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 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19

• See also Wikipedia talk:Relevance (and archives)

On what can be loosened (if any) in the subguidelines

We seem to be prepared to create a Wikiproject Television-specific guideline, or possible a high-level subguideline for notability, based on recent discussion. In WP:N, we have this statement: A subject is presumed to be sufficiently notable if it meets the general notability guideline below, or if it meets an accepted subject specific standard listed in the table to the right. Now, when I look through the accepted nondisputed subguidelines, all of them in the end come back to say that "significant coverage in secondary courses" is still required, even given the "likely to be notable" cases that they list (eg album release by a major notable artist/band in WP:MUSIC).

Should it be the case that a notability subguideline or project-specific guideline remove the need for secondary sources? I know there are editors that would like to go this direction for television-specific articles like episodes, but I fear that if we took it that way, then what would happen is that other editors may bypass the project-specific guideline and jump right back to WP:N, and we're back at the recent ArbCom case again.

So the question I ask is two-fold: is, for purposes of being a guideline, the "significant coverage in secondary sources" a non-negotiable aspect of any subguidelines, and if so, should we reflect this in the language currently in WP:N? --MASEM 13:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, WP:N defines the minimum requirements which all subguidelines / articles have to follow (a reasonable and so far the only exception has been made for all towns c.s.). What subguidelines can do is a) put higher standards than WP:N (e.g. for not elected politicians), and b) clarify WP:N for specific cases, e.g. saying that in general, an album by a notable artist is supposed to meet WP:N (because in general, all albums by notable artists receive reviews in the press). Notability subguidelines which set lower standards (willingly or inadvertently) than the WP:N guideline should in such cases be ignored. So yes, it is a non-negotiable aspect, and the text should be clarified to reflect this. Fram (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Side question: do we have a documented discussion of why we allow all town articles regardless of notability? The argument that "We have non-notable articles on every town in a country, so why not have nonnotable articles for X?" keeps coming up in other discussions I have and while I knew there was a leeway for towns, I wasn't sure of the exact reason. --MASEM 15:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

As I see it, the rationale for keeping articles on towns is that, as human settlements, they are virtually guaranteed to be notable (there is almost certainly non-trivial coverage of them in reliable sources), even if the article does not currently reflect that. That said, articles about neighbourhoods and other subdivisions of settlements have been redirected and/or deleted due to lack of proof of notability. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

As I have often commented in the past, I have yet to encounter an example of a notable topic where sufficient sources are burdensome/difficult to acquire, even under a strict interpretation of notability. Cities most certainly have endless reams of sources about their history, notable people, etc. Even small towns get extensive mentions in accessible regional history works and news media. Proper referencing always requires a bit of time and effort, and the lack of immediately available sources without making a trek to the local historical society or library does not indicate a true lack of accessible references. Regarding mountains and other natural geographic features, there are numerous travel guides, nature guides, geographical studies and so on that cover such things in some depth. However, this assumption of sources (and the concurrent assumption of notability) leaves many such "assumed to be notable" articles left in eternal crapitude. Attempts to force reasonable sourcing and proper demonstration of notability on such articles is often seen as "disruptive" and "counter to established consensus". The problem lies in how to encourage the sourcing of such topics in the (current) absence of any real threat to the article and its content. Vassyana (talk) 07:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday I added this language to the intro: "If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, that does not necessarily mean the topic is not notable." I think coverage is one way of suggesting a topic is notable, but it's certainly not the only way. Many subjects are considered notable even if the article doesn't contain significant coverage — cities and mountains for example. This guideline should maybe say, "If significant coverage in reliable secondary sources is present in an article, editors are more likely to consider the subject notable."

