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 Archive 20 Archive 21

• See also Wikipedia talk:Relevance (and archives)

Notability Is Temporary

I find the idea that "Notability is not temporary" utterly ridiculous. I think it is especially so in application to contemporary figures. "Not temporary" means "lasts forever", and forever is a very long time.

The idea that notability lasts forever suggests that if an article appeared in the first edition of a traditional printed encyclopedia, it should in all cases be justifiable that it remain in the second, fifth, or 25th edition. Who are we to pretend we know who or what will still be considered notable 10, 100, 200 or 1000 years from now?

Does anyone actually believe that every one of the performers listed on Top-selling American Idol alumni will be considered notable by objective standards even 20 years from now? I could find loads of "List of..." type pages in WP for which the same question applies, and definitely not just amongst the entertainment-related lists. Even outside contemporary figures, there is a copious supply of biographical articles in WP for people who are notable because they held a particular public office, but they are not equally notable. Some are notable only because they held an office for a short time. Some are possibly notable only for their lack of notability in comparison to other holders of the same office. With no disrespect intended to the man, I point out Horatio King, who held the office of Postmaster General of the United States for less than 1 month. There have now been 72 Postmasters General of the United States. Will they all still be notable when there have been 144? Or 720?

And outside of biographies, e.g., in pure academic areas, technology or business, how can we possibly pretend to know what article subjects will still be notable forever? We can't. In a huge number of cases, we can only answer the question "is this notable today?", and anything beyond that is merely an educated guess. Will Zune or MSN TV be notable in 100 years? How about all the firms listed in Category:Defunct_computer_hardware_companies?

It seems to me that somewhere between now and forever, the notability of many, many subjects of WP articles will prove itself to be temporary.Rhsatrhs (talk) 02:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

We can define notability to include only things of lasting significance. However, if we do, for many things you have to wait a generation to see if it was really of lasting significance or whether it was just a heavily-discussed topic for a few days, weeks, years, or decades. The question becomes, what do we do with such topics between the time they first hit the papers and the time we have the sober view of history? Do we include them now and remove them in a few years or decades, or do we wait until they are a few decades past before inserting them? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this is just a matter of the policy name and/or phrasing being a bit confusing. Essentially, notability is not much more or less than verifying that there are enough independent sources available to make a complete article. All the extra window dressing, such as asking if the subject has won major awards or is the subject of university study, is just a method of judging whether it is reasonable to presume enough sources exist. If there are enough reputable independent sources now, then in ten years there will still be enough reliable third-party references. Hence, the sentiment that notability is not temporary. (It's worth noting that notability does not exist in a vacuum and many topics that fit the technical standards of notability may run afoul of exclusion standards or fail to fulfill our biography standards.) Vassyana (talk) 03:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts: Electronic storage media in general and Wikipedia in particular are too young to have had a chance to really put any of this theory into practice. Regarding semi- or pseudo-notable historical figures from, say, 150 years ago, we assume that if multiple sources about those figures still exist, they must have been notable. Now, however, there is a reasonable chance that any information put into an electronic storage medium – especially on the Internet, where it's likely to be copied, plagiarized, mirrored, archived, cached, and who knows what else – might be around in 500 years, notable or not. Somewhere out there on the Internet are at least three websites giving the birthdate of my youngest niece – once on my primary website, once on a mirrored website, and probably at least once on the Wayback Machine. Someday she'll end up listed at Genealogy.com, if she isn't already. She may never be notable for any reason, but some enterprising great-great-grandchild of hers will probably be able to find at least one of those references somewhere.

My point to this is that in a generation or three... once people have realized that WP:NOTPAPER isn't all that some editors would crack it up to be, that while Wikipedia doesn't rely on dead trees, it does rely on many other finite resources and cannot store an infinite amount of information... WP:N will be much, much stricter. Multiple reliable secondary sources will not be enough to guarantee inclusion. For now, however, we're a long way from that, and in response to the question posed by Davidwr, I would usually (in reasonable circumstances) lean toward including topics that seem to be notable, even if they might not be after I'm dead and gone. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 06:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Long-term notability vs. long-term triviality: Vassyana, I like your summary, unfortunately there is a problem. You said: If there are enough reputable independent sources now, then in ten years there will still be enough reliable third-party references. The real fact is that "reputable, independent" isn't good enough to say whether something will be considered notable or trivial 100 years from now. When Babe Ruth hit his 400th home run, it was probably in the fine print of reports about the game in every major city newspaper, probably in at least 3 independently-written stories. With the aid of a subscription newspaper-search service, I could find those articles today. However, decades later, we consider that event to be trivia and not worth of an article called Babe Ruth's 400th Home Run. I'm not even sure if the fact is in Babe Ruth, I didn't check. What is considered notable in the days, months, or years after an event may be considered trivial by society decades or centuries after an event. Such disputes of trival vs. notable should be hashed out on article talk pages and/or deletion discussions. Policy should acknowledge that the border between well-cited, once-notable trivia and what is still considered notable exists for many topics, is fluid, and is not set by policy. There should be guidelines for various topics. For example, a guideline on biological species would say "all confirmed species are notable, now and forevermore," while an guideline on sports-related articles would say something completely different. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Question: are articles about topics which may one day be notable published on Wikipedia before they achieve notability?

• Answer: no, of course not.

• Question: are articles about topics which may one day be non-notable deleted from Wikipedia before they achieve non-notability?

• Answer...

Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 14:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

My reply: Question: Have articles been deleted by speedy or AfD for "lack of notability" or "marginal notability" which, if they had occurred recently and had the same amount of press coverage they got at the time never would have been nominated for AfD and/or speedy-kept under WP:SNOW? Answer: Very likely. Question: Have authors chosen not to create such articles in the first place knowing they would be deleted? Answer: I have and I suspect thousands of other editors have too. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Both points are correct. It's a shame when editors choose not to create an article about a notable topic (no matter how temporary that notability) but I expect it happens more often than we'd like to admit. Regarding your first question, some articles lose notability more quickly than others. Public interest is fickle. I don't think that means these articles shouldn't be created, though, and deleting an article due to "marginal notability" should only be done after much careful consideration. A marginally notable topic is one that is very nearly notable enough to stay, and there might be a better fate for that information (e.g. merging). Question: how often do people treat AfD as though delete and keep are the only two options? Answer: very frequently. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 14:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) davidwr, I don't believe that topic was ever notable. Notability requires in-depth coverage. Sources verifying that something exists is simply not sufficient to establish notability. As I mention above, we're looking for enough quality sources for a complete article. Vassyana (talk) 16:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:FICT

I should note (in case it was not seen) that WP:FICT is looking to seek global consensus for the updated guideline at this RFC. I should note there have been suggestions of challenging WP:N as a result of it that might creep into here. --MASEM 14:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability, the GNG, subject specific guidelines, and definition, characterisation, or evidence?

Partly because of recent discussions, here and at WT:FICT, mainly, I think we need to clear something up.

As I read it, the current notability guideline (WP:NOTE) defines notability as nothing other than "worthy of note", and then says that something is considered notable if it meets the GNG or any of the accepted subject-specific guidelines that are applicable. However, a great many people seem to read this as that notability (for WP purposes) is defined by the GNG and that the other guidelines give guidance on interpreting it for specific areas.

The first reading means that, generally, subject-specific guidelines (such as WP:BOOK et al) can be more permissive than the GNG, as if they were less permissive they could simply be ignored and the GNG used to pass instead. The second reading means that subject-specific guidelines should be less permissive, and if they fail to be so, then the GNG will effectively nullify them. Well, the first reading does also mean that they can complement the GNG, such that it becomes possible to pass the GNG and fail the subject specific and possible to fail the GNG and pass the subject specific; the second reading doesn't seem to allow for this possibility. So which is it? SamBC(talk) 16:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(Oh, as a final note, as currently written the GNG is not a corollary of WP:V, WP:NOR, etc, as they permit sources that the GNG says don't speak to notability (such as directories and primary sources), and it's possible to pass the GNG without then being able to say more than a few sentences per WP:V, as multiple independent secondary sources might all be saying the same thing, for example. V/NOR talk about individual bits of content, WP:NOTE is all about the article, in fact the topic, as a whole. This may be a separate point of debate, but if WP:NOTE and the GNG are taken as a corollary of WP:V, then WP:NOTE ought to be rewritten quite massively to reflect that, and all the subject-specific guidelines refocussed and, in a few cases, probably deleted. SamBC(talk) 16:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC))

