" made a comment to the effect that people had sometimes regarded the invitation to contribute an entry to their publication as a distinction. That, they said, was the last thing it was: it was a recognition of distinction already achieved. The stated intent of Who's Who is to be a biographical guide to all those notable in British society (they take a rather traditional and conservative approach to who is notable). Debrett's People of Today, its competitor, has practically the same aim but a slightly different approach: they remove people who are no longer notable, whereas Who's Who generally do not. But I think the general approach to be taken is clear: they are independent secondary sources which can be used to judge whether a person is notable. I would not however say that a general rule "Anyone with an entry in Who's Who is notable" is justified. Sam Blacketer 21:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Why are they "independent"? I know that for Who's Who, every person is given the opportunity to proof their entry before publication, and, in most cases, the information that is included is submitted by the person or by a colleague. It strikes me like any other autobiography - the presence of an editor or publisher does not make it reliable under Wikipedia's standards.A Musing 21:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• That's a separate issue. The discussion is whether inclusion of a person in Who's Who etc. is a measure of notability, not the value to be placed on Who's Who as a source. For what it's worth, normally the details supplied are checked so that blatant inaccuracies are removed. Entries are often inaccurate on precise details (particularly years in which a particular post was held). The most serious concern is that subjects can remove from their entries items which they do not wish to be included, so one gets a partial view. Sam Blacketer 21:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• The fundamental guideline for notability states that a subject is notable if they have significant coverage in "reliable" and "independent" sources; the question here is whether Who's Who or DeBrett qualify as both "reliable" and "independent"; if they do not, then notability must be established elsewhere.A Musing 22:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Sam, this is a dead conversation and two new ones with different focus need to be opened. The opening statment states "I would like to seek some guidance here on whether or not it is appropriate to consider entries directories such as Debrett’s Peerage & Baronetage and Who's Who (UK) as meeting the requirements of The notability criterion." - that is easy to answer, it doesnts - we have WP:N and WP:BIO - WW and Debrett's apply different critieria to assess what they see as notable and we have ours. Now like I said we need two new discussions. 1. Using WW, Burkes and Debrett's as a source and 2. Does being a Baronet give automatic notability.--Vintagekits 21:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • To answer, in order: 1. They would be good as a supplemental source, but since the information in them is largely autobiographical, they should be used according to the caveats regarding self-published sources. 2. No such thing as "automatic" notability. An individual subject is notable or not, "notability by category" doesn't exist. (Granted, there are some categories, such as US Presidents, British Prime Ministers, or basic chemical elements, in which every member of the class happens to be notable. But that's not "because I say so," that's because every subject within those categories really is sufficiently sourced for a comprehensive article.) It appears for baronets, the answer is the same as for anything-some of them are notable, some of them are not. WP:NOT Who's Who, and we should make that distinction. Notability is not nobility. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Vintagekits, if the question as easy to answer, we would by now have arrived a clear answer, but in fact we are a long way from reaching a consensus :( As you will see above, only one of the "pro" arguments rests on the notion that inclusion in Debretts confers notability; the other points are all related to the question of whether the entries in those articles meet the notability criteria, which effectively a specific formulation of WP:RS.
      You say that two new discussions are needed, but I note that we already failed to reach consensus on automatic notability ... and how would any new discussion on Using WW, Burkes and Debrett's as a source differ from this one? The issues it would have to address are the ones raised here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
      • No concensus was reached as the discussion was held on the talk page of the Baronet Project (hardly neutral ground for that type of discussion) and it was just me and other members of the Baronet Project discussing it. Like I said I think two new discussions need to be opened. Your discussion on the notability of Baronets was perfectly formed but needs to be sorted out in a different venue (I suggest here) but this discussion is too vague and it trying to tackle too many overlapping issues at once. But thats just my view.--Vintagekits 12:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Just to clarify the above, I think the reason people are bring up the WP:RS in a discussion about WP:N is because if the publication fails WP:RS then there is no chance the it can convey automatic notability. Like I said this conversation is one conversation to early. We should discuss whether or not it is a reliable source first and then move on to this. This conversation is putting the cart before the horse in my opinion. I am not in anyway denigrating your contribution as it is most welcome, useful and insightful and you also seem to be the only one from the Baronet Project that seems to be able to critical appraise anything got to do with regards the subject. --Vintagekits 16:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Oh well, if you want to raise the issue at WT:RS, I suppose you might as well, since we don't seem to have gotten anywhere near a consensus here. But the two major issues here are reliability and independence, and I'm not sure that splitting it further will help: in this case, the two issues are inter-related. I don't see what's to be gained by a diversion to another forum, but as above, try it if you like. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
            • If the issues being discussed here was just "reliability and independence" then that would be fine. But what is being discussed here is whether or not an insertion in Who's Who or Debretts is sufficient to prove notability.--Vintagekits 18:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
              • Yes, and the core issues are "reliability and independence". You seem to be arguing in effect for a discussion which is simply relabelled. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
                • I am not, and I have already stated this - this discussion is trying to see if an entry in WW or Debretts give automatic notability on wiki. My opinion is that it doesnt and not only does it not give automatic notability it is infact a dubious source due to its largely auobiographical nature.--Vintagekits 18:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"Who's Who" and "Debretts" are not in my opinion independent sources of material for an article, as the subject can change the entry and certainly remove items that they do want to be included. However, they are independent sources for notability because the subject does not determine that they have an entry. The editors decide that someone is notable enough for an entry and invite them to have an entry. That is an independent assertion of notability. Only a few people are selected. Therefore I conclude that anyone with an entry deserves an entry in WP, but we need other sources to write the article so that the material is properly verified. This is a good example of why the concept of notability and the concept of reliable sources are not the same thing. --Bduke 23:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have just spotted WP:COI#Notability_and_saliency, which says: "Citations of "Who's Who" directories should not be used alone as evidence of notability. These registries' criteria for listing are, as a rule, over-inclusive and may be nonexistent; some are vanity publishers and offer listing for a fee. The inclusion of a name in such a publication is therefore not sufficient to guarantee notability." That appears to me to a fairly clearcut answer to the question of whether these sources meet the notability criterion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Some "Who's Who" directories are vanity and may offer inclusion for a fee, but not all do. The main UK "Who's Who", for example, I am pretty sure does not. We need to tell the difference. Debretts does not offer inclusion for a fee either. The presence of some shonky directories should not distract from the worth of the proper ones. --Bduke 12:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with that. Any vanity book or book offering inclusion for a fee should not be used. "Who's Who" published by Black & Co is not one such. Nor is Debrett's. - Kittybrewster (talk) 12:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not they all carry an "inclusion fee" is immaterial they are listings/directories and carry no depth of coverage. They as carry there own criteria for inclusion which is not the same as wikis, I dont see why we (being wiki) should bind ourselves to the inclusion policy of another publication - a publication that has an updated method and criteria for inclusion when we already have WP:N and WP:BIO - many of the entrants in both WW and Debretts are traditionally automatically selected for inclusion based on a title that they have been given or inherited regardless of achievement or notability. - vintagekits

You misunderstand. We are not binding ourselves. The two books that Kittybrewster and I are referring to are just one assertion of notability, but the content may not be sufficient or adequate for an article. It is immaterial whether they carry a depth of coverage. The entry is evidence of notability. We may need other sources to write the article. You also say that we have WP:N. It is not policy and is even a disputed guideline. We need to look at a variety of ways for demonstrating that a topic is worthy of an article - i.e. is notable, even though there is only one way to write the article - from good sources. Notability and sources are not the same. --Bduke 13:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

With respect I think that you misunderstand, this whole discussion is about whether or not an intersertion in WW or Debretts gives automatic notablility. To my mind the publications are selcetion criteria are totally outdated in this era and even if the entries were collated independently of the entrant (which they arnt) I would not consider them very highly for these reasons outlined.--Vintagekits 13:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Trying to tie things together

Because I refuse to allow this to die on the vine - if conversation stops, it's because we've come to a conclusion and moved on. I'm reading the above discussions, and there's a lot of agreement here amongst those of us who have been in this battle for the long haul, so here's my new attempt:

A topic is generally notable if there are sufficient reliable sources available to verifiably establish the topic's importance. In most cases, the sources should be independent of the subject.

This is radically different from anything we've seen on the page so far, but I think encompasses everyone's input at this stage:

1. It requires verifiable reliable sources.
2. It at least assumes a sourced-based scenario without flat-out requiring it, allowing for the exceptions that are provided elsewhere.
3. It notes the independence in a second sentence - this way, it's not part of the quotable section, which is the first line most will point toward, but is still part of the actionable content, recognizing that there will be *some* cases where non-independent sources can establish notability.

