Wikipedia talk:Notability

Patents supporting notability for an inventor

Hi. There's an afd going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earl Killian in which an argument has been made that patents are secondary sources which can support notability of the inventor as a person. Since the outcome of this discussion could affect this guideline, I thought people here might like to comment on the argument. GDallimore (Talk) 10:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Completed a big step on lists

We reached a consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Inclusion criteria for Lists on a few issues, which I took the liberty of adding to the guideline. Please don't revert unless you can prove that I've made a mistake in summarizing the outcome of the RFC. Better yet would be to fiddle with the wording until it's accurate.

There were some outstanding issues. We never agreed on what a discriminate topic for a list is, and what's too indiscriminate for Wikipedia. We never quite pinned down how to handle complex "lists of Xs with Y who also Z". For now, our policies will have to be silent on those topics. I know this will annoy people on both sides of the debate. But be proud that we at least agree on some basics.

Feel free to pat yourself on the back and brainstorm the next step. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's a diff of the recent changes[1].

About the addition of "topic" to the GNG's defintions: What do you think about shortening it to ""Topic" means that the sources should refer to to the main information the article focuses on, as suggested by the title and/or definition in the lead"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather not -- at least not right away. One reason is that the question of "what is the topic of the list" was a huge sticking point in the RFC. Fortunately everyone basically agreed other than User:Gavin.collins. But some people didn't see the big deal, whereas for other people saw it as critical. We explain what the topic of a list is so that we don't argue about whether the sources are on topic or not.

The second reason has to do with your addition of "definition in the lead", which is getting into the controversial question of what does "indiscriminate" mean. Some people think that defining the topic in the lead starts to get into original research. Like, a topic should be out there in the world waiting to be discovered, not waiting to be invented by a Wikipedian when they write the lead.

By the way, I think that would be an excellent starting point for another RFC. To take a quick poll to see what "indiscriminate" means when it comes to lists. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

SW – Good job. I believe one line needs rewriting because it gives the wrong impression as to what was agreed to in the RFC. In the GNG you wrote: the sources should provide information on "Xs" as a set or group. I believe this should read the sources should establish the notability of X. When you attach the phrase as as set or group, you’ve inadvertently put the burden of notability on List of X and not X. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, we agreed that it wasn't about verifying notability of the list of Xs... but it was about verifying the notability of Xs, and not necessarily just X. (E.g.: "Virgins" and not "Virgin" nor "List of Virgins".) I want to get the phrasing right. But this was a difficult issue in the RFC. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree, but the verbage "Xs" as a set or group. implies List of X, not X and I think that is risky.--Mike Cline (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd be okay with trying to make it clear that it's "Xs", not "list of Xs" or just "X". It was a big enough issue in the RFC that it warrants being as accurate as possible. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps what we need to say is: If the topic of the list is all Xs (as a group), we need to establish the notability of all Xs (as a group). The fact that there are some notable Xs does not make all Xs inherently notable.