You probably know my stance on this already. I am emphatically not one of the ones who believes Wiki notability to be defined in absolute terms by the GNG, largely because so many clearly notable fictional characters fail the guideline utterly. Most notable fictional characters and elements of literary fiction, video games, Dungeons and Dragons, do not have and will never have what we consider sufficient coverage in secondary sources to be notable. And yet I think the consensus at AfD is clearly that another standard of notability may be applied to even minor characters who have been kicking around their respective notable fictional universes for a while (take Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ego the Living Planet as a representative example). I believe it is the persistence and recurrence in the work(s) that confers notability in such cases. I came to this discussion largely because fictional characters was the first area I noticed that was completely failed by our current WP:N guidelines. I can't think of any other examples, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Would anyone else care to enlighten me? Ford MF (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I see notability, and its burgeoning sprawl of sub-guidelines, as a ridiculously complex way of expressing some relatively simple concepts. This is due to, in my opinion, bad pseudo-compromises and exactitude in wording demands. Notability simply means there is a reasonable presumption that enough independent reputable sources to craft a complete and well-sourced article. Or following the guideline name, that independent reliable references consider the topic noteworthy enough to provide substantive/comprehensive coverage. All the sprawling subguidelines generally just provide some common sense bits, such as if someone won a major award, we should presume enough sources exist to support an article. Whether its the GNG or the subguidelines, it all returns to a presumption that sufficient sources exist. This is also true of the common "inherently" notable topics, such as towns. This "auto-notability" derives from the (perfectly reasonable) presumption that plentiful sources almost assuredly exist. It should also be noted that fulfilling notability is not necessarily sufficient for inclusion on Wikipedia. For two prominent examples, there are some things that simple don't belong here and an article about a living person must meet certain standards.

Touching on fiction specifically, in my experience, there is rarely (if ever) an actual lack of sources for prominent fictional topics. There is simply a lack of motivation to find the sources. I do not see the need to relax our basic inclusion guideline to accommodate laziness or other lack of willingness to do the grunt work to find sufficient sourcing. Using comics as the example, there are industry and mass market periodicals that cover the market fairly intensely. There are additionally numerous "encyclopedias", "fan guides" and similar resources available. There isn't even much of a need to cite the primary artistic works for comic book characters, as the major comic book publishers release numerous books, yearbooks, who's who listings and so forth that conveniently compile the most salient primary source appearances and facts. There are even academic articles and books about comics. Vassyana (talk) 19:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I would just point out that, while those sources (the comic yearbooks and suchforth, and "encyclopaedias" and guides from the pubishers) are allowed (if not ideal) under V, they aren't acceptable per NOTE to demonstrate notability, as they aren't independent of the subject. This is one of the flaws in the note-just-ensures-V view. If we want NOTE to be something that just ensures V (and I don't say that it should be, or shouldn't per se) then it needs changing. If it's trying to do something else, that should be clearer. SamBC(talk) 20:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I was using those "in house" sources as examples that could be used instead of the direct appearances in comic titles. As I mention, there are numerous industry and mass market periodicals, among other independent sources, which do suffice for the purposes of notability. I disagree with the notability = verifiability and notability just ensures verifiability views. Saying that, as a whole, the available independent reliable sources should present comprehensive coverage of a subject is a distinct, if related, matter from indicating that information must be verifiable in reliable sources. Vassyana (talk) 05:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Notability is just a "guideline" which is to be interpreted with "common sense". Editors who are familiar with a subject area know what is and isn't worth covering. The problem seems to arise when editors who are hostile to a subject area engage with it. The resulting Wikilawyering is a huge waste of everyone's time and we should not encourage it by creating volumes of detailed guidelines, essays and policy talk. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• The general notability criterion was a nice attempt at an "objective" inclusion standard, but I think it has failed in that is deletes too much content that is perfectly reasonable to keep, and keeping some content that ought to be deleted. We have too many articles on murderers and murder victims, etc. and are too trigger-happy with deleting articles on pop-culture topics that while perhaps trivial have an enormous audience and are "in demand". I view our mission as being fairly responsive to the actual demands of our audience, and would like to see us address that audience more appropriately. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The proliferation of murder victim articles are a failure to enforce WP:NOT, not a failure of notability (which specifically mentions that meeting notability is not necessarily sufficient). Vassyana (talk) 05:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    • In practice this guideline is the means of enforcing the relevant provisions of WP:NOT. Moreover, this guideline perpetuates the notion that the number of independent sources available on a topic is the primary determinant of whether a topic ought to be included, but as exposed by these examples, in many cases the number of independent sources does not tell us much about our ability to write a useful encyclopedia article on a subject. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines are guidelines: think WP:POINT, WP:NONSENSE, WP:PROFANITY. They've developed out of a consensus about what generally improves wikipedia's overall quality. Exceptions should be occasional. But there's definitely a problem with WP:N because a few people find it's causing harm. We do need a workable standard: if it were just based on a small consensus on an individual article, wikipedia would take the form of urban dictionary with a page for every little fansite, internet meme, and web celebrity that could get voted up. The requirement of two reliable (e.g.: not self-published) sources that are independent of the subject (e.g.: the subject itself can't just generate its own notability) is meant to exclude a lot of crap (yes, crap). But a lot of people think it goes too far. This can't be fixed by letting each article make up its own subjective standard. We need that workable standard for some level of quality control. My question is simple: what would you change about the notability requirement? My gut feeling is we need a parallel standard that isn't just based on independent reliable sources, but then I'm not sure what that would look like. Randomran (talk) 15:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, while I might be arguing rather vociferously against the GNG on the WP:FICT talkpage, I have to say that in pretty much all other cases I find our current notability guidelines to work fine. I was sincere in asking if anyone know of a class of articles that our current WP:N fails the way it fails fictional characters and objects, because I can't think of one. Many properly notable fictional characters without a shred of secondary source (because generally nothing non-trivial exists) easily pass AfD in an I know it when I see it kind of way, and maybe we just need some language to reflect that. Honestly I think an additional page of guideline at WP:FICT is lunatic, when all that is really needed is a clause here that says something like "Fictional characters are a special case, and characters notable for their persistence or popularity in fictional media often have not received secondary source coverage." Ford MF (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been following discussions at WP:FICT, so please forgive my ignorance. My knee-jerk reaction in the past has been to say something like "if those reliable secondary sources do not exist, the character should be discussed as a subsection of the article about the fictional work, rather than in a separate article." As I read through parts of this discussion, however, I am second-guessing myself. A concrete example would probably be helpful to me; can you point me in the direction of a fictional character who clearly deserves his/her/its own article but who doesn't have adequate secondary sources granting that character notability per WP:N? Thanks for helping me learn about this issue. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 19:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

One I've hauled out before is Ego the Living Planet, and the corresponding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ego the Living Planet, which elicited a fairly strong and unambiguous consensus to keep, despite not having a single secondary source. And speaking as someone fairly knowledgeable about the subject, I'd say that no such sources exist, or if they do they are so trivial or obscure as to be virtually indistinguishable from nonexistent. I think the contention voiced here--that for notable articles, there will be some secondary sources, somewhere--is mostly true, but not entirely true, which is what makes it problematic. There will be a whole subclass within the class of fictional "X" articles for which secondary sources, for all intents and purposes, do not exist. And yet it's clear from watching AfD that a community consensus considers at least some of these articles notable, despite failing the letter of WP:NOTE utterly and entirely. Ford MF (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

To try to brainstorm this, can you provide an example of how this character can be sourced from anything besides the comic itself, ignoring any other restrictions on reliable sources or the like? Are there writer's bibles? Are there comprehensive fansites? Are there newsgroup postings? The reason I state this is because there is a bit of allowance for moving the goallines in WP:V to have the "best sources possible" for a topic, and if we consider the same here, trying to see if there's a way of relaxing what we consider as possible sources, such that the topic can be shown to be notable and have semi-independent sources... To meet the general concept (not the GNC, just the concept) we need to make sure that the subject is widely notable within the overall class of materials; just like local figures represented by only local sources are not considered notable, we need to make sure we're not pulling material from the only fan site that goes into depth for one minor character. --MASEM 20:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's this, but as you say, it's minimal. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 01:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, not much more than a passing mention, and unclear if it's even about Ego, rather than about someone else referencing it. Ford MF (talk) 01:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Arguably, the fact that it's mentioned in a published book which was important enough to be featured on Google Books (however important that may be) hints at some notability. Anyway, as I indicated earlier, I'm second-guessing my earlier opinion, and I'll keep an eye (and an open mind) on this discussion. Thanks. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 01:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think my point is being missed here. The question isn't whether or not Ego (and similar articles) is notable. That the character is in fact notable has been confirmed by editors knowledgeable about the subject and by an AfD that was passed without much reason beyond a bunch of energetic editors saying "Trust me, he's notable." I'm trying to work backwards, starting from the point at which the community consensus says a character is notable, and figuring out how to establish that through guidelines when the current guidelines (which require secondary sources that are, for all intents and purposes, next to nonexistent in these cases) fail, as our current guidelines fail. I'm trying to brainstorm ways to show this, and the best one that I can come up with is that, for fictional characters, primary sources might have to be considered acceptable. I admit I'm only mostly coming at this problem from one specific domain--comics--but it is the one in which the guidelines most drastically do not work. (Although an argument can be made for television characters being utterly broken with regards to WP:NOTE as well.) Ford MF (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