I think this is as good as we can get at this point - it does a better job forcing the right kind of discussion than any previous version, it doesn't get bogged down in language that invites the type of lawyering many hope to avoid, it's closed-ended enough to keep the "firehose of crap" from entering the doorway, while open-ended enough to allow for sensible flexibility in the absence of a subject-specific guidelines. Any objections? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I like it. — Scientizzle 23:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. My initial concern is that "importance" becomes a key word in this definition. Defining importance then leads us in a circular direction.--Kubigula (talk) 00:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

But isn't that what we're trying to do anyway? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What I think we are trying to do is to find the most objective guideline for an attribute that is admittedly subjective - i.e. what are people likely to find interesting or informative. As I said above, it seems to me that the most objective proxy for whether something is of interest is whether reliable sources have found it interesting enough to write about it. Personally, I'm pretty happy with the current wording of the guideline. Though, you have convinced me (at least) that there is no need to treat it as the "prime criterion" that trumps the consensually reached individual subject guidelines. I like the way WP:MUSIC incorporates the general guideline. Jeff - do you have any thoughts or objections to the way this issue is handled at MUSIC?--Kubigula (talk) 01:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:MUSIC is probably the perfect way to do it on a subject-specific level - it mentions it, but doesn't treat it as more or less important than anything else. We'd be smart to continue to do it that way across the other subject-specific guidelines, tailored to the issues at hand. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it should still require multiple sources. There may be the occasional exception to that, but guidelines always have the occasional exception. Also, we don't need sources to verify the topic's importance, per se-we've already got "Notability is not fame or importance", and I entirely agree with that. What verifies notability is how much something's actually been noted, in reliable sources. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Multiple has little support, and misses the point. Why are you still insisting on it? Also, notability is fame or importance, another fallacy this "guideline" has touted. We're trying to make this more in tune with reality. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing radically different about the first sentence- you're just rewording the primary notabilty criterion. I don't like the "in most cases" though - non-independant sources generally count for very little. Friday (talk) 02:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Then you have no problem with it as a whole? --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I cannot agree with that definition. It does not even match the spirit or the letter of the subject-specific guidelines. Here are my problems with it:

1. "generally notable" ... exceptions to a guideline are needed, but it's best not to introduce this amount of ambiguity at the very start.
2. "sufficient reliable sources" ... sufficient for what? who judges 'sufficiency'?
3. "establish the topic's importance" ... notability is not importance (importance is itself a hopelessly subjective concept ... how do you propose to measure it? The # of people who've been "arsed" to write about the subject?); also, it is the existence of sources, not their content, that proves that a topic is notable.

   (edit conflict). Notable is defined as "worthy of being noted". The best way of knowing whether something is "worthy" of being noted is to see whether anyone has noted it.

4. "In most cases, the sources should be independent of the subject." ... to establish notability, the sources should always be independent of the subject (sure, we can make some exceptions via IAR, but again, there's no need to make the guideline ambiguous).

In short, I believe that proposed notability criterion is hopelessly subjective and would render Wikipedia:Notability essentially worthless as a guideline. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Seraphim/Friday/Falcon - may I ask you your opinions of how this issue is handled at WP:MUSIC? I'm curious if the approach taken there is something we can use as a basis for a larger solution?--Kubigula (talk) 04:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

My view is that Wikipedia:Notability should consisty solely of the general notability criterion, preferably some variant of "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the subject and reliable" (copied from WP:MUSIC). That should be the general criterion which establishes notability for all topics. I have no problem with the subject-specific guidelines adding other criteria and/or requirements if there is consensus to do so. WP:N should be general in scope, but neither vague nor overly detailed. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that this idea has been soundly rejected, see the March archives. We have to start looking beyond it. Consider WP:N as a general starting point and I think you'll have a better go of it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I wasn't very clear as to what I was asking. I am trying to see if there is some consensus for a general approach, as I believe it would greating behoove us to have some basic consistency in how we approach notability across Wikipedia. The current version of MUSIC says you can either meet the general notability guideline/criterion or the other subject specific criteria (charted hit, etc). Prior versions of Music (e.g.) used to say that we have a primary criterion that determines notability, but we also have these other specific indicators that make it likely that the subject is notable. Personally, I found the old structure confusing as the relationship between the primary criterion and the specific criteria was ambiguous (e.g. if a band had a charted hit but was not shown to be the subject of multiple published works, should they be included or not?). The current version of MUSIC has the virtue of being much clearer.

So, I agree with Falcon (and I think Jeff agrees too) that WP:N should solely be a general criterion. However, I am looking forward to a possible integration of N with the subject specific guidelines and asking if the way the current version of MUSIC has done the integration is something that is palatable to the people involved in this discussion?--Kubigula (talk) 05:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The primary criterion never really had consensus, which is why it's not there anymore. The way WP:MUSIC is handling it is how all the subject-specific guidelines have handled it historically, and with relative success. The general preference, I believe, is to continue to handle it in that way. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

(In response to Kubigula) The handling at WP:MUSIC is improper. Sourcing should be the sole criterion. Any other criteria should be solely advisory as to when multiple, non-trivial, secondary sourcing should exist. They should not justify the inclusion of an article in the absence of such sourcing, and under absolutely no circumstances should they set a criterion such as "every album by a band that barely scrapes by notability is notable too". Every article should be judged on its own available sourcing, period, no exceptions, end of story. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, to address your latter first, there's no such thing as an unsourced album, and the articles are merely sub-articles with better formatting and a better way to present information. The handling of WP:MUSIC is how the general consensus is, has been, and continues to be on this one, the same with albums. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with what Seraphimblade has said above me. Sourcing is the only important criterion. To sum it up in one sentence: if multiple independent reliable sources about a topic do not exist, then that topic should not be included in Wikipedia. On the topic of albums: as far as I'm concerned, albums of a notable band are not automatically notable. They are only notable if the album itself, not the band, has been the subject of sufficient coverage in sources, e.g. news stories or reviews in the mainstream press. Walton ^{Need some help?} 18:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, then there should be no need for any of the subject specific guidelines. In a perfect world, we would all have access to all possible sources, and there would probably be no need for subject specific guidelines. However, I think the subject specific guidelines are generally built around the reality that sources are not always easily available. In other words, we know, for example, that there are reliable sources about a musician with a charted hit, even if those sources aren't uncovered with a quick google search. So, we have agreed on an set of criteria that make someone or something likely to be of interest and to have sources (by the way, I fully agree with you on the album issue). If we are ever to have a consistent approach on notability, I think we need to either have both WP:N and subject specific guidelines structured like MUSIC, or just have WP:N and delete the SSGs. I support the former option for both the pragmatic reason that there's no way we will get consensus to delete the SSGs, and because at this stage of Wikipedia's existence it is reasonable to have mutually agreed subject specific presumptions of notability (though we should also be more aggresive about challenging weak presumptions like the one regarding albums). As WP becomes more comprehensive, and information and sources become more available, it may more sense to drop back to a single universal notability criterion.--Kubigula (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

So, if no one has access to the sources yet, why not say "Hey, wait until someone who does have access to the available sourcing is able to write the article?" It'll still get done by the deadline. In the meantime, we won't have to guess at when sources might be available, have endless disputes over what's true or not when no sources are available to resolve the matter, or have inconsistent standards. WP:V is pretty clear on the matter, and I agree with it-you want it kept around, source it. Not at some point, the moment you write it. As to the album itself being a source, that's a garbage argument. By that rationale, I'm a source on myself, and can go write a vanity autobiography article based solely upon that. That's why we require secondary, independent, reliable sources, not just any old source. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I cannot stress this enough - sourcing ultimately has nothing to do with notability. Notability exists - period. You're either notable or you're not. This is why the subject specific guidelines work, this is why WP:N's ideas on sourcing were thoroughly rejected. As for my album example, if we were to be rid of all the album articles tomorrow, they'd be merged into the artist areas. And it would be the exact same content, except formatted poorly. Why would that be okay? We can use the albums as primary sources about themselves. Album articles are simply sub-articles designed for ease of navigation, so can we please regain some focus here? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't go one bit for the "Well if it's a splitout, or we call it a navigational aid, it's okay!" argument. If the article doesn't stand on its own, but there's an appropriate parent topic, merge it. And yes, just like anything, we require verifiability. Including of notability. In the case of notability, the verifiability question is "Well, show me it's actually been noted." If not, you can state it's notable all day long, but you can't verify it, so for our purposes, it's not there. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to go for it, it won't change what it is. As for your second comment, absolutely, but it's beyond the purview of what we're doing here. We're trying to figure out how something is notable, not how we prove it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Jeff, I think you are right that I am blurring concepts - particularly notability versus measuring notability. As WP:N says, notability simply means that something is worthy of attracting notice. That is a subjective concept, as different people think different things are worthy of their attention. So, the only absolutely objective way to measure notability would be to run a worldwide poll on each article and only include the ones that X number of people say are worthy of their attention. Obviously we can't do that, so we have to rely on the best objective proxies for measuring notability. Right now, we have two mechanisms - (1) coverage in reliable sources and (2) by consensus of Wikipedia editors. Coverage in reliable sources is a good objective method because such sources usually wouldn't and couldn't cover topics unless they were of some general interest. Also, reliable sources allow us to meet the Wikipedia policies of WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR. Consensus is also a good objective proxy because if enough Wikipedia editors think a given topic is of interest, then it is of general interest. Aristotle isn't notable because people have written books about him, he is notable because people want to read about him. If there was only one book about Aristotle (to meet V, RS and NOR), he would still be notable because I think we can agree that enough people want to know about Aristotle. If we could get enough people to participate in every AfD, we wouldn't need notability guidelines - if 500 editors think something is worthy of their attention, then it's notable by definition. Consensus, assuming there is sufficient representative participation, is a perfectly acceptable way to measure notability (though not V, RS and NOR). So, the more I think about it, the more I like the approach at MUSIC - it uses the two best methods we have devised to measure notability.--Kubigula (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