But this is really the point. In the RfC, it was debated whether or not every entry on the list had to be notable, could be notable, could be a redlink, or may just be included. There was also a difference of opinion about different kinds of lists. Lists of people vs. lists of television series episodes or discographies, for example. I don't believe that a consensus was reached on the group being notable vs. combining the notable individual items into a list. As Shooterwalker noted, only one (now-banned) user made a big push toward the list itself, or the grouping itself, needing to be notable to justify the list. Consensus was clear that the List of nomenclature is to be ignored at all times when debating notability of lists, but your point is still part of the fuzzy area. Shooterwalker's changes in WP:NLISTITEM reflect this where they have been changed to match the article content inclusion criteria that verifiable information may be included in a list, but may not justify a stand-alone list. I also agree with Mike Cline above about the problem with a lack of clarity, as I have commented in this AfD. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 22:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Shooterwalker, I'm not inclined to put too much emphasis on the RFC. The RFC was an effort to deal with Gavin, who was banned—and banned directly because of his endless anti-consensus pushing on these specific points. Our efforts to accommodate his <insert your favorite armchair diagnosis here> problem isn't really the best expression of the community's actual views. Furthermore, I am convinced that this sentence will be misunderstood as meaning "If you want to have a list, then you have to show that someone else wrote about these items as a group or in a list." Furthermore, it pretty much bans all WP:SETINDEXes, since good sources don't usually write about "List of cars named ____" (the canonical example of an appropriate set index). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It's the most difficult sentence to come out of the RFC. We spent a lot of discussion on it. Speaking from the more strict side of Wikipedia, I don't want to see every article about a noun turned into a list of nouns. But from the more lenient side, we don't want to limit our lists to a summary of other peoples' lists. I think we have a good balance here. We say that you have to find a source that talks about a group of Xs to create a list about it, but we also say that notability doesn't limit what entries go into the list. The sentence accurately sums up the middle ground we found at the RFC. Cutting it out is a mistake. I'm open to rephrasing but only to make the balance clear, not to shift the balance. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I completely disagree with the new definition of "topic". For stand-alone lists to be separate encyclopedia articles we need to describe the list (not just the entries of the list but the list as an organic whole) from an encyclopedic perspective, which involves showing how it is notable. This is to prevent an indiscriminate amount of nonnotable lists from appearing. Not all lists of notable topics are notable in themselves. Just showing that the topic of a list is notable is not enough to start a list article on the topic. ThemFromSpace 00:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's what the current wording is trying to capture by saying For a stand-alone "list of Xs", the sources should provide information on "Xs" as a set or group. You need to verify the list as an organic whole. Not necessarily as a discrete database of entries. But finding coverage about a class of things. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't reflect practice. In any "List of X" what needs to be notable is X. The fact that are more than a few of X is exactly the reason to put together a list. We will not ever find a reliable source that discusses the entirety of List of New York Times Non-Fiction Best Sellers. If we are going to judge notability as a group, we would need to have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources about the group to prove notability. While I am sure that every item on those lists has been the subject of multiple, independent reviews and would easily pass individual notability, this language would prevent that list from being an article here. Even if we did find reliable sources that did establish notaobility for the "set or group," the list would then fail this guideline as soon as a new book was to be added to the list due to the lack of sources establishing the notability of the group. This would eliminate a lot of Featured Lists. We need language that reflects this. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 15:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

This comes down to understanding there are two requirements for "Lists of X" - notability and discrimination. Notability is shown either that the grouping as a whole is notable (Martin Luther's theses for example), or that X is a notable topic of itself. Because this latter qualification could allow any number of indiscriminate lists into play ("List of U.S. Presidents that ate oranges"), we need a second clarification beyond notability, and that is if the list definition is sufficiently discriminate. How and what discriminate lists are is something to be addressed on WP:SAL one the lists have proven themselves notable via here. --MASEM (t) 16:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I actually did start writing something about trivial intersections, but it seemed like it would confuse the thought I was expressing above. I think that one of the problems is that the entirety of the list guideline is spread out over so many different places, when there should be a single cohesive guideline about lists. Parts are in the MOS(WP:LIST and WP:SAL), which should really only discuss style. Part is in WP:CLN. Part is in this guideline(WP:NLIST). I don't really understand why WP:SALAT is part of the MOS, as it discusses content and not style. That section should be here or, better yet, all of them should be combined into a single lists guideline so that multiple pages don't have the opportunity to get out of sync and conflist each other. However, the diverging of guidelines across multiple pages is probably a bigger topic than this discussion, and is certainly not exclusive to lists. To Masem's point above, I still hold that as long as we state that in "List of X" the burden of notability rests on the notability of X, then "U.S. Presidents that ate oranges" would fail. Unless and until that topic is covered well enough to meet the GNG, the "as a set or group" language is still unnecessary. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 16:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I reject JimMillerJr's argument that this is out of step with practice. The New York Times Best Seller List is exceptionally notable. It passes the notability test with flying colors. Every book on that list is notable; the entire class of best sellers are notable as a group; and, it's notable as an actual list. Nobody would even consider deleting it because proving its notability would be one of the easiest things in the world to do. Take these sources: [2] [3] [4] The test of notability isn't whether someone has verified it, but whether it's possible to do so knowing about what kind of coverage there is out there. We just had a consensus of editors say that this is a good standard. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I never suggested that the NYT list would fail notability. The sources you listed easily justify inclusion of an article about the NYT list, but they do nothing to justify the notability of the books on the list as a set or group. I am mostly making a devil's advocate argument on the language that can easily be misused to argue for the deletion of notable content. I chose that example because the topic is "New York Times Non-Fiction Bestsellers" - the books on the list, not the list itself. The notability of the NYT list itself would not even be applicable to testing notability in a list of books. You haven't provided any sources that demonstrate the notability of every book on the list as a group. While the NYT list is notable, WP:NOTINHERITED. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 17:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I see what you're saying about it being hard to get the language just right. But I think we've done a decent job. We have WP:NLISTITEM which explains that not every item on the list has to be notable. Just the overall concept. If people want to twist the guideline to push an extreme position they'll always be able to. Of course I really want to get the meaning as clear as possible so any suggestions would help. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion is that we drop the misleading, confusing, and disputed sentence entirely.