One problem is that we can never be sure if an apparent lack of sources is an actual lack, or just that they haven't been found yet; the corollary problem is that some people want a tight deadline, if you don't find the sources (to demonstrate notability, not verify the content of the article) soon enough, they want the article gone. SamBC(talk) 19:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I know, except I'd have phrased it "we can never be sure if there is an actual lack of sources, or just that no one has been motivated enough to try and find the sources. If/when I get an example here, the first thing I'm going to do is make an honest effort to find the sources needed. I've seen editors who spent days arguing that a topic is notable without spending one minute trying to find the sources to prove it. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 20:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to compose a generally applicable alternative; to my mind, that's the point of the subject-specific guidelines. Anything can be considered obviously notable if multiple independent reliable sources have covered it non-trivially, but within various limited domains (such as books, movies, athletics, etc etc) one can derive other ways of determining whether something is worthy of note. That's what the preamble to WP:N currently means to me, anyway, and it's the way I see things making sense. And if a domain isn't suited by the GNG, editors who edit in that domain (as in constructively edit, rather than just try to reduce or remove coverage) should try to develop guidelines. Then, however, there's no need for those domain-specific guidelines to be based on the GNG, or refer to it at all. However, what should they be measuring? That's one of the main problems, as far as I can tell; in the absence of an actual definition of what we mean by notability (one that is usable for anything, anyway), people are taking the GNG as a definition and insisting that subject-specific guidelines conform to it. SamBC(talk) 16:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've taken a copy of WP:N, removed the interwiki links, categories, etc, and then edited it. It's at User:Sambc/Notability Demo. The point of this, for now, is to indicate as clearly as I can manage how I think notability should be interpreted, and how to change the guideline to clarify it in this direction. The changes aren't terribly major, with some tweaks and a couple of additions in content, and a slight change to some organisation. One very important point is the addition of the "definition" section, which makes it clear that the GNG isn't a definition. SamBC(talk) 16:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's worthwhile bringing up the previous topic that I suggested here of establishing an "inclusion policy" (yes, policy), which notability as a guideline would be underneath (in the same fashion WP:RS is a guideline to policy WP:V). But going this direction, and I know I've seen this idea suggested before, is that WP:N now, and how its treated, is basically "notability by coverage"; if there's secondary sources, we can cover it. If you look at some sub-notability guidelines like MUSIC, we then have "notability by importance per WikiProject", in that there are cases that have been determined to be considered notable despite the lack of currently existing sources (though with the assumption that sources may reasonably likely to exist).

Maybe the solution is that we creation inclusion policy (why its needed, what it is meant and not meant to do, such as limiting content of articles, and so forth); and then make WP:NOTE, as stated, "inclusion due to coverage" guideline. The subguidelines, for the most part, then become "inclusion by importance within field". Now, I do raise a big red flag here is that I can see editors, free to create importance within a specific feild free of having secondary sources, to introduce importance terms that significantly fail our encyclopedic goals (eg the example of a WikiProject Smith to include every person with the last name of Smith), so there needs to be quality control here. In otherwords, while a project may present a set of inclusion guidelines, they need to gain acceptance at the global level. Then these can be listed on this inclusion policy page. Of course, we don't want too many levels here; I'd expect we'd have inclusion guidelines for persons, and then likely one for sports figures, but I wouldn't go any further to expect one for specifically baseball players, though WikiProject should be free to clarify specific aspects of a higher inclusion guideline (eg, if the sports player inclusion guideline says "has played in any non-regular season game", the basebase project may clarify this to mean AL/NL division games, the World Series, and the All-Star game.

This still ends up that meeting what is currently the GNC is fine for inclusion, however, this makes it very clear that other standards may exist. --MASEM 16:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we need guidelines here, though they will be extremely difficult to do in a comprehensive way,except in very general terms. MASEM's approach, of doing it for particular types of articles in Wikiprojects or otherwise , is probably the way to go. I remindus though that the decisions of wikiprojects are not binding on the community, though they should certainly be taken very seriously as considered input. (There have even been cases, as schools, where wikiProject guidelines are much more unsettled than actual results at AfD, because of the smaller number of people in the project and the easier possibility of unrepresentative changes.) DGG (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Masem's idea actually sounds like a fine way to do this, in which in absence of secondary sources (which would justify inclusion of an article of any topic), refer to the specific guideline for that type of article. It allows for the specialist knowledge of the local WikiProjects to be utilized in a community-sanctioned method, and I can see it drastically reducing possible conflict. The only issue I'm seeing is that it might lead to too much instruction creep, but that can be resolved by ensuring each guideline covers a broad category. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd be okay with some mechanism to refer (or defer) Wikiproject related deletions to the Wikiprojects involved. Ford MF (talk) 00:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There's already the deletion sorting project though not to specific projects, though many projects include their own transcluded AFD list. You still need more that just project input, of course; a project may become so biased to have a very low threshold for inclusion that is in stark contrast with the rest of WP, so while we consider them "experts" they can't operate in a vacuum. --MASEM 00:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think there still has to be a minimum standard, if only to avoid purely original research and prevent articles built entirely from primary sources. Randomran (talk) 01:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

To try to keep this as open a thought process as possible, we do want standards, but again the suggestion is that there may be topics that are notable in their field that should be included but they are limited to primarily primary sources. Yes, there needs to be a good objective metric for this to start. --MASEM 01:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(EC) I tend to agree. I think the subject-specific guidelines get too much into instruction creep, in terms of "Keep, this band played a few bars in California and some in Virginia, that's a national tour", or "Keep, album by previously-mentioned band", or "Keep, was on a pro team as a third-stringer for a couple seasons." Secondary sources are already a non-negotiable requirement, and that's defined by WP:V: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Verifiability is policy, not just a guideline. Notability requires significant secondary sources. Notability is a guideline, to which the occasional exception can be made, but such exceptions should be exactly that—occasional. Subject-specific guidelines should be intended to help by saying "Here are some circumstances under which it is more likely that one will indeed be able to find significant amounts of secondary source material." It should never be used as "Here is a class of articles which are appropriate even if such source material does not exist." That just results in keeping garbage articles. The only acceptable "keep" argument should be "Keep, I've found these secondary sources", or "Keep, it's likely for (insert reason) that such sourcing exists, and more time is needed to find them". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

"reliable third-party sources" is a non-disjoint, non-identical set with "reliable secondary soures". For example, The Academy's own publications/website is a primary source, but it is third-party to the award-winners. WP:N is the only major policy or guideline to completely require secondary sources. WP:NOR requires them for any analysis, etc, but for many subjects it's possible to have a perfectly worthwhile article without analysis (remember, we combine aspects of almanacs as well). SamBC(talk) 10:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not quite true. I would suggest that both WP:V and WP:NOR require secondary sources:

• "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources." WP:PSTS
• "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." WP:BURDEN

Jakew (talk) 10:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Well, the issue here is that "should" does not mean "must", and "reliable, third-party" does not mean "secondary". Wikipedia articles, generally, should have some analysis in, which requires a secondary source (not necessarily third party, that is, not necessarily independent). Articles also require third-party (independent) sources, because otherwise we can't trust there to not be bias. However, neither of these alone, nor combined, require there to be any specific number of "independent secondary sources", which are source that are both third-party and secondary. Once again we see problems from editors conflating "third party" (aka "independent") and "secondary" (meaning what WP:PSTS says it does). An author analysing there own work is secondary, but not third-party. An official announcement of an award is primary (it is the original source) but third-party when considered in the context of the award recipient. Newspaper coverage of awards would be both secondary and third-party, while a press release in which the recipient says they were pleased to receive the award would be primary, and not third-party. SamBC(talk) 12:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's try and get a little specific. Could everyone please take a look at User:Sambc/Notability Demo. I'm not proposing it as a change, I'm just asking people to look at it and see what they think is wrong or right compared to the current version; this can be seen more readily, perhaps, with this diff. Given as the changes represent attempts to address what I see as the problems, this ought to help illustrate whether people agree or disagree on any points, and may help elucidate other specific problems. SamBC(talk) 12:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The one thing that struck out at me as troubling is the point about notable things within a subgroup or subculture. We need at some point a global metric or a global oversight to prevent topics that may be notable at the subculture level but are not "worthy of note" at the global level. (I am not saying this necessarily the rquirement of secondary coverage, though that's a possible global metric). Eg: I'd consider the World of Warcraft to be a subculture, and I'm that specific quests, locations, and items in the game are very important, but from a global standpoint, they are not. --MASEM 13:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree actually, as that was overkill for what I was aiming for; I just couldn't actually find a simpler way of doing it. Amicable numbers are not of any real sort of global importance, but they are important enough within maths. We combine aspects of specialist encyclopaedias, so we can't be looking at just "general public" interest. However, we don't want any old subculture. Just "subject" and not "subculture" may be nearer the mark, but goes back to the other side. "Significant subculture" ends up with the subjective decision of what's significant. However, seeing as this is for the general definition rather than any criteria that would be worked with, it can be more fuzzy. I'm willing to tweak my demo to improve it within the same intent, and maybe then some aspects of it can be used to improve the guideline; can you suggest a better version with the same intent that doesn't have such overkill? SamBC(talk) 13:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