...I think for the first time since I started watching this page has it actually made sense to me. Nifboy 18:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I thank Kubigula for the first comment recently that offers a way to resolve the contradiction between the two general approaches that has been discussed here interminably. (though there were some other approaches to a rational combination of them as well) I haven't been participating much in these discussions for --quite frankly--I thought them unlike to lead anywhere, and that I had heard all the argument several dozen times on every possible policy page. (And also that I had myself no solution whatsoever to the apparent stalemate, so why should I add to the confusion.) I want to think a little about where we should go from here. DGG 18:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the key measure is 2. I don't think 1 should be considered as its already important and there's no point in relisting a requirement in different words. the emphasis should IMO be put on 2. I feel that notability deletions are too fast at the moment i only came to this page because twice in the last day, could notability deletions be subject to a longer vote on their talk page or a clause?im not knowledgeable on the wikimedia engine but does it track usage of pages? surely the simplest method to find out if something is noteworthy is to see how many people look at an article over a set period of time.Xbehave 15:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

A fresh start?

I have drafted a proposed rewrite of the lead and first section of this guideline at User:Kubigula/Notability. My own views on this whole subject have changed a bit as a result of the above conversation, and I ask people to keep an open mind when reading this. I believe the primary virtue of my proposed language is that it can provide some harmony and consistency between this guideline and the subject specific guidelines.--Kubigula (talk) 05:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that does a good job of summarising the points raised thus far and reflecting the opinions of various editors. I'd recommend only four relatively minor changes:

1. Change "if it has been a primary subject of coverage" to "if it has been a subject of coverage". Consider, for instance, a 10-chapter book that devotes one chapter each to the examination of a particular civil conflict. None of the 10 civil conflicts covered are the book's "primary" subject, but that shouldn't disqualify the book as proving the topic's notability.
2. Delete the sentence "Significant means more than trivial but less than important." That sentence does not help without defining what we mean by trivial and important. If we're going to do that, we might as well pick one or the other.
3. Your version makes no mention of the option of merging, which I think should always be considered before deletion.
4. The word "challenged" in the last sentence should link to Wikipedia:Deletion policy rather than AFD ... a lot of articles are better handled via WP:CSD and WP:PROD.

Of course, those are all relatively minor changes and I fully support the introduction of the new wording. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with points 2-4, and I have redrafted to meet those concerns. I somewhat anticipated your first issue by saying "a primary subject" rather than "the primary subject". I think a chapter in a book would qualify as a primary subject, if not the primary subject.--Kubigula (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I can understand why you left in "a primary", but ... technically, by definition, only one thing can be "primary". I don't object to the spirit of what you're trying to say, but would just like an alternate word ... I'll see if I can think of anything. In any case, I note again that that's a minor issue that can be resolved later on. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I like Kubigula's new draft. It takes out a lot of the waffle associated with WP:N, and maintains the spirit of the PNC without attracting controversy relating to the subject-specific guidelines. So I fully support its introduction. Walton ^{Need some help?} 10:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Can't say I like "multiple" or "significant" - neither of those are true. Our aim should be to accurately encompass notability. --badlydrawnjeff talk

I'm not personally married to that exact language, but I stuck with it because I think we all agree that something that has significant coverage in multiple sources is presumed to be notable. A topic may well be notable if it has less than that, but it would need to be considered on its own individual merits. I have attempted to clarify that a bit more.--Kubigula (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess it depends on what we're trying to do - if we want to protect what's already notable, that makes sense, but if we're trying to establish where that line is, I'm not sure it's smart to draw the line so far away. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Then what's a better line? Fame?! I thought that "notability" != "fame". mike4ty4 19:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

A great example of the failure of "significant"/"multiple, non-trivial" and its various permutations

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matrixism (3rd nomination). Here, we have an article, Matrixism, which has been mentioned in multiple sources, but in a way some believe to be trivial. Never mind that the "religion" is noteworthy enough to be mentioned along with others like it on NPR and Australian broadcasting, because Matrixism isn't the subject or receives "significant" coverage in those, we shouldn't bother with it, even though the article itself has numerous citations and isn't stub-sized? This is a great example as to why the idea of "multiple," "non-trivial" and "significant" need to be tossed by the wayside - it encourages situations like this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright? Looks to me like the sources are trivial and the article should be deleted. We don't need mentions, we need sources. Good, in-depth, detailed sources. These are name drops or blurbs. It's working exactly as it should. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly why it's not working as it should. Notability is established by the sources - that's what we're looking for, right? Notability? - and we're allowing lawyering about the sources get in the way of the honesty about the subject. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not "lawyering" to actually examine the sources in question, and say "Hey, they barely said anything about this." That's exactly why non-triviality is and should be required. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It's exactly why non-triviality is a non-starter. To examine the sources bring us to the concept that it's noted in mainstream media on three continents. That's notabiltiy, right there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't particularly matter. Something can get name-dropped everywhere, but if we don't have sufficient sources for a good, comprehensive article, we shouldn't have the article. Of course, it's not inconceivable that this will receive more detailed attention, and that in the future an article will be workable. If so, we write it then. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

As you can see from the article, we already have what you're looking for. Anything less is misunderstanding actual notability. I know you disagree with this, and your denial in the face of the evidence is somewhat frustrating to me, but this is exactly what we should be looking for for notability - we have enough information to establish the subject's importance, and we have enough overall sources to make an article. Why require anything more? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking for enough sources to make an article. Right now, that's not there. There are enough sources for a blurb. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Then I'm not convinced you're looking at the sources critically. Sorry. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I believe a critical look is exactly what's being done here, and not just by me. (Certainly, it's not just me who's argued the sourcing is insufficient!) But, we shall see how it turns out. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

What is entirely missing is evidence that anyone actually believes in this purported religion. Anyone can put up a Geocities page and claim numbers. We don't even have a name of a single purported adherent of this thing. FCYTravis 16:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Is that a necessary figure to have? I don't see what that would have to do with notability, frankly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. It's necessary to establish that this "religion" exists anywhere outside the Geocities site for us to write about it as if it actually exists. Can you provide me with evidence that there is anyone who actually adheres to the purported tenets of Matrixism? FCYTravis 16:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. No, I can't answer that question, but I can tell you that there's plenty of information about the notability of this "religion." International coverage, etc. That's all I'm concerned with, and all we should be concerned with. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I should throw up an anonymous Geocities site tonight and purport to be the Real Fundamentalist Matrixism (tm) with 10,000 adherents, so that Wikipedia has to report on the "massive fundamentalist split in the Matrix." You see how silly this is now? FCYTravis 16:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we're focused on the Geocities site, quite frankly. Remove that and you still have pretty clear mentions in international media demonstrating its importance to us. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Because the Geocities site is the only thing which establishes any of the purported tenets of the religion, or anything else beyond "Wow look, people said there's a religion based on the Matrix." It's the only non-trivial information about what the "religion" is allegedly about. Remove it, and anything sourced to it, from the article, and treat the subject as what it is - a marginally noted spoof religion, not a real "new religious movement," and perhaps the article is salvageable. FCYTravis 16:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) Basically, take out the stuff from the Geocities page, and what you're left with is "Matrixism is a religion from a Geocities site that claims to have 500 supporters, and got filler/slow-news name drops in a few media sources. It claims to have 500 members." For some reason, that just doesn't seem suitable for an encyclopedia to me. It's not an article, it's a blurb. Any more expansion requires going off a (totally unverifiable, totally unreliable) source. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

But you'd never do that with any other article, and your final statement is false. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The final statement is false? Does this mean you have a more verifiable and reliable source? If so, what is it? mike4ty4 19:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