As a separate proposal, I suggest that we eliminate the unfortunate map-territory fallacy by recommending that editors not rely solely on the article title when identifying the topic of the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The sentence may have provoked discussion, but its underlying purpose and importance is not disputed. Removing it entirely would put us on the wrong track entirely. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for apparently having been unclear: I am disputing it, and so, yes, that sentence is disputed. I hereby formally declare that I think its "underlying purpose" is bad and that its "importance" is trivial. I further declare that including it puts the guideline on the wrong track entirely, and that removing it would be a step in the right direction. Do you now have any questions about where I stand with respect to this sentence? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Trust me that for all the energy that was expended on it before (and again now)... it IS important. It was a major point of discussion from the RFC and something we arrived at after enormous clarification. There were a couple who were worried about being too lenient, and a couple worried about being too strict, and this is where we ended up. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I was there, remember? But despite the very long discussions around it, I honestly didn't come away from the RFC thinking that this particular sentence accurately reflects the community's views, or that it was important as anything other than a Gavin-thwarting tool (which is, due to the community ban, no longer something that we need to keep in our toolbox).

The fact that you've got multiple editors objecting here and nobody (apparently) supporting it, indicates that whatever the RFC might have said, this sentence does not reflect the current community consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The objections are in terms of the letter, not the spirit. We found a compromise between the notability of X (too lenient) and notability of List of Xs (too strict) to make it notability of Xs. It's something I agree with in spirit, as frustrating as it is to find the right wording. Also it might be confusing to equate topic = title... but to allow people to just make up a topic for a list in the lead is WP:original research. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It should be remembered that "Title" != "Topic". Titles should best represent in the proper name or common name of what the article/list/whatever contains, but they also need to be searchable and short. "List of people from New York City" is clearly not going to be a fully inclusive list of every single person from NYC, and the necessary distinctions should be explained in the lead. --MASEM (t) 23:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I definitely agree Title != Topic. I just recall from the RFC that there were concerns about letting the topic be editor defined, when it should be defined by the sources. I say that because I was one of the people who raised that concern, and not the only one. I did my best to write the guideline in a way that respects that. But I may have missed the target. The target is still sensible though. ... maybe we opened up a can of worms by talking about the topic. It might be enough to just explain what "significant coverage" means for a list: sources that talk about the group or class of things in direct detail. I'm ready to find a wording that reflects all angles of the RFC without biting off more than we could chew. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been thinking about the laguage all day, and I keep coming back to one problem. I cannot figure out language that gets to the spirit of what we want to do here without having this guideline contradict itself. I keep coming back to "notability does not directly affect the content of articles." Lists are articles, and items in the list are article content, and do not need to be notable to be included in a list. If some Xs are notable, and some xs are not, the non-notable ones can still be included in a list about the notable ones unless an editorial decision is made for compliance with WP:IINFO, WP:UNDUE, or some other content guideline. It's the intersecting topics that I see as the problem. Concise may have to give way to clarity. "Lists are articles that use an ordered format rather than prose to present information on a topic. Lists should be about a single topic, and that topic must meet the same Notability Guidelines as any other article. The topic of any list is considered to be the entire title of the article, or in the event that the "List of..." naming convention is used, the entire concept that follows it. Lists may be limited to only notable items representing the topic as an editorial decision by the consensus of editors." Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 00:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