As a secondary point, does that mean that you approve of and/or agree with the other clarifications, restructuring, etc, or just not object to them? If a bit of both, which bits are "agree" and which are "not object"? SamBC(talk) 13:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

In general, no problems - some of the wording choices are questionable but the spirit I don't see a problem with, one that exacts that GNC is one approach to notability, and subject-specific ones are another way, but subject-specifics don't have to build off the GNC to be usable. --MASEM 13:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

While I generally am in pretty close agreement with Masem, I have to go the exact opposite way here. Sub-guidelines should not be able to exempt or loosen the requirement for significant independent sourcing, they should only be able to offer pointers when it's likely to be found. We should never have "Keep, even though there's little/no independent source material available, it passes WP:MUSICORWEBORWHATEVER." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you say that the current notability guideline, at WP:N, is in line with what you're saying? If not, does my demo bring it closer to or further from what you believe should be the case? SamBC(talk) 14:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, also, do you feel that "significant independent sourcing" is/should be a requirement for all articles generally, or that it should be a requirement for the concept of "notability". I ask, because there are already separate requirements that all actual content be sourced, and that there are independent sources (per WP:V), but the GNG requires significant coverage in sources that are both independent (third-party) and secondary, which is more restrictive. It also does not admit directories and similar, and is often read as not including sources which cover something (even in some detail) in passing, while covering something else (to give a recent example, a videogame review discussing characters in some detail is accepted by some as a reasonable source per WP:V, but not as indicating notability). SamBC(talk) 14:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the general intention, especially including a "definition" section to ensure that it's clear that the GNG isn't a definition. SamBC(talk) 14:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, there's just too much deference to the individual wikiprojects and what not. I'm willing to concede that "specific notability guidelines" (SNGs) can be more loose OR more strict than the GNG. But they're not a free hand to come up with an SPG that totally contradicts or ignores the GNG. You need that standard in place to prevent people from creating truly non-notable articles in the overall scheme of wikipedia. What I might suggest is that you MUST have coverage in secondary sources, and those sources have to be independent (e.g.: not just toys, movies, gameguides, etc.). Where the SPGs come in is their ability to define which of these sources are reliable, relaxing the standard so that you measure reliability by coverage on mid-level website (rather than the higher standard of a professional peer reviewed site, newspapers, journals, books...) Just thinking out loud here. Randomran (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit I've had some similar thoughts, albeit for different reasons and as part of wider changes. I would suggest that subject specific guideline be allowed to define things in two ways:

1. Alternative notability criteria independent of the GNG; these would not be required as well as the GNG, but rather as alternatives. WP:V ensures that sourcing is always needed, but as I've demonstrated it's possible to satisfy WP:V and fail the GNG.
2. Clarification of the application of the GNG; these would clarify which sources are considered as speaking to notability in that area.

In practice, both of these are used in some existing guidelines, and it would be useful for this framework to be made clear by WP:N. Note, however, that it would be vital that it not be seen as redefining WP:RS for different subjects, but rather defining which sources give notability. These could be more or less strict than the basic idea of "third-party reliable secondary", as appropriate to the topic. SamBC(talk) 16:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I also feel the need to point out, though, that subject-specific guidelines should never be simply the purview of a wikiproject; they should have the same standards of community consensus as any other guideline, with wikiprojects being listened to as knowledgeable advisers. SamBC(talk) 16:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

On global vs "subcultural" significance

Okay, I've got a problem with the discussion immediately above, since it implicitly holds as received wisdom that a value judgment of subcultures (whether or not you replace that with "subjects" is merely a semantics game) it both desirable and possible. I'm mostly an editor of articles on classical subjects, and I've added more than just a few damn obscure articles to Wikipedia. Like, super super obscure. And I can tell you from a perch of some expertise that even the most profoundly obscure classics article will never suffer the same AfD tribulations that moderately well known pop culture articles routinely experience, particularly if they're affiliated with youth culture. This is due largely, I think, because classics is perceived to be an august, honorable, serious discipline in a way that, say, the study of Pokemon characters is not. And forgive me for being blunt (and I swear I'm not trying to be uncivil), but that's bullshit. The publications of Marvel Comics should carry no less weight as a source than those of Apollodorus. It's just a judgment call cloaked in guideline, call it a variation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT that's more like WP:IDONTTHINKITISSERIOUS, wherein people (who actually might "like it") do think one kind of culture is inherently less serious than another. Yeah, sure, on the one hand classics articles are imbecile-easy to ref, but if notability cannot discern that Banshee (comics) (with a doubtful possibility of external refs at present) is far more notable than Apollo Agyieus (which has nice little blue refs), then notability has no meaning.

And believe me, I am one of those recalcitrant curmudgeons who believes that 99.9% of youth culture is inherently idiotic. Young people are stupid, and by and large, they like stupid things. But if you want to talk about WP:NOT, we should talk about how Wikipedia is not "the encyclopedia that all adults" can edit. People seem to be basically saying that, yes, Wikipedia is a combination of specialist encyclopedias, but only certain specialties. Yes, part of the problem is that a lot of the younger editors who create and maintain these articles are shite at finding and adding acceptable sources (and lots of the older editors prefer to go to AfD rather than actually look for sources), but that doesn't concern the problem of establishing notability for obviously notable things that haven't been much written about.

This difficulty does not necessarily equal lack of notability, yet our guidelines treat it as if it does. And that is the problem. Ford MF (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It goes without saying, I presume, that if there are no secondary sources to provide analysis, an article may not contain analysis. Following your assertions (which I broadly agree with) to their logical conclusions, I can assume that you are suggesting one of two things: either we admit that these subjects are notable, but that we still can't have articles on them because there's no source for analysis, or we admit that they are notable and allow articles that contain only bland statements of fact and information. Either makes sense to me; there's nothing wrong with an article which is more of a factbook entry, as we are supposed to include aspects of almanacs as well as encyclopaedias. We just have to be very careful to avoid OR in that case. If this were the case, however, WP:V would have to be amended; where it currently says words to the effect that "if there are no independent sources, we can't have an article" we instead say "if there are no independent sources, we must be very careful in writing the article". The situation is made slightly more complicated by the interaction of the primary/secondary axis and the first-party/third-party (not-independent/independent) axis. SamBC(talk) 17:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Of the two, I obviously lean towards the latter. And in fact I think "bland statements of fact" is exactly how fictional articles should be written, unless secondary analysis can be uncovered. They should essentially be treated like biographies. And I think it is exponentially preferable--by orders of magnitude, I really can't stress this enough--for us to err on the side of content that may be helpful and useful and has an opportunity to grow, than for us to say, as someone did on one of the other talkpages, "if you don't have sufficient sources in hand, don't even bother starting an article." I don't think we need to start imagining new strategies to discourage the creation of articles. Ford MF (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

A Very Specific Question

Okay, here's a very specific question; please answer below with reasoning, but try to avoid getting into a debate (yet). For now I think it'd be good to see how many people think what, and why. SamBC(talk) 15:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the responses in this have been very useful and very illustrative. While I'm not suggesting this as any formal process, I'd just like to let people know that I intend to try to summarise the points made into "talking points" on the afternoon (UTC+1) of Sunday 15th, to try to move the discussion forwards. If people want to suggest a different "deadline", that's fine, but I'm basically offering to carry on facilitating here by doing this. If people think it's a good idea, the same could be done with other sections under this RFC. SamBC(talk) 15:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Is notability a way of

a) determining what topics are worth having an article about, independent of the question of sourcing that article

b) determining what topics will be able to have a suitably-sourced article written