One thing that tends to be forgotten is that it's not enough for reliable sources to exist or even to establish notability: they also have to support the facts in the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed 100%. For the most part, this doesn't seem to be a problem here, either. The problem, in fact, appears to be people's misconception regarding what a reliable source really is. That's why this article is a perfect example of what's wrong with this guideline currently - if the sources establish notability, and we can flesh out the rest of the article using verifiable reliable sources, then there shouldn't be an issue. That concept flies out the window here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

  Why not then just try and rewrite the guideline so this concept is expressed in it? I'd also like to see a copy of the deleted article in question to get a better idea of what's being talked about here. mike4ty4 19:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

  Just got a copy. It turns out that all the online sources I saw did not do much more than a few small mentions of it. I couldn't check the offline ones though because that costs money, and I'm on a tight budget. There has to be some sufficient depth of coverage to establish notability, you know. Something like a full article devoted to the thing, maybe. The Jedi census phenomenon is a much more notable "religious" fad, by the way. A lot of those cites there are of articles devoted to it. Even the Empire of Atlantium, a "made up in school one day" thing, managed to get enough notability. There are more than a couple of sources cited there that devoted full articles to it. In the case of Matrixism, I just don't think the sources really give the right depth of coverage. The question that is important with this case is whether or not the sources can establish notability in the first place. Could a very large number of trivial or more trivial sources potentially establish notability due to sheer number? mike4ty4 20:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The media has a tendency to repeat things without confirmation if they have been published before. They call it common knowledge but what it does (especially when things are name dropped) is allow inaccurate and largely anecdotal evidence to be published. Just a thought. IvoShandor 17:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Get rid of the notability system? Or make it official policy?

Hi.

Why not just do away with notability? Notice how in the WP:V page, it says that: "The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth.". There you go -- that's the threshold for inclusion and OFFICIAL policy. As long as something meets that, and all other official policies including WP:NOT (ie. it does not make Wikipedia into something it is not), then it should be fair game for inclusion. However, if there is a gneral consensus (and there seems to be) that the actual bar is higher and notability is necessary, then I suggest that this WP:N page be worked out to the point where it can become official policy, and/or WP:V's statement changed (not to discredit verifiability, but just to make clear that it is not sufficient for inclusion. Necessary, but not sufficient.). mike4ty4 19:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

This is covered ad nauseum in the archives and is indicated in this guideline: Wikipedia:Verifiability applies to the verifiability of specific facts, not to whether a topic at large is included in the encyclopedia. —Centrx→talk • 20:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Pretty well agreed with Centrx. It is verifiable that "Seraphimblade (Wikipedia editor)" exists. (After all, I'm talking to you right now, and in a published, accessible form.) Yet an article on that subject would be inappropriate. That's what notability handles. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

There's so much in the archives I'd have no idea where to look for this specific issue :-O Anyway, there is no place in the guideline that V applies to specific facts and not the inclusion of entire topics. So the difference between N and V as "bars of inclusion" is that they deal with differing scope: WP:N deals with entire subjects, WP:V deals with individual facts. mike4ty4 20:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Notability is generally permanent

You have got to be joking. No way is this followed through in practice. Try writing an article on something that was notable 20, 100, 400 years ago that is now largely forgotten and see how long it takes to be deleted as non-notable. --88.109.23.38 22:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Any examples? —Centrx→talk • 22:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Usually things that were really notable all those years ago are written down in history books, you know. mike4ty4 20:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I'd say that notability is actually generally permanent. It's just the problem of recentism that means we have more information about current events. It's much, much harder to find sources on relatively minor historical happenings than it is for similarly minor events that take place today: there are Internet news websites everywhere reporting small things which no one would have written about centuries ago, or if they did the writing would be extremely unlikely to have survived and been documented. It's just an inevitable systematic bias with the Wikipedia project.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 04:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposal - second notice

In case anyone missed it in the ensuing vigorous debate over Matrixism, there is proposed rewrite of the lead and first section of this guideline at User:Kubigula/Notability. The proposal incorporates many of the issues that have been discussed on this page and provides some harmony and consistency between this guideline and the subject specific guidelines.

Any other comments, concerns, or suggestions?--Kubigula (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Still the same ones from before, honestly. We're still hung up on "multiple," and basing notability on the coverage rather than the ability to deduce importance. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, not all the same ones, because much of the proposed language is based on concepts that you have been arguing at length. Specifically: (1) the "multiple sources" test is no longer primary or superior to the subject specific guidelines; they would now be equal partners; (2) acknowledgment that sources, in and of themselves, do not determine notability - they reflect it; (3) acknowledgment that notability is ultimately subjective; and (5) discussion and consensus are explicitely recognized as mechanisms for determining Wikipedia notability. We set a line (subject of multiple sources) after which subjects are presumed to be notable. Anything short of that line (if not already covered by a subject specific guideline) can still be included by discussion and consensus. Honestly Jeff, this is really an effort to meet you at least three quarters of the way to your position. It reduces the ability of people to wikilawyer based on policy and smoothes the way for articles to be considered on their own individual merits, and I'm not sure how you could do much better than that.--Kubigula (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You claim these improvements, but I'm seeing very little difference. It still opens the door wide open for the same useless discussions we've been having ad nauseum - that sources create notability (they don't), that multiple sources are necessary (they aren't), and the only quality of sources that can demonstrate notability have to have "significant" coverage (they don't). My position on this is an attempt to meet people more than three quarters of the way to something reasonable - simply repreatedly rephrasing what's gotten us to this point isn't going to get us far. I apologise for my frank tone - I'm probably as exhausted as anyone else regarding the trajectory of discussion here - but if we're going to talk notability, let's talk notability, y'know? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I do think that's a bit unfair, as the changes go well beyond rephrasing prior language. It seems to me that you are focusing on the bolded presumption part of the proposal without looking much at the rest of it. At the same time, I recognize that many people who reference the guideline are likely to do the same, so maybe it's not unfair of you to have that focus.

I just changed the "Presumption of notability" section to further address your concerns, and removed the language that offends you from the bolded part. I believe the nuances can be discussed in the bullet points underneath. What do you think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kubigula (talk • contribs) 20:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

I'm merely speaking from someone who's seen where this debate has gone, and what's been happening - the focus will inevitably be on "multiple" and "significant," the exact problems the March straw poll cited as being problematic. I think the wording you have is pretty close, although I can see people complaining in the other direction, regardless of what the bullet points say. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I myself prefer to include multiple and significant myself, but I don't see it as crucial. "Coverage" suggests a non-trivial level of detail in the source and "sources" implies more than one source. I can live with those changes if that brings us closer to closure. I was hoping that I had sufficiently reframed the issue and tied together the policies to get us there, but we'll see. I'll give it a couple of days for more comments then provide a third notice to see where we are.--Kubigula (talk) 01:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I like it pretty well. Maybe the "in the absence of multiple sources..." bit, it could be added "and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article." An NYT name-drop is credible and probably neutral, but it's certainly not enough for an article on its own. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I incorporated your suggestion along with Jeff's.--Kubigula (talk) 01:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I dont think you have much of a guideline when you say "a topic is presumed to be notable... if editors of Wikipedia have reached a consensus that it is worthy of notice"That amounts to saying that a topic is notable if most of us think it is. Now, that may be the actual effect of the determination of notability at AfD, but it is not a principle to base decisions on. DGG 02:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That was intended to tie in the subject specific guidelines to WP:N, so perhaps it should say, "if editors of Wikipedia have reached a consensus at one of the subject specific guidelines." By the way, please feel free to edit the draft (that goes for anyone) if you think you can improve it. I should probably have made it a subpage here to make that more clear. Maybe I should move it...--Kubigula (talk) 02:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It is also unclear whether you mean that A/anything with two non trivial RSs is Notable AND that anything without them but which fits the other criteria is N, or B/Anything thats fits our general feelings about N is N, and that in general such subjects with have 2 RSs which is an indication that it will likely fit our standards. or C/Anythingthat fits our general feelings or specific standards is N, EXCEPT for those things that do not fit our feelings or standards, AND that the presence of sources is a rough guide for determining which way it should go.