halfway on the lists

The topic must be editor-defined. Step one in article creation is "editor picks a topic". Step two is "community decides whether the editor's chosen topic is notable/deserving of a separate article".

Now—as a practical matter—if the editor doesn't want the nascent article to be deleted, then the editor should pick the topic with an eye towards its notability. But step one is still "editor picks a topic", not "this week, some band is making a big splash in the news, so the community declares that your new article must be about that, rather than whatever it was that you wanted, because 'the sources say so'."

And could we at least get that sentence about the kinds of sources required out of the definition of "topic"? ""Topic" means that...For a stand-alone "list of Xs", the sources should provide information on "Xs" as a set or group" is just silly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

To be honest... the second sentence is the more important one. We spent pages and pages of discussion on it. It might seem silly in retrospect but we were deadly serious about it at the time. JimMillerJR describes it in a pretty wordy way. Maybe that's the only way. Maybe we need a section just for the list issue so that we don't break the guideline for everything else. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Lists are handled somewhat differently than full text articles... so a separate section on lists is needed. Blueboar (talk) 02:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Above I said the language: as a set or group was risky. Why would I say that? Really there are two trains of thought.

1. Lists are nothing more that mega wiki-links that extend our ability to organize article information. The great majority, if not all lists, could really be embedded in parent articles. Page size limitations prevent that, but theoretically ALL content associated with a given subject could be contained in the same article. There are 100s of articles associated with Yellowstone. Many of those articles are lists. All that content (articles and lists) could be included in the Yellowstone article, but doing so would require much of the content to be in tabular form (ie. Lists) for clarity and organization, but if there were no size/readability limitations, no one would object to the inclusion of all that content in a single article. Yet we have the distinct pleasure to live in the 21st century wiki-world where article size limitations can be overcome with essentially an unlimited capability to link elsewhere and where we can organize and link content in a myriad of permutations that allows readers to explore content endlessly. That’s what lists really are: mega wiki-links.

2. What is the overall objective of this guideline and specifically the language: as a set or group in reference to Lists? If the objective is to Limit and discourage lists then the language will probably do that. In fact, if rigidly applied to the existing locus of lists (~75,000), I suspect 95% would fail the test. On the other hand, if the objective of this guideline and its language related to lists is reflect practice and to encourage editors to create better lists—lists that are not frivolous or indiscriminate, then the language as a set or group is poor as it does not reflect practice and in my view would probably be used punitively against a great many existing, and otherwise compliant lists.

I would be interested in hearing what others believe the overall objective of language in this guideline relative to lists should be: Encouragement or Discouragement? --Mike Cline (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

What you are really talking about is the issue of inheritability and sub-topic notability. Not everything associated with "Yellowstone" is notable enough for its own article or list. Even a topic like "Yellowstone" has its share of trivia. Of the sub-topics that are notable enough for their own articles, some are best presented as a list, others are best presented in text format, and some are best presented in a mixed form (a text article with a list included).

As to your final question... the objective should be neither Encouragement nor Discouragement... but dispassionate analysis of the notability of the topic. Blueboar (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboar... the intent of the language has been (and always should be) a middle ground between encouragement and discouragement. That's the messy outcome of an RFC that involves people from both sides. That's why I keep coming back to first principles. First, proving notability of X doesn't always make for a notable list X. Second, proving notability of a list doesn't require there to be a real-world equivalent in third-party sources. The middle ground comes back to proving notability of the group/set/class/category. There are lots of ways to phrase this and maybe even another way to look at the middle ground... but someone has yet to offer a wording that really works. As for the articles that this might delete... we might want to explicitly state that there's no consensus on how to handle navigational lists (yet), or list intersections (list of Xs in Y that also Z). That would save those articles from blanket deletion without necessarily giving them all immunity either. At this point, we've barely figured out how to handle ordinary lists of information. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I've temporarily moved the language to its own section so we don't break the GNG. The final language could look similar or very different. But let's not go there until we've discussed it. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