I think basically a

1. As I've explained previously, above and elsewhere, I think that N is and should be independent of V; it says if it's worth writing an article, and part of V is whether it's possible to write an article. SamBC(talk) 15:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
2. The purpose of WP:N, as opposed to WP:V, is to limit the scope of Wikipedia. If a topic does not have reliable sources, then apparently it's impossible to write an encyclopedic article about it (unless we start inventing the content). But verifiable material does not imply that a topic falls into our scope. I'm quite sure that all the English-speaking media of the world produce more material each day than Wikipedia could cover in a decade; there needs to be some kind of selection. Or to give a more extreme example: Almost everybody in the developed world has reliable sources written about him. (Official birth records, for example, are very reliable!) But that doesn't mean we should have an article about everybody. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
3. While I agree with the statement, in practice you can't have an article without sources at WP. While on the other hand you could have verifiable sources to provide content, but no reasonable demonstration of notability. I firmly believe that mention of a topic in a broadly distributed or respected source brings to WP the reponsibilty to expand on the topic for our readers, when possible. If I am watching TV and see a person (actor, politician, artist, etc) mentioned in the news, I come to WP to findout who that person is -- trusting WP to be a credible source. If I read the name of an ancient warrior leader in a history book, I come to WP to find out who that person was -- trusting WP to be a neutral source. Even if the article is stubbish and has links to further information, I have been well served. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

   Yeah, the whole "occurring in broadly distributed media but not widely reported on in secondary sources" I think is the crux of the whole problem here. Ford MF (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

   Just trying to understand your view; would you then agree with the suggestion that non-GNG notability criteria are of value, although they may lead to "bland statement of fact" articles with no analysis? And if so, are such articles okay? (This is not a question to everyone, although it's discussed in a subsection above; I'm asking Kevin Murray specifically, to clarify his view) SamBC(talk) 20:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

   Yes, even though you didn't direct this at me, that is a suggestion I would agree with. And of course such articles are okay. All Wikipedia articles ought to be "bland statement of fact", with the analysis of others reported on, where it exists, but not a necessary component. Take Ellis Loring Dresel (another obscuro creation of mine); there is zero analysis in the article, and yet I think few people would state that it is an undesirable article because of it. We are an encyclopedia; we deal primarily in facts. Analysis should be a consideration far secondary. Ford MF (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

   NO. Sam I oppose most non-GNG notability criteria, and only support some as compromise (e.g., BIO and ORG). I believe that a universal set of standards should apply equally to all topics. My examples above are probably unclear. Any topics for which a broad base of typical WP users develop questions or interests in the course of life should be notable. Whether porn queen, potentate, pope or politician they need to meet the standard that people may have a question about them based on media mention or historic coverage. This is hard to quantify in a rigid standard or set of standards. I think that AfD participants need only ask two questions: (1) does this article answer a legitimate broad based and demonstrable question, and (2) can we write an article or even a meaningful placeholder (stub with links). Most of the articles that I begin at WP are because I have a question, and as I answer the question for myself, I share my findings with WP readers, and as the article grows I learn from my peers. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

   PS: I think that we should allow protected stubs and what I call soft redirects, where there is a placeholder-page with a link to the suggested redirect. For example a search for "Lord Morphdon Ontang" yields a page of that name, with a redirect link to Star Trek XXIII. The page might have to be protected to keep it from being a junk magnet, only to be opened for editing when demonstration of notability can be made to an admin, project, etc. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

   I will point that this solution, creating a redirection for any likely search term, cannot be stated nearly enough as being a necessary part in any solution. We absolutely should have mention (but not necessarily a full article) on any likely name or term that may arise, and make that term easily findable with redirects and anchors and disambig pages. Those are cheap and should be exploited to make WP useful. --MASEM 23:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

   This is more well put than I've been managing. Thanks. Ford MF (talk) 22:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

   Okay, still trying to make sure I understand; I don't mean to be putting words in your mouth. You seem to be suggesting that we should have more-or-less just a GNG, but not necessarily this GNG (as in the current one at WP:GNG)?

   YES! I agree with that statement. I think that the criteria at this GNC are really quite good to the extent that they allow inclusion of topics where legitimate and significant recognition by third parties is demonstrated; however, we need to go a bit further to allow topics where we answer questions posed or prompted by legitimate and significant third parties, but where the verifiable material may be the result of secondary research from primary or less significant sources. --Kevin Murray (talk) 13:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

4. I want to say this more than the combination choice; I agree V and N are separate concepts: V is how we talk about a topic, N is why. However, N still needs some aspects of sourcing requirements: "Because I said so" is not sufficient. But it's not the same sourcing as one needs for V, though more often than not, the same source works for both V and N. --MASEM 20:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

   Another question to make sure I understand: so you're suggesting that articles may be notable without satisfying the GNG, and yet still satisfy V, but in any case we can never accept any notability standard that doesn't call upon sources to support a notability claim? SamBC(talk) 20:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

   I think so, though not 100% sure. We have notability criteria that do not use the GNC (such as at MUSIC and BOOK) but we still want to provide sources. On the last part, you have what I'm saying right, though I will say that the word "sources" may be taken broader than we current take it. --MASEM 21:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

   As I have frequently said, because the other position leads us in many cases to results that contradict both common sense and the consensus of editors. I recall that in one of the first AfDs I commented on, I defended an article on the basis of sources alone, even in the clear absence of other notability. With more experience, I have learned better. DGG (talk) 01:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

5. I'm pretty definite about statement A. Having said that, I'm starting to suspect that notability guidelines could accept a wider variety of sources in some circumstances. If Superhero X appears in 1,000 issues of Marvel Comics, do we need secondary and/or third-party sources to assume notability? I still am convinced that such a character would have secondary and/or third-party reliable sources out there somewhere, even if we haven't found them yet, but do we want to base guidelines on this assumption? Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 16:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
6. Yes, I think A. Last night's traffic accident was covered in the local newspapers. Shouldn't have an article on en.wikipedia. Ever. --Alvestrand (talk) 06:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think basically b

1. Verifiability is, or should be, the absolute determiner of the article/no article axis. Everything else is judgment call. This is why WP:V is policy and WP:N is merely a guideline. WP:N limits the scope of the encyclopedia, and limitation is both necessary and beneficial, but it should not be doing so in an arbitrary manner because of a rule-based framework and people who are all too happy to delete the baby with the bathwater. Ford MF (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

   Wait, perhaps I have misunderstood the question, because I'm starting to see points of view that I agree with under "A". Ford MF (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

   I'll try to clarify: either notability is a quality independent of verifiability that determines what we should cover, rather than what we can cover (point "a") or it's a means of ensuring that we will be able to write a decent article without breaching WP:V et al (point "b"). Of course, it can be both. SamBC(talk) 20:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

   The two are related, but notability isn't the same thing as verifiability, which is why we have those pages, one a hard policy, one a guideline (that tends to get treated like hard policy). You can't write an article while breaching WP:V, period, end of sentence, so I'm not sitting here screaming "Sources? Who needs sources!" All the things I've been talking about are easily verifiable, as anything appearing a primary source is by definition verifiable. All I'm saying is that for a certain class of articles, that is, fictional "X"s, the restrictions to secondary sources fail, because they exclude obviously notable things. Ford MF (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

   While I am not, at least right now, questioning that the GNG causes problems for coverage of fictional topics, I must ask why you feel it is only fiction that is limited as such? An example: if we know, from objective evidence, that a musician is notable (whatever that evidence is, but assuming it doesn't satisfy the GNG) but we can't source any analysis, why not have an article listing their releases, release dates, and basic biographical information? SamBC(talk) 20:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

   I don't feel that at all; I just couldn't really think of other examples, and fiction is the subject with which I'm most familiar, and I thought it an illustrative example of an area in which WP:N is broken. And yes, why not have that musician article if the information is verifiable? Ford MF (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

   And I do get that that's also asking for a whole lot of genuine bullshit to be included in Wikipedia, since the verification of the existence of non-notable people is fairly easy. I just think the guideline as written fails a lot of areas, and I think it better to err on the side of content retention. Ford MF (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

   And thirdly, as someone pointed out before, notability isn't a mathematical proof. Proper guidelines would need more subjective flexibility and less hard-ruliness. Ford MF (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

   As a separate point, I think that rather means taht you don't agree with point "B", and I'm not entirely sure you agree with "A" but I'd say you seem to. SamBC(talk) 20:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think basically both