As I read the text, it says C, and I do not know if you want it to say that. It seems clear that C makes the entire section about sourcing subsidiary, whereas in the past most WPedians seem to have thought it central. Before I change it to fit whatever I might like it to mean--which might be a counter-proposal rather than an edit--I would want to know what you yourself intend it to mean, so that we have your proposal understood correctly. DGG 03:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If I read your question correctly, I was originally aiming for A. FYI - I went ahead and moved my proposal, as modified, to Wikipedia:Notability/Proposed. Edit or counter-propose away.--Kubigula (talk) 04:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

and I have started a talk page there to continue. DGG 03:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Student newspapers/magazines

are student newspapers and magazines distributed around campus notable enough for individual wikipedia articles? e.g. something like Bath Impact? cheers. 86.31.103.208 11:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It depends. Have there been articles in other publications, or books, written about them? If so, these should be cited in the article, and the subject would most probably be notable. However, in the article you cite, there are no such sources. This leaves me skeptical of that paper's notability. UnitedStatesian 12:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

thanks. what about this sentence: "Student Impact was nominated in 2004 for the Student Website of the year award at the Guardian Student Media Awards, in which it came runner up". would that make it notable?

also, what if there are other articles, publications, books about them, but they are all university-produced? e.g. a "history of Bath university", published by the university, mentions it on page 700, or "Bath Uni Today" magazine mentions "Student Impact" in its February issue. (all invented examples). 86.31.103.208 13:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Some school/university newspapers are notable (I don't think you'd find many to argue, for example, that The Harvard Crimson isn't notable), but it looks like Bath Impact is not. Probably that would be a better candidate for merge/redirection to the main university article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Renaming

Since the Wikipedia:Article inclusion rewrite seems to have died, can we rename this guideline "Article inclusion"? That seemed to be the one thing that we had close to consensus about, that the term "notability" was part of the problem.--ragesoss 20:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

As much as I hate how it died out, it may not be a bad move, but not until we fix the problems with the wording here first. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced we'll ever fix all the problems with the wording. This is the English Wikipedia, not lojban. As such I'd rather move sooner, recommence unending rut later. Nifboy 23:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the rut has been going for nearly 3 months now, an eternity in Wikitime. I'm not sure what it's going to take at this point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

A page move? (Hope springs eternal) Nifboy 23:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

ell, I was hoping my bold edit from a couple weeks ago would do it, but that didn't nail it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• I object to renaming the page. "Notability" is the commonly used term on Wikipedia. There are several criteria for "article inclusion" that are unrelated to this page (e.g. NOR, BLP, Copyvio). >Radiant< 12:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Radiant. A page titled "Article Inclusion" would be a pointer to all of the policies guiding article inclusion.... something like Wikipedia:List_of_policies#Content_and_Style. Sancho 16:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • "That's the way things have always been done" is not acceptable argument for an issue that causes as many perennial conflicts as notability, where even the name itself is problematic. The point is that we should change the terms we use.--ragesoss 23:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
• I prefer to move away from the name "notability", but prefer a single word rather than the two word label of "article inclusion." Is there a better single word, which describes this concept? --Kevin Murray 01:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Understand

Dont understand the criteria for "subject to immediate deletion", because this article pertains to a person. Further the system states that the criteria is based upon persons who attract media attention or that people would be interested in knowing about. Who is the creator of this site, nor anyone else, the authority to claim which person who has lived or will live in this world is or is not of importance? An encyclopedia is a reference of knowledge, and history. Every person who lives or has lived has made an impact on history, no matter how small or how large, is equally important. The creator of this site, the company, its employees editors etc.. are merely living in the current time frame, so what can they decide or not decide as to the actions of persons no matter how insignificant, value to the overall knowledge base of the world in general? Why would this site make such criteria, especially over the history of individuals living or had lived in this world? So Paris Hilton should have more claim to fame than Mary Jones living in a poor black neighborhood? There have been many noted stories of un-notable persons, who have made great impact in the world, so who is to judge the significance of any persons particular influence over the world? An encyclopedia should be about the stating of facts as they happened, no matter if it is about John Doe and his first bike, or President Clinton and his first speech. If this site intends to limit such actions of incidence, as subject to the whims of its creator and its employees, then wikipedia truly is not an encyclopedia by any nature whatsoever, rather is an accident that just happened to get popular by many users of the internet worldwide. Anything that happens in the world is an event which has right to be reported in an encyclopedia, not censored as the intention is clearly set forth by the policies of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acscom (talk • contribs)

There have to be limits on the topics we cover on Wikipedia. Don't forget that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, written largely by non-experts. So in order to have credibility as an information resource, we have to stop people from using Wikipedia as free advertising for their company, or to write vanity articles on themselves. It's also necessary to attribute content on Wikipedia to a reliable source; if there aren't enough reliable sources on someone to write a decent article about them, then they can't have an article. Wikipedia is a tertiary resource, dedicated to publishing established and verifiable human knowledge; we're not here to make judgments about people who have "made great impact in the world" according to our own subjective views, or to publicise people and things who we think the world should know about. That isn't the job of an encyclopedia, and never has been. Walton ^{Need some help?} 16:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What is required of a news event in order for it to be considered notable enough for inclusion in Wikipeda rather than Wikinews?

Airplane hijackings, Essjay controversies, Virginia Tech massacres, earthquakes... what criteria is used to decide that Wikipedia should include articles on these topics rather than deferring the coverage to Wikinews? Sancho 15:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, news events which have been the coverage of multiple non-trivial coverage in mainstream reliable sources do merit inclusion. However, unless there's a lot of detail available about them as events (e.g. the Virginia Tech massacre), then the event itself shouldn't have an article, but rather should be covered in the biographical articles on the main participants. What I object to is the common deletion argument that, because someone is only notable for being a participant in one news event, that they therefore don't merit a biographical article. It doesn't matter whether their notability is transient; if there are enough independent sources, they should get an article. Walton ^{Need some help?} 16:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The term "news event" is a meaningless buzz-word. An event or entity it is notable or not on its own merits. Having news coverage may memorialize the subject and lead toward demonstrating notability as may other evidence. --Kevin Murray 01:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think, actually, that the guideline addresses this-"Notability is generally permanent." If a news event is a "human-interest" or flash-in-the-pan type thing, if a person gets "15 minutes of fame" and is quickly again forgotten, etc., it's not encyclopedic. People will very likely still be studying the Virginia Tech Massacre many years from today. On the other hand, anything in my local paper here this morning will have been long forgotten by then. Wikinews is a sister project, and we would well-serve both them and ourselves by not stepping too hard on their toes, and by directing those who want to write about news-style events to them. Some events in the news may also be encyclopedic, but we're not the newspaper. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

By news event I meant events covered in mainstream media newscasts and newspapers. I didn't know it was just a buzzword... sorry. Sancho 16:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That's an equivalent of the XX-year rule, in more general terms. The problem there has been setting the value of XX. There's no way of doing it that doesn't get articles on the wrong side of where they ought to be. DGG 03:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. News events, in my opinion, demonstrate one of the main weaknesses in the way the guideline is currently written. Many news events will be the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and thus presumptively notable per the general guideline. Seraphimblade properly points to the "Notability is generally permanent" section, but this doesn't jibe very well with the general guideline or the "Notability is not subjective" section. Ultimately, I don't see a way to completely avoid the inherently subjective nature of notability. No bright line test for "Wikipedia notability" based on sources will work perfectly, because of things like news stories and cruft. I think we need to accept that there will always be some element of subjectivity in this guideline and find the most encyclopedic way to build that element into the guideline. I took a crack at it and I am eagerly awaiting DGG's effort.--Kubigula (talk) 03:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The "Notability is generally permanent" section appears to say exactly the opposite of what Seraphimblade and Kubigula think it says. By SB & K's standard (and I'm not saying they're wrong), I gather that a subject of fleeting interest would not be notable even if it satisfied WP:N's sourcing requirements. But the "generally permananent" section says: If a topic has multiple independent reliable published sources, this is not changed by the frequency of coverage decreasing. Thus, if a topic once satisfied the general notability guidelines, it continues to satisfy it over time. Pan Dan 13:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The way I like to think of this is that once an article is ok'd for Wikipedia it shouldn't be deleted simply because people stop talking about it. Otherwise you end up potentially losing historical information that might end up being relevant at a later date that is not easy to recover. Basically if you say that topics should be removed from the encyclopedia if they haven't been recently discussed then you defeat the purpose of having a historical archive. I would rather err on the side of keeping an article on a borderline possibly "flash in the pan" topic than delete articles that appear to be borderline notable at the current time. Dugwiki 16:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed language and outstanding issues

A few things:

1. Wikipedia:Notability/Proposed seems to have pretty broad support from both camps still going back and forth. If there's no complaints about it in the next few days, I think we can move it in and move on.
2. We need to continue discussion on the subjectivity of notability.
3. Are we still discussing a possible rename?