I think the "Notability requires objective evidence" section is misleading. It says "Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence." That in my opinion is an argument unsupported by the sources — also known as original research. WP:N says "The topic of an article should be notable." The only way to show that a topic is notable according to policy is to cite a reliable source who explicitly says the topic is notable. Unless you quote a reliable source saying something is "notable", the question of notability comes down to personal editor opinion. --Pixelface (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That would only be relevant if we stated in the article that "According to X, the topic is notable". Since we don't, and since Notability is only a project guideline for inclusion/exclusion, I don't think that's a concern. Also, this issue has been discussed previously here. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The requirement that a subject be notable can, if needs be, be a behind the scenes requirement. If the notability claim is not asserted in mainspace, it is not necessarily subject to WP:NOR. Also, note that a blind, absolute enforcement of WP:NOR leads to absurdities. There is some original research or synthesis to be found in all editorial actions. At an extreme, even if you were baldly copying from sources, someone could try say you are violating WP:NOR through your choice of sources to copy from. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

What we need sources for is article content. That's the meaning of V, which is very appropriately policy. That the sources for the content have to be objective and balanced, is the meaning of NOR, also appropriately core policy. Without those standards for content, we dont have an encyclopedia. But neither of them says anything about notability. any way of demonstrating notability is acceptable. (more exactly, whatever way of demonstrating whatever it is we decide we mean by notability is acceptable). we still need reliable content to write the article, but that's a separate issue. If we have no reliable content, it's an empty article and should be deleted, notable or not. "Notabibility requires appropriate evidence" would be a better way of putting it than "objective" . ""Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence." " is one way of demonstrating notability--just one way. DGG (talk) 03:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"significant coverage in secondary sources" is not “just one way”, it is a very good way. I don’t remember anyone disagreeing with this way as being a very good way. The problem is with exceptions that require another way, and the lack of description about what those other ways are. “Notability requires appropriate evidence” says nothing more that “Notability requires evidence”. Is ghits evidence? Can we talk about specific examples where notability gets contested and where coverage in secondary sources is not the best way to demonstrate notability? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Major metro and politicians

Had a recent discussion with another user regarding the notability of a particular politician, so for future reference I would like to try and establish consensus on a couple of the issues raised.

Firstly, would a city like Buffalo, New York, with 295,000 residents, qualify as a "major metropolitan city" or not? Secondly, would a failed candidate for the US Congress qualify as notable?

The issue concerns an article about a Buffalo city councillor who once stood unsuccessfully for Congress. Gatoclass (talk) 04:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not for a wikipedian to decide whether Buffalo, New York is a "major metropolitan city". You need to find reliable/reputable sources (at least one) that says it. Editorial decision is then required on the question of whether we want to mention it, or in deciding what to do if different sources say different things (is there a controversy, or is one more reliable than the other).

A failed candidate for the US Congress qualify as notable if you can find sources that discuss him (not merely mention him). Presumably, you would like to find sources that discuss him in terms of his candidacy, and/or his failed candidacy. Especially good would be sources that discuss his candidacy in terms of some wider context. Beware of non-independent sources. These may be reliable sources for the facts, but they will have a systematic bias and we don’t consider them to demonstrate sufficient notability. I would start by looking in the editorial section of the major newspapers of the district. Major libraries keep newspapers in one form or another. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

According to the article creator, candidates for Congress all end up with an article on them while they are running, and those articles are not deleted after they fail to win, so any candidate for Congress by extension qualifies as notable. Gatoclass (talk) 05:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

For use as a criterion of notability, we can form our own levels of significance. Everything larger than a population of approximately 500 has probably been called a major city in its local newspaper :) I consider a reasonable cutoff at somewhere between 100,000 (259 US cities) and 500,000. (33 cities). Using 250,000 has 69 cities, which might make sense as an intermediate compromise. See List of United States cities by population for which ones would be included. (personally, as a new Yorker, i'd accept nothing much less as worth the trouble, but that's my own prejudice. When I saw SF first from the airplane, it looked like a nice small city)

As for losing candidates, I have tried in the past to argue that losing candidates from major parties for national offices are notable, but this has not yet been accepted. I think the losing dem/Rep candidate for H of R is is about equivalently notable as someone in the state . But it was clear that this was not going to be generally accepted. i continue to think its a good idea, if anyone wants to pursue it. DGG (talk) 06:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't know. I don't think I personally would be prepared to describe a city of 300,000 as a "major metropolitan city" - a major regional city maybe. Although it might also depend on the country's overall population I guess. I think SmokeyJoe's comment probably makes the most sense - if you can't find a reputable independent source or sources describing the city in such terms, then it doesn't qualify.

As for the second point, it seems to me there are a lot of candidates who stand for office, some of them with no hope at all of ever being elected, should they all get their own article? Gatoclass (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Eh? Notability is (still) a guideline?