1. Not sure what you're getting at, but I'll bite. I'm glad we're having a real discussion. We've talked about WP:N as a guideline for what topics should have their own article, and that's pages of debate in of itself. But let's say we already knew what was notable, and it was based on something looser: popularity, longevity, or even just reader interest -- no secondary sources required. If articles are based entirely on primary sources, how do you prevent wikipedia from being a cruft of articles based on observations and original research? How do you stop someone from writing an article about The Incredible Hulk's Cut-Off Shorts? The shorts appear in comics, movies, and toys. They're recognizable by millions. And for the 12 or so editors who work on it (along with the hundreds who are redirected towards it by wikilinks), the topic is very interesting and filled with original (but factual) observations about how the shorts rip, the typical length of the shorts, how the shorts appear as the Hulk transforms, variations on how the shorts are represented based on realism/character/etc... Without any reliable secondary sources, there's nothing to guide the focus of the article except whatever observations that the most devoted fans can notice. (Have you noticed that in three issues, the shorts are purple?! Add it to the article!) So having at least a few reliable secondxary sources that are independent of the subject itself is tied to other basic policy, like avoiding original research, avoiding undue weight to certain facts, and making sure the information can be verified. I think that the guidelines are redundant to an extent, but I also think they all depend on each other to form a coherent idea of what should be covered and how to cover it in an appropriate way. Randomran (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think something else

Please don't use this section if you think something slightly different; just make the difference clear in your explanation in the sections above

1. Notability is the logical synthesis of several of our core policies and concepts, such as what we are not, the requirement for verifiability, the prohibition against original research, and the need for a neutral point of view. The requirement for multiple independent sources assists in the fulfillment of all these requirements. It ensures that we do not become a directory, collection of random crap, or fansite, and instead remain what we should be—an educational reference work. It ensures that any article we write has a substantial quantity of information which is verifiable, and verifiability itself specifically warns against articles consisting only of first-party sources. It ensures that significant analysis has already been made regarding any subject we have an article on, reducing the temptation to try and synthesize primary material ourselves or insert our own personal experiences or thoughts. And it helps in ensuring that undue weight is not put on topics—if reliable, independent sources have chosen to write little or nothing on a subject, what are we doing besides second-guessing and contradicting them if we do? It also ensures that a good body of sources is available if any question of neutrality arises, allowing us to settle such a question, not through our own opinions, but by properly referencing those sources. In short, notability is where our core policies naturally and inevitably lead. It is an excellent, indispensable means of quality control, something Wikipedia is often lacking in. Indeed, Wikipedia:Quality control is a redlink, and probably likely to stay that way. This is it, right here. This is the mechanism we have to prevent crapflooding. So let's not punch holes in it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability - a free pass, or an indication?

Quite often on contentious AFDs for POV forks, there is often a few keep votes which will say "notable", overlooking other reasons for deletion (BLP, constant POV, etc). My question is: is notability a free pass for a Wikipedia article, or should it only be taken as an indication of suitability, and notable topics may actually be deleted if they fall under a criteria for deletion? Sceptre ^(talk) 00:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

My common answer to so many questions is that AfD is broken. It sounds like either: "drive-by" voters, biased driven non sequitur, or just plain ignorance. As long as we encourage wannabee Admins to get notches on their guns at AfD (etc.), it will remain a broken system. --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Two cases that I can consider: notability may be shown, but the article content fails NOT. Say, I write a catalog-style article about the notably-excellent line of digital cameras from a company. The way I wrote it is questionable, however, by rewriting, with a "Reception"-type section, the content stays. Another possibility is say I find a topic which is clearly notable, but per NOT, all you can write about it is maybe a paragraph; in this case, it may be easier to present it in the context of a larger work that is also notable and possibly even to explain the context better. I don't, however, want to say that notability is a free pass, only because off the top of my head, there's no clear indication this is the case. --MASEM 00:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Those are grounds for a {{cleanup}} tag, not deletion. Ford MF (talk) 01:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, these are grounds for cleanup not deletion. --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly what I meant if it wasn't clear. --MASEM 02:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability is an interpretation of WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:RS. It is historically, and perhaps unchangeably, the key inclusion criteria. Its origin seems as old as Wikipedia, certainly predating WP:N. “Notability” is itself highly debatable. When someone says “notable” or N“not notable” you should ask them why, because criteria for notability vary widely among wikipedians, sometimes notwithstanding what WP:N says. Often “notable” is used loosely in an ill-defined way. Alternative philosophies in the notability sub-guidelines don’t help. WP:BLP trumps WP:N, easily. Contant POV-pushing is a pretty poor deletion criterion in my opinion; I believe that behavioural issues should debated elsewhere than at AfD. POV forks, and other forks can easily satisfy WP:N. WP:FORK is independent of WP:N. I also don’t believe that forks should be debated at AfD because forks are almost always best merged or just redirected, and I currently trying to get WP:FORK changed to this effect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I did a google book search on Ego the Living Planet and the only general rule that I can think of that would allow for "objective" decisions in AfD and allow that article to survive would be to allow a large number (10?, 20?) of passing references in secondary sources to count towards notability. Small sections on production and reception could be combined with a first party sources history section to create a nice little article. I'm also finding a number of second party comic encyclopedias that could be used to establish notability for comic characters. Maybe instead of FICT, we could add a line like "10 or more passing references that in combination allow for an encyclopedic treatment of a fictional subject make an article presumed worthy of notice." - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 05:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Passing references are trivial, effectively a "name drop". Zero plus zero any number of times still equals zero, we'd need something substantive. A critical part of substantive sourcing is that the substantial parts are of a single piece, and a coherent whole. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Defining notability by having "x" mentions or the like basically makes it a game that shouldn't be played on WP. I mean, the idea of what else could be used for notability is great, and objective standards are great, but just say "x" mentions means that people will be scraping the barrel to get the numbers they need. A key point to remember is that notability should not prevent the topic from being covered, just that if it's not notable itself, it should be covered in a larger point. --MASEM 05:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

What's another objective standard that will produce results similar to AfD? Or are we back to NOTE works just fine for fiction? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 05:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Just throwing out an idea / straw man: what if it was still significant coverage in sources independent of the subject, but what was considered a reliable authority on the subject could be defined by individual wikiprojects? A history article might adhere more strictly to the GNG, but a comic book article might be more inclined to rely on a reputable website on the subject that might not otherwise qualify as a reliable source. Randomran (talk) 05:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If the website is actually reputable (as in, professional, editorially controlled, etc.), there's no problem, it's reliable regardless. If it just happens to be a well-liked fansite, it's still a fansite. But I would trust very few Wikiprojects with the ability to "set the bar" as to what constitutes a reliable source. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that a self-published fansite, or an editorial site with no peer review may actually be considered a good source of information for certain specialized topics. I have maybe just a bit more faith in the individual wikiprojects, but maybe that's because I've seen the WP:VG wikiproject as making some good attempts to have some kind of standards. If not the individual wikiprojects, then perhaps the bar for a reliable source could be set slightly lower in the WP:FICT guideline? Randomran (talk) 06:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any ideas on how to do it Seraphimblade? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 06:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I certainly have an idea how to do it. Cover to the depth reliable, independent sources do. If they cover each character of a work in depth, so will we. If they cover the work in general in depth and briefly mention the characters, we'll do it that way. If they don't even really cover the work, we won't either. Let the writers of sources decide, and then we don't even have to (that aside from the fact we shouldn't be in the first place). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

And you see no problem with this? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 06:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the consensus has been this way (more or less) for months, if not longer. If there's something wrong with it, you'll have to make the case that there's something wrong with it to build a new consensus. Randomran (talk) 06:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd take issue with the statement that "consensus has been this way", when this article, and similar fictional articles of obvious notability, pass through AfD as uncontentious "keeps". Ford MF (talk) 11:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying anything that isn't true. This is what the consensus has been on the notability guideline for a long long time. People have finally read it and are challenging it. This discussion is to try to articulate what the new consensus should be. Randomran (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent)The problem is at FICT. Something like 50% ignore NOTE a little bit, 25% follow NOTE strictly, and 25% ignore NOTE a lot. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 06:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