Whee. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• I see hardly any edits on that page nor discussion on its talk page, but it seems to imply the "multiple vs. sufficient vs. single" source debate was resolved in favor of requiring only a single source? That's how the page reads, at any rate. Somehow I doubt there's actually consensus for that. >Radiant< 15:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, we've been on this for close to three months on this talk page about exactly that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, it does state "reliable secondary sources", which implies multiplicity. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
• Do we discuss there or here? I left a message on the other talk page. Sancho 16:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I think here, to guarantee the proper eyes see it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Oops. I replied over there... Feel free to refactor my comments over to here if you think it makes it clearer. Sancho 17:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I like alternative Wikipedia:Notability/Proposed. The freshness of the rewrite is a good thing. If it is the idea that the extensive notes are to be eliminated, then that is a very good thing. I would simplify the alternative even further by eliminating the entire introduction. It doesn't say anything necessary, and it means there are ~227 word to read through before getting to the point. If a rationale (which the introduction largely is) is needed, then write it as an essay and link to it. Having a separte discussion on the proposal's talk page is counter productive. All discussion should be here. I think the proposal should now be accepted, rejected, or somehow merged ASAP. Perhaps this same thought also apples to Wikipedia:Article inclusion? --SmokeyJoe 02:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we should act on this proposal now (accepting it, I hope) and should keep discussion here. However, I have reverted your removal of the introduction (or "waffle", as you termed it). I think the introduction effectively summarises the debate of the past 3+ months and exposes the nature of "notability". Hopefully, those 200 words will prevent the debate from being repeated. Also, the introduction informs readers about why notability is important rather than merely stating what it is. Feel free to revert my reintroduction of the waffle if you disagree ..... hmm, now I'm hungry. :) Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

it depends what kind of an encyclopedia we want to make, and I do not think there is any consensus on that. I see no possible way to prevent the debate from being endlessly reopened, and perhaps it should be, for our standards will change: I think the only solution is to say "Length of article is proportional to relative importance, as long as there's any usable evidence. At the low end, a link or reference or list entry. At the high end, a group of articles" and bury the concept of N being a sharp dividing line. DGG 04:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I quite understand that Black Falcon likes waffle, but as a habit, it isn’t good for you. Suggestion #2 is that it be served for dessert, not breakfast. The guideline should be written for the first time reader. It should not waste time getting to the important point. To satisfy your affection for the history of how we got here, and to reduce the likelihood of reflux, wouldn’t the waffle serve equally as well at the end of the article? --SmokeyJoe 05:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No waffles for breakfast? What tyranny is this!? :-) Regarding your question, yes and no. We may not need that specific introduction, but we need some kind of introduction to tell readers why they should care about notability. Before presenting a definition of "notability", we need to state the purpose of having a notability guideline in the first place. An introduction also has the added benefit of providing a summary of the guideline for anyone who won't read the guideline in its entirety. By the way, I'm not interested in preserving the history of how we got here per se, but rather think that an explicit statement of the issues would make the ride less bumpy when we travel down this path again (and it's likely that we will). -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

My main problem with that proposal is that, quite simply, it's virtually impossible to write an FA on someone who has only been covered in RS in passing. Building articles out of trivial mentions never works - especially with BLPs - and these people are not genuinely notable. Moreschi ^Talk 20:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It's virtually impossible to write an FA on many things, regardless of their coverage. Trivial mentions can work for a comprehensive article on a noteworthy subject, but it depends on what the topic is, what the subject is, and what the sources have to say. Best to leave that possibility open than to shut it down completely. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Entirely disagree to the proposal. Notability is not and should not be considered subjective, and we certainly shouldn't start allowing trivial sourcing to count for it. We certainly should not start to make articles on subjects with only primary, non-independent, and/or trivial sources. In-depth independent reliable coverage must be required, and in almost all cases, by multiple sources. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you've ever answered this, maybe because I didn't notice or because you weren't asked, but why do you believe notability isn't subjective? We're never going to agree on the final part, and all I can say is that the evidence suggests people disagree, but as for the former, I don't understand that point of view. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

On the waffles (heh) issue, I may be biased, but I think it's important to have a lead that incorporates some of the conversation here and conveys the reality that notability is a very nuanced concept.--Kubigula (talk) 06:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucratese alert

"Significant means more than trivial but less than important" is entering the territory of hair-splitting and attempting to legalistically define every single word. That's not helpful. >Radiant< 15:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Given the way discussions have gone, it's very helpful. If we're going to have notability guidelines, hairsplitting is an unfortunate byproduct. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Radiant. That sentence tells us nothing until we specifically define what we mean by "trivial" and "important". In any case, I'm hoping that we can avoid the issue with Kubigula's new proposed wording. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops - my assumption was that's what Radiant was reading - I agree with you, the proposed wording fixes that issue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• I support much of what Kubi has written, while I think that the lead is a bit too wordy. --Kevin Murray 18:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
• However, if that text is not adopted, I think that placing "significant" between "important" and "trivial" is useful and gives a good perspective. Almost anyone can tell the difference between trivial and important, although it remains a gray area of subjectivity. Calling this legalistic seems odd as both terms are in common use, and the hairsplitting seems to be in the objection to a simple approach to defining "significant." --Kevin Murray 18:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Help:Creating policy‎

There is a guideline at Help:Creating policy‎ which has been tagged as a guideline since May 2005. There are a few editors trying to eliminate this attempt to regulate how policies and guidelines are created. The point of contention is substantially that (1) this is top down management inconsistent with WP traditions, and (2) that this does not truly reflect how policies and guidelines have been created (anarchy?). The guideline itself doesn't appear to be unreasonable but could use some fine tuning. Those who know me recognize that I advocate consistency; some people accuse me of being legalistic and bureaucratic. Oh well. I think that without some structure this guideline infrastructure is going to balloon to the ridiculous WP:CREEP. Please come join the fun. --Kevin Murray 20:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Fuel for the fire

Here is an outside view that expresses eloquently many of the same frustrations that most editors who don't like this guideline have: How Big is Too Big?, from historian Mills Kelly. It references an interview of Jimbo by Bruce Cole, chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, who also apparently shares the concern of so many others that our article inclusion standards are fairly ridiculous when they go beyond the core policies of "Verifiability", "No original research" and "What Wikipedia is not".--ragesoss 23:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

He's absolutely right. So the question is how to balance the medium between this guy and what's best for the project, and I think making sure our notability guidelines reflect reality is a big step in that direction. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

We could start by demoting them from "guidelines" to "essays". — CharlotteWebb 02:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Frankly I tuned out after Bruce Cole's starting paragraph where he said that "the implication of this guideline for entries is that there is only so much space on the servers housing Wikipedia and so those precious megabytes (terrabytes?) shouldn’t be taken up with irrelevant entries." Saving space on the servers is not the reason we have a notability guideline. Rather, it has to do with reducing article clutter for the readers and reducing required article maintainence for editors. His basic premise on which he bases his entire blog article that the notability guideline has to do with physical server space is flat out wrong. Dugwiki 15:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, it's an improper perception, but it's really the only logical perception an outsider can come up with. Article clutter simply isn't an issue in a project such as this, or we'd have to tighten up further. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I would say that article clutter is the lesser of the two problems. The bigger one is the editorial maintainence side. The more non-notable individual articles there are the longer it takes for those articles to be properly handled. Weeding out articles that aren't notable keeps the overall process more efficient. I should also mention that asking for notability also decreases the incidence of articles that are unverifiable or biased (since notability implies that the article has multiple verifiable published references). So the notability guideline also works as a way to flag articles which probably have other problems too. Dugwiki 17:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Stunting growth for maintenence purposes, though, is really counterproductive to the mission, especially on a volunteer project - we can never fully be certain we'll have enough volunteers to cover what we have regardless of a) the size of the project, and b) the number of volunteers. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

But we can be certain that lowering the number of articles will reduce the scope of whatever problems we experience in that regard. If we can't handle the editorial tasks while excluding non-notable articles, then we will have even more trouble handling those same tasks if those limits are removed. Dugwiki 17:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If, of course, we buy into that point of view, but that's a different discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't be the first time that a reporter fundamentally misunderstood some part of Wikipedia. Which is why we don't base policy on what the media happens to say this week. >Radiant< 16:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems that it is time to stand back from the evolution and look at developing a structure which makes sense as a whole. In each case the individual guidelines seem to make sense and are justifiable, but like the tragedy of the commons, as a whole creep can strangle the WP project. --Kevin Murray 16:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The better way to flag articles based on other problems is to have an inclusion policy based solely on the other policies, rather than demanding more than verifiability, neutrality, and reliable sourcing. Wikipedia is already so far past the point of dedicated Wikipedians being able to keep up with editorial maintainence that I don't see how this could be an issue. The above link is not Bruce Cole, it's a discussion that begins with recounting the Bruce Cole interview. If you read to the end, you'll see that Mills Kelly has a pretty good understanding of the issues, like many outsiders who come away puzzled about Notability (and like so many Wikipedians besides the ones who have fought so tenaciously to prevent any significant change in this guideline).--ragesoss 17:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If we are in fact "past the point of being able to keep up", then certainly it follows that allowing even more articles on likely less useful topics only further exacerbates that problem. And I did read to the end and it's clear to me that the author does not actually understand the basic issue, as clearly evidenced by their repeated assertions that "server size" is at the heart of the rationale for the guideline. Dugwiki 17:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