Notability was a first shot at preventing people from wasting their time on things that were too trivial to easily be checked. I thought it could be entirely replaced by verifiability and reliable sources by now.

The page says that notability criteria should be objective, but imho notability itself has always been a fairly subjective subject.

Finally, I simply don't like guidelines that are made solely to serve some XFD process. (Imagine if Esperanza or AMA had created guidelines... there'd be an outcry!)

Have people already been phasing out the use of Notability as a criterion?

Perhaps we can replace the guidline with just "2 reliable sources" and merge that with Wikipedia:Reliable sources?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 10:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC) I'm asking here first, because redirects are annoying :-P

Because notability is more than just sourcing; the "significant coverage" part is important there as well as "secondary" sources, and additionally it is subjective, and that subjectively needs to be described in a guideline approach; merging it with RS would leave RS doing a lot more than just describing reliable sources and would complicate it there. Mind you, I see people that would like to have absolutely no notability guideline in place at all, while others want it to be policy. I also don't see notability meant solely to serve AfD: it is meant to help people know what is needed in articles before their creation or to correct it when existing articles lack it, though it also serves to keep back the tide of new pages covering non-encyclopedic elements as well that newer editors tend to create when they are unaware of guidelines and policy. --MASEM 13:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

So in summary, not only is it unnecessary, subjective, and essentially random, it also bites newbies. Like that didn't hit the newspapers before. This situation is so bad that it actually costs us donations and editors.

It doesn't have to be this way. Wikipedia is not paper has been a dead letter for long enough. Time for us to start enforcing it again? ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

We asked ArbCom to take a look at a related situation; they threw up their hands and basically said it's a real mess. Nifboy (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Way cool! They even quoted "not paper!" :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC) <smug look> but of course, they would</smug look> (what's the point of cool quotes like that if you can't be smug about 'em? ;-) )

See above about the economist article about the battle for WP's soul. We could make notability policy, or we could abolish it, but either direction is a battlefield. What we need to do it realize that notability should not meant deletion - I've been tuning and working on a WP:FICT that compromises both sides, with heavy emphasis that AfD should be the absolute last step in the process. Warning newbies that their articles lack notability and other areas is much much better than CSD/AfD the articles off the bat. --MASEM 20:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That might be a good first step. It seems like an attainable compromise. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• I could support Kim in this as a long-term goal, but in practice notability is substantially ingrained in WP and removing it now would be an overwhelming battle as it was last year. We should look at what is possible rather than what is perfect in the shorter-term and strive for perfection over time. My concern is less with the core here at WP:N, but the proliferation of redundant and contradictory permutations of BIO, ORG, PROF, etc. And the perpetual proposals for special cases. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  <grin> I thought you might like the idea. O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Time to affect the merger of Academics with BIO

Absent strong objections at the talk page for WP:Academics I think that it is time to merge this page into BIO. The better parts of this process have been incorporated into BIO for some time and this is now just a redundant page. Perhaps further ideas in clarification of BIO could be included in an essay. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"Notability is not temporary" is self contradictory

There is a question that has come up in one or two of the deletion debates in which I have participated here, where it's been argued that the section means "Once notable, always notable." Indeed, this is pretty much what the first paragraph states. However, this has been taken to mean that if a topic receives just a brief flurry of media attention, then it becomes notable and stays notable -- in contradiction to the second paragraph. I've flagged this as a self contradiction which will need to be clarified. —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 16:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that this is a contradiction, since "a brief flurry of media attention" is generally not enough to state that a topic is notable. That said, there can be and are disagreements about what constitutes a "brief" period of coverage, but that is a question of genuine disagreement caused by (deliberate) ambiguity in the guideline rather than an actual contradiction. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I've seen debates where the interpretation "once notable, always notable" has been applied to subjects that only have two or three news reports surrounding a single event based on an apparent misunderstanding of the section. I've reworded it slightly to hopefully make it a bit clearer. —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 20:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Where the only independent sources are “two or three news reports”, I’d suggest drawing attention to the probable fact that the “news reports” are not secondary sources and thus do not normally serve to demonstrate notability. Newspapers like to report everything, factually, with immediacy, and without bias. Such reports are repetition of fact, and thus are primary source material. To demonstrate sufficient notability, we’d prefer to see commentary about the event, not just the facts of the event. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless the news article is, in its entirety, a reprint of a press release, it is _always_ a secondary source. That's been the consensus on Wikipedia for years. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus among whom? There has been a very long debate at NOR about what secondary sources are, and the main conclusion that can be drawn from it is that there are several different schools of thought about it. Many people learned in school that newspaper reports are primary sources, because they lack sufficient distance from the event to give an analysis of it (SmokeyJoe's comment may reflect this sort of thought). Of course many Wikipedia articles do rely on newspaper articles as their main sources, but it would be clearer overall if we avoid the phrase "secondary source" when referring to them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