And we're about to find out if there's a consensus that NOTE should be ignored at all, and to what degree. This will inform how WP:FICT is written. Either WP:NOTE will adapt, WP:FICT will adapt, or both. Randomran (talk) 06:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It will be interesting. One other scenario though, we keep things the way they are. FICT is proposed (permanently I guess) and arguments that should take place here (if it's always proposed) keep taking place there. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 07:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the consensus on NOTE ends up being, we'd end up giving less weight to people who ignore the new consensus. After all, we can't create contradictory guidelines. Randomran (talk) 07:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems like 50% ignore a bit + 25% ignore a bunch might just be a consensus at the NOTE level to ignore a bit, but at the FICT level it isn't a consensus. It takes more than 75% at a lower level (in my opinion) to effect a higher level. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 07:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, we'll follow the discussion over WP:NOTE to its logical conclusion and proceed from there. I'm prepared to accept whatever conclusion is reached here. Randomran (talk) 07:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(@SmokeyJoe)If WP:N in general, and the WP:GNG in particular, are an interpretation of those policies, how does it have requirements that are not in any of them. None of those policies individually, nor the composition of them, gives any requirement for sources that are both secondary and independent, nor do they exclude directories and suchlike. They make it clear that sources that are secondary and independent (third party) are preferable, but they don't require it by any stretch of the imagination. SamBC(talk) 10:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, certainly verifiability does require third-party sources, and state that secondary ones are preferable. The guidelines on reliable sources also speak to that matter. Our requirement for a neutral point of view means that it's tremendously helpful to have multiple sources available so that we can ensure neutrality, and avoid giving weight where sources have decided not to give weight, and the prohibition on personal research and original synthesis means that to write anything besides bland factual statements, someone else must have performed such synthesis or analysis in secondary reliable sources. And finally, our core policy most certainly does bar directory entries and the like. So, while perhaps NOTE does not quote such policies word for word, it does support those policies and follows logically from them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That logic is valid, I'll admit, but requires one unstated (and to me invalid) assumption: that there's something wrong with articles that are just bland statements of fact. Allow those, but require meaningful notability, and we're not simply a directory because we're very selective in terms of inclusion. Pick up any paper encyclopaedia, and there'll be plenty of entries that are bland statements of fact; even more when you include almanacs. SamBC(talk) 14:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• When it comes to fiction, there is no such thing as a bland statement of fact. Since works of fiction are based on the viewpoint of the work's author, a statement based on a primary source alone is basically a reguritation of that viewpoint, and is basically an endorsement. I think the same principal applies to scientific subjects: there are "Lies — damned lies — and statistics". Reliable secondary sources are directly or indirectly the key to providing evidence of notability and there is no getting away from this principal. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I may be misunderstanding, but there's a difference between a "bland statement of fact" and a "bland statement of what is asserted to be fact within this fictional universe." Thus, a particular superhero might wear different costumes depending on the artist, but no one can reasonably argue with the number of comic issues that hero has appeared in. Also, please keep in mind that some fictional topics depend on the work of multiple authors, not all of whom might share the same viewpoint. That doesn't negate your comment, but it does add a different dimension to it, I think. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 16:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think that is where precisely you can fall into the trap of original reseach. If you use primary sources alone to count the number of commic issues in which a certain character was in, and that count was not not subject to some sort of peer review, I would expect mistakes to be made. Even bland statement of facts need to be backed up by reliable secondary sources for Wikipedia purposes. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, policy seems to indicate that "bland statements of fact", which is to say content with no analytic (etc) element, is absolutely fine to source from (reliable) primary sources. A "bland statement of fact" about fiction isn't "there is a Stargate under Cheyenne Mountain", it's "the show depicts yadda yadda a Stargate under Cheyenne Mountain", which is most certainly a bland statement of fact. "Pip lives with his sister", given context to indicate that you are talking about the content of a particular novel, is a bland statement of fact; with that context, you aren't saying there's a real person called Pip who lives with his sister, you're saying that, in this novel the character Pip lives with his sister (and apologies if I mis-remembered my Dickens). It is a fact (if I recall correctly) that, in the novel Great Expectations, the character Pip lives with his sister (at a particular point in the story). No analysis, and entirely verifiable. SamBC(talk) 19:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • You don't need a secondary source to say a certain article was published in the New York Times on January 1, 2001. That's not WP:OR, that's a simple, bland fact observable to all. Likewise, you don't need a secondary source to say that something happened in Captain America #1, because the comic is the source. Ford MF (talk) 20:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • Summarizing is allowed, whether it's summarizing a primary of secondary source. Every bit of text that isn't a direct quote would suspect in your view. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 20:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• My biggest concern with the use of "notability" in AfDs comes from my job as educator and historian and it is that a lot of what I see is in effect the electronic equivalent of book burning. To suggest that some knowledge is somehow not important is just unacademic and unencyclopedic. I am of course not talking about hoaxes, how tos, libel, copy vios, essays, etc., all of which I think we can agree should be deleted, but I see articles that do have reliable sources deleted under this bizarre idea that only things that pass a handful of editors' ideas of what's notable per an encyclopedic. Now those wanting to delete "in popular culture" articles, fictional characters, video game weapons, television episodes, family members of celebrities and politicians, etc. may think they are doing a good thing and have honest intentions, but the fact is that it is saying some knowledge is unimportant, which goes against everything any scholar and any encyclopedist should stand for. We discriminate against nonsense and lies, but there is no really good, logical, or valid reason why we cannot or should not cover some of these other items that a half dozen odd of the same editors in AfDs want deleted when others in the same AfDs argue to keep, plus maybe hundreds who created and worked on the article, and thousands who come here looking for the article. Some seem to think that Wikipedia will be better maintainable, but so then some just self-appoint themselves as the determiners of what knowledge is worthwhile, which is itself suspect. Some seem to think that if they delete articles that they don't like, then the editors will instead work on articles that the noms and per noms do like, which is naive and wrong. Article creators and contributors whose articles keep getting deleted will just leave the project. If we humor them, maybe they will branch off onto other "more important" articles, but if we keep insulting them authoritatively and paternalistically, they won't. As far as comedians or blogsters whose job is to be sarcastic and critical, who cares what they say about our inclusion of certain topics; after all, some of the sites I can't link to here actually mock us for deletionism. It baffles me as to why anyone would rather devote his or her energy to deleting articles that are not hoaxes, libel, essays, how tos, or copy vios, rather than trying to build up those articles he or she does believe are worthwhile. Imagine how much time spent on AfDs that end in no consensus or keep could have been spent cleaning up an article to bring it to good or featured status or protecting articles from vandalism! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Your list doesn't include vanity spam and blatant advertising, but otherwise I agree with your statement. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• In those instances, I think we need to keep in mind if we can change a vanity article to be a neutral and referenced article and the same with advertising, i.e. if reviews, consumer alerts, etc. exist that can make the article be about the product in a straightforward manner that does not read like an advertisement. So, it's about potential as well. My main thesis is that if we are not running out of disk space or editors, we should work to be as comprehensive as possible as that is how we will contribute to humanity, not by being a mere repeat of Britannica that just has more editors. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Nicely put. Ford MF (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for having any reasonably important/popular/notable topic somewhere in WP as long as it meets NOT; in most examples that LGRdC gives, these are the case, but lets take for the moment that they all do. What we need to balance is to the degree these topics are covered; one-time cameo characters should not be covered in as much detail given to major characters of the same work, for example, and major characters of a show that got canceled after 3 episodes in less detail than continuing 10 season work. Giving a topic its own article is creating a new glass to be filled up, and while this is generally good to get editors to write, the quality of what they write is always a concern. Articles still need to meet the core policies such as V, NOR, and NPOV, all three which are generally helped by the presence of secondary/independent sources for the topic, but also should be clear that these are suggested but not necessarily requirements. If someone can write an article on a singular character that uses the sources well, stays neutral and avoids original research, and generally written from the approach of being encyclopedic - not a full character bio, not a retelling of plot points, but instead a well-rounded description and why someone reading would understand why the character is important to the work - I would find a hard time to argue for deletion except the question of if GNC is a hard fact or not. The problem right now is that a large percentage of the coverage of fictional elements is nowhere close to this level of being acceptable, and does read like a fan guide. Understandably, failure to met the above save for GNC is a reason for deletion, but I know that there's a general feeling that the existence of such articles propagates more articles of the same level of quality, and thus trying to get rid of them makes sense to those editors. What I felt I was trying to do with FICT was to have these topics still covered but in more manageable lists as support for a notable work of fiction, which, yes, would reduce how much is written about each character or element, but would make it easy to keep the article quality high, all in lieu of the fact that the GNC seemed like it was being treated as absolute.