As I see it, the primary purpose of the notability guidelines is to support the principle that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia". Not every verifiable fact (e.g., what I ate for lunch yesterday) is worthy of ntoe in an encyclopedia. The fact that it helps reduce the maintenance workload is just a bonus. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that the primary purpose of this guideline relates to WP:ENC and the related What Wikipedia is not. The guideline assumes that the topic is not otherwise ruled out by "what Wikipedia is not"; it applies only to categories of topics that can, in principle, be included but are excluded because of insufficient verifiability through reliable published sources. The straw man examples in the post below don't require this guideline to keep them out; they are covered easily by others, primarily "What Wikipedia is not" and "No Original Research". This guideline goes considerably, and arbitrarily, beyond the core policies, and leads to the deletion of many minor but verifiable topics the inclusion of which makes Wikipedia better.--ragesoss 19:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Biographies are exempt from original research if it is done by the subject of the article. Also, NOT and N are very much intertwined in principle because they both exclude information from wikipedia that otherwise meets all the requierments but are not appropriate for hosting here, in the encyclopedia. NeoFreak 19:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Autobiography is not exempt from the original research policy: "This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources." You are correct that NOT and N are intertwined in principle, but NOT is policy, while N is a disputed guideline. The point behind all this argument is that a lot of what gets excluded solely on the basis of Notability is appropriate encyclopedic content, at least in the view of myself and a significant portion of the community.--ragesoss 19:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That was my point. Without a Notability guidline a person can generate their own refs on themselves and, unlike other articles, can then create their own biography articles. All they have to do is prove their claims by creating their own relaible sources. See the problem? See: WP:SELFPUB. NeoFreak 12:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with the entire premise of the article being wrong (space). The notability guidline dons't exist to save space. It exists to make sure that wikipedia stays an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not Google, it's not a news wire, its not a web hosting or advertising service and it's not the internet in article format. Expanding the scope of wikipedia to cover any and all verifiable topics totally destroys the concept of being an encyclopedia. With no notability requirement anyone that can verify their existence can write a biography. What about John Franklin Smith (police officer, divorced, father of two, lives in Maine, likes clam chowder)? If John can upload birth certificates, divorce papers and notarized documentaion he gets an article. Well what about the other John Franklin Smith's in the world? Who gets the John Franklin Smith article title? How about a list of John Franklin Smiths? Maybe John Franklin Smith (Maine) or John Franklin Smith (police officer)? How about the 14 year old that wants to make an article about the fantasy novel he's been writing? If his "best friend forever" can verify he is writing it then should Dragons of Firery Fireness get an article? No.

The huge amount of editorial oversight, destroyed navigational ability and the drop off of public image for the project (which is alot more inportant than people think) is going to kill wikipedia. It is hard enough now to keep entries cleaned up with some going years before they are brought up to presentable standars (if at all). I have to agree with Dugwiki, wikipedia is open source and without some lever of control of what gets put into wikipedia then it will lose any semblance of organization or standardization. This is why Notability is a sperate guidline with its foundation in attribution and verifiability. Even WP:NOT makes notability judgements. Because something can be put on wikipedia doesn't mean it should. Of course what degree of notability wikipeida demands should be up to active debate but the idea of debating the existance of a notability guidline is self-destruvtive. End rant. NeoFreak 18:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

As I read it, the point is, if server size isn't an issue, then the notability guideline makes no sense.--ragesoss 18:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The premise of the edwired.org post is that server size is isn't an issue but is the justification for the guildline. This is not the case as while server size isn't (a big) issue it isn't the reason we have a notability guidline either. NeoFreak 18:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

He says "The implication of this guideline for entries is that there is only so much space on the servers housing Wikipedia and so those precious megabytes (terrabytes?) shouldn’t be taken up with irrelevant entries." He thinks that reading the notability guideline implies that space is the issue (since there aren't any other convincing reasons for it), not that it is the actual reason or justification for it.--ragesoss 18:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Then either he or I didn't get the memo because I don't see space being used as the justification anywhere. Am I missing something? NeoFreak 18:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

He's reading more into it than what's literally there, but it's an easy jump to make for someone not immersed in Wikipedia culture.--ragesoss 19:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree. I was assuming that you were taking the same position, my mistake. I suppose that the reason for N to exist should be made more clear. NeoFreak 19:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I will say this much - in reading WP:N and the above it does look like we might want to add a sentence or two to WP:N to clarify that its rationale has nothing to do with physical server size but is instead to deal with other issues, including things such as reducing maintainence, making it easier for readers to navigate articles on broad subjects by removing likely irrelevant articles, and to make sure Wikipedia stays focused on the main goal of being an "encyclopedia". Different editors place differing emphasis and importance on each individual goal of WP:N, but most editors agree that some or all of those goals are important enough to warrant limiting articles to minimally notable subjects, and none of those goals have to do with server limitations. Dugwiki 19:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

DW - of the issues you list, the only one I think is relevant to WP:N is the focus on the main goal of being an encyclopedia. The others are just as much red herrings as the size concern. UnitedStatesian 20:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, like I said, different people will assign different importance to the factors I mentioned. Personally I don't consider keeping editorial tasks feasibly managable to be a "red herring", but that's just me. In fact, I'd say the vague notion of "staying true to being an encyclopedia" is the weak link since it's not clear either how to define the term "encyclopedia" nor clear what the actual, practical benefit of trying to define that term is for readers and editors. My philosophy is that it is better to focus on the practical, actual effects of the guideline in terms of how people use and edit Wikipedia rather than to focus on an aesthetic notion of "this is what I think an encylopedia should be". Dugwiki 16:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Physical server size has nothing to do with this. Deleted articles stay on the server anyway, they just have a bit flipped to say "Don't show this to anyone who's not an admin." That makes not one tiny bit of difference to server capacity. On the other hand, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Not a place for vanity autobiographies or an ad for Mom's House O'Waffles on Fifth Street in Sometown, not an indiscriminate collection of information, and not a directory. Notability is verifiability that an article is not one of those things. In order to say "Something is notable", I ask "Well, has it actually been noted, by someone who doesn't have a vested interest in doing so?" In that way, we keep out the crap. But notability (and deletion in general) makes no difference to server capacity. Deleted articles aren't "deleted" at all, as far as the server's concerned. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Aren't deleted articles that remain deleted for some period of time eventually purged? -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No, except in extraordinary circumstances (e.g., legal liability).--ragesoss 02:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think at one point there was a database crash, and some old deleted articles were lost. That wasn't intentional, though, just a glitch. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

SeraphimB - to your "we keep out the crap" point: I can't agree completely: we mostly do, but the job is much, much harder, and thus much less successful, in the areas covered by WP:BOOKS, WP:MUSIC, and WP:PORNBIO. UnitedStatesian 20:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Everyone will have his own choices. Of the areas you mention, I personally think we keep out too many good books, both popular and serious, and too many good articles on classical musicians. The guidelines for popular music and pornbios seem very loose to me intuitively, but I see that still a great many articles in these areas do get rejected, often at speedy. So I think the mechanism does work, but the basic problem is where to draw the line in each case. I am more concerned about some other fields, such as web memes, or human sexuality, where we seem to have a problem aligning our internal sense of importance with our sense of what counts as sources.DGG 04:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I would add living scientists and other scholars as areas where too much gets thrown out on notability grounds.--ragesoss 04:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright-in counterpoint, I would point to music albums, biographies in general, and "places" (especially those millions of "Nowhereville has a population of 12. Its GPS coordinates are..."), and sports-team players as areas in which too little gets thrown out on notability. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh-and roads and mega-detail on works of fiction could use a good pruning, as well. Schools actually have seemed to come around, there seems to be a good balance on that anymore. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with minor music album articles, though more merging to band pages would no doubt be a good thing. Same with roads: appropriate merging is all that's needed. With biographies, I don't think that not enough thrown out because of notability is an issue (too many, I would say), but not enough thrown out or drastically cut because of verifiability is. As for pruning fiction, yes, emphatically, but that's not a notability issue; it's mostly failure to follow the writing about fiction guideline.--ragesoss 05:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would generally agree! "Failure to meet notability" doesn't necessarily mean "must be deleted and salted". Merging and redirection would, in many cases, very likely be the best option. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Notability of geographical articles

Are all small villages (or hamlets), rivers (or bodies of water), forests, islands (or islets) and hills notable? Wikipedia:Places of local interest was a failed proposal, but is making stubs on tiny villages acceptable? (I've made several referenced stubs on tiny villages). Is it good, even, fleshing out Wikipedia with missing encyclopedic articles and extending its breadth? Do geography articles just have to adhere to the same notability criteria as other articles? (article must be the primary subject of multiple non-trivial reliable published sources for notability)--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 04:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost, Scotland highlights the surrounding debate.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 04:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