That's been the rule on Wikipedia pretty much forever. While there was a debate about whether data in scientific journals might really be a primary source, and I suppose a newspaper writing an article about itself ( i.e. its masthead, or if it issues a retraction ) could be a primary source, a newspaper article is almost certainly a "secondary source" by our standards. It doesn't matter whether it has a comprehensive or trivial analysis of the events it reported on, it's still a secondary source, and can be used to demonstrate notability. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

What if the article contains no analysis, comprehensive, trivial or otherwise, of the events it reported on? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Carl, I think it is important to use the term “secondary source” in relation to newspapers, but correctly, because newspaper sources are frequently, and appropriately, used to justify article inclusion. The complication is that newspapers usually contain both primary source material and secondary source material. The reports (found in the first and early pages) are usually primary source material, the editorials and features are usually secondary source material. We don’t want to give the impression that sources found in newspapers are not suitable sources. As a rule of thumb, I’d suggest that anything called a “report” is not suitable per se for demonstrating sufficient notability to justify a wikipedia article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

There are many misconceptions about primary and secondary sources, and Squidfryerchef's is not unusual. I’m glad we can agree that a verbatim reprint of a press release is not a secondary source. Can you now explain how any verbatim reprint of any primary source can be said to be a secondary source? Can you then explain how any mere summary of any primary source can be said to be a secondary source?

Can you produce any reliable source supporting your assertion? Can you point to any evidence of your alluded-to consensus? Secondary source doesn’t support your position. Neither does WP:PSTS.

There is no widespread accepted line for separating primary sources from secondary sources, but it is not hard to show clear examples of each kind. A simple news report is primary source. See, for example, CNN.com’s current top “latest news” is Three missing after New York City crane collapse.

It presents hard facts, without editorial commentary or analysis. Reading the article, it is as if you the reader are at the scene, seeing things first hand. There are quotations of what people said, but this is not editorial commentary, it is a factual reporting of what people said. The whole article is doing nothing but the verbatim repeating of primary source materials – observations, facts and quotations.

For the article to be judged to be secondary source material, there would need to be some appreciable transformation of primary source material. This can be done in ways such as commentary, analysis, comparison, altered perspective. The CNN article makes no comment. Was this a bad accident? A typical accident? A tragic accident? A funny accident? There is no analysis. The article doesn’t tell you why it might have happened? News reports do not do this deliberately because to do so means that their reports are not “unbiased and factual”. If you want opinion, commentary, analysis or perspective, you turn to the editorial section, or wait a few days for stories that are not framed in a “this just happened right now” perspective.

This is relevant to WP:N because the CNN article does not, in itself, show that anybody cares. It reads like a simple record of an event, made at the time of the event. Wikipedia does not cover the subject of every news report.

Perhaps you’d like to argue that the crane crash is sufficiently notable because it was run by a national news service, or due to measures of loss of life or loss of capital. You could, but these are not arguments based upon the CNN story being a secondary source. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow. That opinion of what constitutes a secondary source does not match what the rest of Wikipedia uses. The CNN report you described is a fine example of a secondary source. It is national news and together with other reports may be used to argue notability. If you want to propose a new category of "super-secondary sources" or "commentary sources" using the above definition then go for it. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be more helpful if you could voice your disagreement with reference to evidence. Where can I read more on your understanding of “secondary source”. Is it at secondary source or its references, some other external source, or at WP:PSTS (Wikipedia policy)? Can you show me somewhere on wikipedia where something like the CNN report has been explicitly accepted as a “secondary source”? In terms of WP:N, do you not see that the CNN news report (“together with other reports”) is excluded by: “it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability.” --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