That said, it seems completely reasonable to find a way to try to allow for the inclusion of well written non-notable articles on important topics that cannot show notably via GNC when this is the usual norm for that field or area, if we start with the assumption that the GNC should not be the end-all for inclusion. By the italicized clause, one needs to consider if secondary sources are readily available for articles of the similar type. Little Timmy's 3rd grade creative writing assignment cannot be a notable published work when compared to Harry Potter, Tom Clancy, and others because books generally have GNC. A comic book character, however, is very likely to not have significant secondary sources (Superman and Batman tend to be the exceptions), so in this case, a standard based on number of appearances or impact on an overall story could be helpful. (It should be noted that these is almost what the sub-notability guidelines do already - they outline cases where secondary source may not or ever exist but can be sourced and written comprehensively). We still need practical limits as someone could easily write a good comprehensive article on Mr. Sparkle as they can on Homer Simpson, a case I don't believe we want. We would also want editors to be sensible to keep in mind that while they may have the ability to write a separate article for a non-notable topic that falls into set limits, it may make more sense to provide the coverage in a list, particularly if all you can say about the topic is one paragraph. Or even sometimes, the topic can be moved to one that meets notability guidelines (GNC or this version) (This aspect should also be driven by the typical need to add images to articles - we have to watch our non-free content policies there, but this is a minor point to the overall discussion). Coverage is still there, redirects help with that, and it may help to paint a more comprehensive picture to the end reader when put in context with other information than if they had to flip back and forth between pages. And of course, we're still looking to make sure content meets NOT, so that will also drive some of that. --MASEM 17:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Why stop at ridiculous analogies to book burning? Why not compare AFDs to the Nazis? No information is being destroyed. Non-notable bands can have a page at myspace. Non-notable game characters get plenty of information in their instruction manual and official game guides, which are available at your local Electronics Boutique. Non-notable neologisms and terminology can be found by googling or asking around in a forum.
  Listen, you're welcome to take the view that the notability constraint should be abolished completely. But at a certain point you have to concede that there is no consensus to do so. Sincerely, I welcome you to try and delete a guideline that is intimately tied to WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. A guideline that has been in place for months, maybe longer. I say this with 100% honesty and in good faith. The worst thing that happens is you reinforce the existing consensus. I'm pretty certain the notability requirement will have to continue to exist in some form or another, but we can't be certain until you actually try build the consensus to change it, instead of insisting that you only have to follow guidelines you agree with.
  As for improving the encyclopdia, most of us do that. Deleting non-notable cruft is effortless, and saving a notable article doesn't really take much: find the appropriate resources, or offer a tangible reason why you're certain the resources are out there. You don't even need to build a consensus to keep it. A deadlock defaults to keep. Numerous votes for deletion can be persuaded to merge or redirect if you actually stop pushing keep. I'd be all for having a rule against AFDs that are too soon, or without warning, to prevent the system from being gamed. But likening the notability requirement to totalitarianism doesn't persuade or befriend anyone, in spite of good manners and pleasantries. Love, Randomran (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  Saying "information still exists, somewhere" doesn't make it any less destruction of information. You can't point to the fact that you haven't destroyed the last book as proof that no information is being destroyed. Ford MF (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Because it is electronic book burning. Whether that's what people want to hear or what they believe. It's the truth. We, as in Wikipedia, is something that the mainstream media and the public at large uses and knows about. We can provide a real service to humanity if we catalog as much of human knowledge as possible. All of these ridiculous notability restrictions determined by a minority of our community stifles that venture. ANY topic you can cite gets coverage somewhere else. Should you reason that because German shepherds can be covered in books on those dogs, we don't need to cover them here? That's the same thing as saying video game characters are covered elsewhere, but because a handful of editors here don't like articles on video game characters we shouldn't cover them. There is no consensus in practice to delete these things. There is a vocal minority against them and so somehow a half dozen editors in a five day AfD on any given topic is supposed to represent consensus?! Overly restrictive notability requirements go against what makes Wikipedia a genuine contribution to human learning. Argument that use nonsense words like "cruft" cnanot be taken seriously. Deadlocks should default to keep, but I increasingly see instance like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pizza delivery in popular culture where the discussion was clearly moving in the keep direction after the article was improved still somehow close as "delete". Those wanting to delete may think what they are doing is right and may be doing so in good faith, but sometimes things done in good faith are still wrong. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Ridiculous analogies aside, non-notable information can be covered elsewhere. AFDs are not a vote and Wikipedia is not a democracy. There are rules here, soft and flexible as they may be. Jimbo Wales is the ultimate minority stakeholder in Wikipedia, but he defines policies that send a ripple effect through the project. The notability requirement is based on those policies and has consensus. If you believe it doesn't, change it. But you're not allowed to just make up guidelines because you disagree with the ones we have written down. Randomran (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
      • If they actually had consensus, discussions such as these would not be so consensus and with others besides myself sharply challenging them. I suppose at the same time you are not allowed to just nominate articles for deletion because you don't like them and are usually unwilling to inform the article creators and writers of the AfD, because as you put earlier you'd rather focus on "efficiency" than courtesy. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
        • My time is valuable, and I'll do what I want with it. I use AfDs to enforce guidelines, not what I like or don't like. If you don't like the guidelines, change them. I'm telling you right now, that there is no consensus to delete the notability requirement. But I invite you in good faith to prove me wrong. If it disappears, I'll stop enforcing it. Until then, stop ignoring it. Randomran (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Editors who create and contribute articles' time is valuable as well and it would much more respectful to make a greater effort getting them to participate in these discussions. There is no consensus regarding notability and so that reality should not be ignored. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
            • See WP:CONSENSUS. If you don't like the notability guideline, you have to document your proposal to change or recalibrate it and then build a consensus for your proposal. People have tried to get rid of the notability requirement before. This failed to achieve consensus and so we continue to have a notability requirement. But you're welcome to try that again, or any other number of compromises. Until then, the guidelines should be enforced as they exist, not as you wish them to be. Randomran (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
              • Do you have any links to when people tried to get rid of it before? I am curious to see how those discussions went and what arguments were used. I would greatly appreciate if you could provide those links. Thanks! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
                • Sincerely, I don't know. The best bet would be to see what links to that failed proposal. I suspect you'll have more success if you work towards a compromise, rather than retrying a failed proposal to abolish the notability requirement. Randomran (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(Comments) I sincerely believe that most of the objections to notability are founded (directly or indirectly) in a lack of willingness or ability to research real sources. Comic books are a common example. There are plenty of industry and mass market periodicals available (such as the very prominent Wizard magazine). There are tons of books and articles that cover comic books in both broad and specific detail, even including scholarly literature. There are independent fiction and comic book "encyclopedias". Taking television as another common example, there plentiful periodicals that cover television in some serious depth that even include plot summaries. Any series of any reasonable popularity can unquestionably be sourced to reliable independent publications with minimal effort. Just as people complain that some editors should put more effort into improving articles instead of deleting them, some editors could devote their energy into research and sourcing instead of arguing against notability.

Wikipedia is about documenting and summarizing the topics covered by the general body of reliable sources. It's sensible, reinforces the basic content principles and is not an undue burden to set our bar for inclusion at independent reliable sources finding the topic notable (as evidenced by substantive coverage). It may require an amount of effort and research that most active editors in certain areas are unwilling or unable to devote, but that is not a problem with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia (to be very polite). Vassyana (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Saying sources exist and sources are easily accessible are two extremely different things. Because people act like there's a ticking time bomb under articles when they get to AfD. Citing articles from obscure publications (there's no internet archive for Wizard or the Comic Shop News yannow) is difficult and time consuming. Nominating articles for deletion is easy as you please, and things get dogpiled from the peanut gallery, a distressing percentage of whom, let's face it, spend exponentially more time sitting in judgment rather than putting in the elbow grease to ref difficult articles (or any articles, for that matter). And I don't see you on AfD calling any of the drive-by deleters "lazy", which is essentially what you just said about the editors of articles about fictional subjects. Ford MF (talk) 03:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The first result of a web search for Wizard Magazine: Wizard's website, which includes a plethora of freely accessible articles. The first result of a web search for Comic Shop News links to one of their pages and another of their pages, both of which link prominently to another easily accessible source. As an added bonus yet another reliable source pops up in the top results of the CSN search. Vassyana (talk) 06:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC) (Addendum: Someone was even kind enough to compile a list of comics periodicals at WorldCat.)

Addressing your comments more directly, it's quite ridiculous to call Wizard (or anything other periodical commonly available at magazine racks and newsstands) "obscure". Yes, researching sources requires effort. Yes, researching sources can be time-consuming. You make it sound like trips to the library, purchasing books, paying for a subscription library service, etc is a massive undue burden, when it's exactly what people generally do on other topics to acquire reputable sources. If an article is deleted for lack of notability or sources, there's nothing stopping you (or anyone else who wants to take the effort) from asking an admin to undelete and move the article into a userspace sandbox where it can be improved with some leisure. Vassyana (talk) 09:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Attribution

It appears that after a long but failed effort to adopt Wikipedia:Attribution the proponents have devised a new and confusing custom tag to legitimize the instructions as a "summary" of other processes. This lacks the consensus to be anything other than Essay status and should be so tagged. While I don't specifically oppose or support ATT, I don't think that we need to confuse the issue with a new process category which is not described at WP:Policy. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I would support its current tag plus an essay tag, but why are you bringing this up here? SamBC(talk) 14:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm bringing this up here, because ATT was first proposed as a replacement for WP:N and promotion of that essay to psuedo-policy can effect the application of this guideline. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Not clear on the second part of that, but certainly that history makes it relevant, thanks. SamBC(talk) 15:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)