As for examples of geography articles I've created that I'd like the notability of to be assessed, we have Dinnet and Potarch (two real tiny hamlets in Scotland, both of which I've visited), the River Quoich and Oigh-Sgeir (the latter of which I haven't visited as it is an extremely inaccessible tiny rocky islet).-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 04:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a good practical reason for this: where would we possibly draw the line? Most such places will have some sort of source, from a local newspaper or guide book. This is one type of article where it makes sense to simply include them all, and skip the debates. The one you mention is an example: there was one undoubted RS, BBC, and another acceptable one, a fairly well known guidebook series. I do not think the same is true of named places that are not inhabited--I think that could be another matter, and I see that AfDs on some conclude as not notable. However, for your islet and your river there are sources, so I think they would be notable in any case. DGG 04:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

In answer to your question-in theory, no, they're not all notable, I don't imagine you could find sources for quite a few of these "census-designated places" and the like. In reality, you'll never nail one at AfD, a lot of people seem to have forgotten that we're not a directory, of "places" or anything else. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I just created Tarfside, with bare-bones multiple reliable non-trivial sources. The article is about a tiny, tiny village, but it seems to pass the notability test. What do you think?-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 05:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that one looks alright, I can see a good potential for expansion from the source material there. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Just created Pabay. The thing is that just by looking at maps, as I was just doing, and Googling the names of small places on them for sources, there are countless potentially valid encyclopedic and sourceable articles that do not exist yet. You, however, said that Wikipedia was not a directory. I honestly think that geographic notability is one of the least clear parts of the notability guideline as it stands.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 05:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, well I think I've found an example of a place that would be non-notable in Wikipedia. "Temple of Fiddes" is a census-designated place which I have passed many times, yet it does not actually appear to exist per se - the first Google hit takes you to a messageboard about the fact that there is a huge road sign for it and it doesn't appear to be anything more than one house.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 05:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Update. Longay, Garlogie and Blackburn, Aberdeenshire have all been created. About to create Monymusk.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, what did you mean by "you'll never nail one at AfD"? Did you mean to use POV language to describe deletion? I think the larger point is that the community has wisely decided that deletion discussions for populated places are pointless. Any decision on what constitutes a "notable" place is arbitrary and subjective. For example, see two of my favorite cases: Willets Point, Queens and Nothing, Arizona. The first has only one resident, the second I think may be abandoned now, but I could not find RS for that. Dhaluza 15:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It also varies between countries of the world, as well. For example, there are clear differences between what constitutes a 'place' in the United States and what constitutes one in the United Kingdom. Many other countries, especially in the third world, will have many less reliable sources on their smaller settlements.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Subjectivity

Continuing a conversation from Wikipedia talk:Notability/Proposed...

I don't think anyone can really argue that "notability" (the word in the dictionary sense) is not subjective. I suppose we could try (and have tried) to define "WP:Notability" as non-subjective, but I think the very lengthy debate here goes to show that this won't work. If WP:Notability were truly objective, then we wouldn't really need AfD - or AfD would simply be reduced to, "Please provide evidence of coverage in reliable sources" - and we wouldn't need the subject specific guidelines. We can discuss and hopefully agree on the best and most objective ways to try to measure notability/importance/interest, but I think it's counterproductive to insist that there is some simple objective test for notability. With all the smart people floating around here, I think we would have found the single magic formula if it existed.--Kubigula (talk) 06:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The word in the dictionary sense, yes, is subjective (which is why I dislike it, and advocate renaming it.) But in terms of actual subjectivity, I don't see it. I can say "First-degree murder is the deliberate killing of another person, with premeditation before the act." That's an objective definition. Now, sometimes there may be difficulty in determining whether a specific killing meets those criteria, i.e., whether the killing was deliberate and with premeditation, or whether the accused was in fact the killer. But that doesn't make the definition subjective, it simply indicates that even with objective criteria there will always be an edge case. I see the primary guideline the same way. Yes, it will have its edge cases, but especially if we can do a better job of defining triviality, there won't be many. I think we have found the magic formula here, I think, more than anything, it just needs to be more widely applied, renamed to something where the dictionary meaning doesn't clash so much with our definition, and made clear that it's really just a logical extension of verifiability, what we're not, and, of course, the fact that this is an encyclopedia. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both of you here. "Notability" is subjective, whereas "has been the subject of multiple-non trivial published reliable sources" is objective, even if it creates the occasional borderline/unclear case, making for a potentially heated AfD debate.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Murder is fairly objective - one human intentionally kills another. First degree murder, as in the "worst" kind of murder, is a much more subjective concept. Different states and different countries have reached different conclusions about what constitutes the worst kind of murder - e.g. what degree of premeditation is required, whether some kind of brutality or heinousness should be an element, what age or mental capacity is required to form the requisite intent etc. So, you can draft a definition of "first degree murder" with obective elements, but you should recognize that where you draw the line is a subjective choice - say a 13 year old is capable of premeditated murder but a 12 year old is not. No matter what we call this guideline, there will always be tension in having objective tests for a subjective concept. I think the best solution is probably to avoid using labels and focus on having the best set of objective tests that we can. I will try to take another crack at the proposal to reflect some of the issues raised here.--Kubigula (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

what's disputed?

After reading this page and /proposed, I'm at a loss for what the disputed tag is for. It should be easy for someone to come from the article to the talk page and know what's going on, and I'm at a major loss.

Could someone explain what parts are being disputed and what the dispute is about? Miss Mondegreen talk  16:25, May 12 2007

Mainly, it's over the requirement for multiple sources, over what constitutes a trivial source, and over what happens if something passes a subject-specific guideline but fails this one. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The Notability Guideline seems to trump Common Sense.

Over on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norilana Books it's currently being argued by editors that the article does not pass notability requirements. This is despite two accepted experts in the field of science fiction publishing clearly stating that the publisher is notable.

Clearly such common sense indications of notability should not be overridden by arbitrary 'notability requirements'. --Barberio 16:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

See WP:IAR. This is a contentious area, though.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia:Consensus is a policy, whereas the notability documents are only guidelines. Consensus contrary to the notability guidelines may develop in individual cases. This is good. Sancho 18:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I argued to keep it, but only due to the fact that it appears sources are available. If "experts" genuinely do find something noteworthy, they'll write reliable sources, which we can then use for an article. Otherwise, that's just a roundabout form of WP:ILIKEIT. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Simplification

How about we simplify this all down to a one sentence guideline... "Items and content may be excluded from Wikipedia where an informed consensus can conclude that the content is not notable."

That's simple, does not introduce artificial loops to jump through, and is unarguably based on Wikipedia's principles. The sad fact is that the notability guidelines are now used as callipers and measuring tools to determine an artificial state of suposed 'Notability' rather than individual debate and discussion on if an article is notable. Introducing extra guidelines and measures has not reduced this activity, but increased it, and added to the bureaucratic mess Wikipedia is turning into.

By actively requiring people to form consensus debate on individual cases, rather than the TLA acronym rubber-stamping that occurs now, this would be a huge improvement over the mishmash of "notability requirements". --Barberio 19:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

If you accept WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT, then WP:N is neither artificial nor arbitrary. This guideline simply asks that sources be provided to show that an encyclopedia article is possible satisfying those 3 basic policies. Ironically, your proposal to establish consensus in each case in a vacuum, without a guiding principle, would result in arbitrariness. Pan Dan 19:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed. "It's not notable if we decide it's not" is about the most arbitrary standard I could possibly think of. The guideline as it stands now bases it on something objective and verifiable (the amount of independent source material available). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Except that there isn't really an objective standard for Notability, and trying to pretend there is just leads to subjectivity being presented as if there were objectivity.

It's much more within the spirit of Wikipedia if decision that are subjective should be made with consensus discussion, not by trying to put square pegs in round holes. --Barberio 19:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

(In response to Pan Dan, mainly) No, Notability goes considerably beyond the core policies. If it did not, then the guideline wouldn't exist, as all notability deletions could be justified based on the other policies. It's not particularly useful to call this "arbitrary" or "artificial", since all policies and guidelines that we create are in a literal sense artificial and are at least in some respects arbitrary. The question is, what is best for Wikipedia? I think Wikipedia would be better off if there was no Notability policy, and instead deletion discussions were based directly on the underlying polcies. Most users (based on the March straw poll) at least want substantive change to this guideline that hasn't happened yet. There are compelling reasons to want to keep the bar for inclusion high (even if I disagree with them), but let's not pretend that Notability is simply based on WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT (and, I would add, WP:NOR); it goes considerably beyond those policies.--ragesoss 20:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Revised proposal

Please take a look at the revised proposal, which attempts to address some of the points raised above. I have shortened the lead (per the "waffling" concerns) and redrafted to avoid overt references to subjectivity or objectivity.--Kubigula (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)