In this case, the CNN news report would be a secondary source. The primary sources would be tapes of 911 calls and transcripts of police radio chatter. Something typed up in a newsroom summarizing multiple reports of an emergency is a secondary source. As far as examples of news reports not being accepted as secondary sources on Wikipedia, I've never heard of a news report from the mainstream media _not_ being accepted as a secondary source. About notability, I agree that a single news report does not automatically confer notability, but a collection of several may be used to argue for notability (necessary but not sufficient conditions). FWIW, I feel that the crane crash is notable because it is likely to be cited as a case study in the construction business. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Remember, there are two aspects that any source can be categorized into. The first is the primary, secondary, or tertiary nature of the work; this describes, based on the topic being covered, how much analysis is being done on the work. The second aspect is the "party" or how many people are removed from the original event. For a crime for example, 911 calls and police reports would be first-party sources, while CNN would be a third-party source; if you observed the event and then wrote it up , that would be the second-party source, which pretty much are strictly forbidden since that implies original research. Thus, in the case of the reporting recent news event, probably anything that is reported in the first 24hrs after the event is a third-party, primary source, since they are simply stating facts but make little attempt at verifiable conclusions. Once they investigate a bit more, then their reporting becomes third-party, secondary sources. Mind you, this latter step may never occur, or maybe investigations are done and it is as run of the mill as they say it was. For example, not every tornado strike, despite causing damage and possibly lives, all likely reported in both local and national news, is necessarily notable, because, well, as an ex-Midwestern, they just happen. However, certain tornado-related events are notable, typically due to the number and size of them, which cause a much larger path of damage, including post-analysis of how the tornadoes hit, conditions that led to them, and things that may or may not helped to prevent damage; these are listed at List of North American tornadoes and tornado outbreaks. Similarly, not every sharp drop or rise in the stock market is notable despite stock analyses being reported at the end of the day - it's those that make a long term effect that get further detailed and analyzed, resulting in a notable stock event. In both cases, the delineation between a non-notable to a notable event is the predominance of third-party secondary sources that are generated some time, but not immediately, after the event that analysis why and what it has impacted. Once an event's coverage has crosses that point, then it no longer it temporary notability (aka newsworthiness) but gains permanent notability. --MASEM 22:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

There's more dimensions too besides primary/secondary/tertiary and third-party vs. self-published; we use sources of widely varying provenance and neutrality. But the point I'm debating with SmokeyJoe I think is whether a news article must contain original research to qualify as a secondary source (which I don't think is the case). Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: WP:PSTS used to contain the wording "a journalist's story about a traffic accident or a Security Council resolution is a secondary source, assuming the journalist was not personally involved in either."[1] I don't know how this got left out, but I'll put something on the talk page asking that it be restored. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

“whether a news article must contain original research to qualify as a secondary source” is an excellent description of our difference. “A journalist's story about” probably contains OR and is a secondary source. “A journalist’s report of” probably doesn’t contain OR and is not a secondary source if it reproduces/reports/records the facts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The present wording there is the result of months of discussion, and is a tight compromise. The issue is that although your meaning of secondary source includes news stories, other established meanings of the term don't. I remember posting on this page when the term "secondary source" was added to WP:N, to point out that the change would mean that article sources only news stories don't pass it, for example. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you guys are all missing the point of what I was asking. Whether or not news articles are reliable sources is not the issue here (that particular discussion would be better suited to the talk on WP:RS; in any case, they tend to get treated as reliable sources in practice in deletion debates). The problem is that this section is being quoted in AfDs to justify the inclusion of subjects that have only had a small amount of news coverage on no more than one or two occasions. The argument goes like this: (a) a subject is presumed notable if it has had coverage in independent reliable secondary sources, (b) once notable, always notable, therefore (c) because something has had a brief flurry of news coverage, it is therefore entitled to a Wikipedia article -- which is in contradiction to WP:NOT#NEWS. What I'm asking for is the wording of the section to address the issue more clearly than it had. —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 13:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Does this solve the problem you see? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 07:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Too many words . . .

'nuf said! Digital athena (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Arrogant definition

One of the bullets under General notability guidelines begins "'sources,' defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources...." I don't know what that means. Also, refuse recognize a guideline that purports to define anything for all of Wikipedia. (Yes, that means that I find that so arrogant that I do not recognize this guideline at all.) --Gerry Ashton (talk) 02:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)