You mis-understand my point... I do agree that if X is notable, list of X is notable... for example since the topic of Fixed wing aircraft is notable, then the topic in List of fixed wing aircraft is also notable (the only question is whether both articles would need to establish that notability in their respective ledes). The Yellowstone example is different... While Yellowstone may be notable, an article entitled List of Yellowstone is nonsensical. Now, List of natural wonders in Yellowstone or List of species in Yellowstone might make sense... but their notability relies on inheritance... I thus feel we need to establish that the sub-topics of "attractions in Yellowstone" and "species in Yellowstone" are notable on their own. We talked about this in the RFC... distinguishing between List of X and List of X that Y. Blueboar (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

list of X in Y

Blueboar, SW, et al. – I find it more useful to look at policy as it applies to practice rather than what might be. Of course there’s lots of trivia associated with Yellowstone and we don’t have articles on it. But that said, we do have a lot of articles related (in a variety of ways) to the park. As I said above, many of those are in list form. If you look at List of Yellowstone National Park related articles you’ll note that there are at least 13 listed articles that classify as Lists. They are:

• Expeditions and the protection of Yellowstone (1869-1890)
• Mountains and mountain ranges of Yellowstone National Park
• Plateaus of Yellowstone National Park
• Waterfalls in Yellowstone National Park
• List of Yellowstone geothermal features
• Amphibians and reptiles of Yellowstone National Park
• Animals of Yellowstone
• Birds of Yellowstone National Park
• Fishes of Yellowstone National Park
• Small mammals of Yellowstone National Park
• Hotels and Tourist Camps of Yellowstone National Park
• Trails of Yellowstone National Park
• Bibliography of Yellowstone National Park

Now, I believe the proposed language Xs as a set or group needs to apply to all lists equally or it would be very confusing. So at a macro level, how would these lists fare if a strict Xs as a set group was applied to the article topic? Because otherwise, absent the strict application of Xs as a set or group, these lists meet WP notability and content guidelines.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I would say that these articles should have the notability of their topics established... independently of notability of the Topic of Yellowstone. For most of these, this will not be difficult... there are published books that cover the topic of the geography, flora and fauna, and man made features found within the park. If independent notability can not be established, that fact is a good indication that the sub-topic may be too trivial to be broken out into its own list article.

To state this as a generalized rule... I am of the opinion that "the notability of X transfers to List of X"... but not beyond that. I do not think you need to re-establish notability in a strict "X" --> "List of X" relationship (although it never hurts to re-establish) ... but I think you need to establish independent notability as soon as you add a modifier (Y)... "List of X in Y" or "List of X that Y", etc. Blueboar (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this is getting into an area we really didn't address much to get to a conclusion at the RFC, and we may want to be silent on it until we figure out (that is, let prevailing consensus deal with it). As much, my opinion on "List of X in Y" (where Y is notability, but X of Y may not be) is to turn not to notability but to the nature of indiscriminate information, and consider the question "If the article on Y could be as large as necessary, would a list of X of Y being contained in that article?" Most of the Yellowstone examples, I think, would make sense, certainly the ones on geological features, flora, and fauna. I'm not 100% sure on things like lodges (that starts to get into directory lists) but if "Lodges of Yellowstone" is a notable topic of its own, then, hey, sure. --MASEM (t) 18:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure we can discuss notability as it relates to list articles without addressing the "List of X of/in/that/who/etc Y" issue. For example... Take two potential articles List of birds of North America and List of birds of Willsboro, New York. Even though the supra-topic of both articles is "birds"... I think most of us would agree that the first article is viable, but the second is not. I think most of us would agree that the first article is a notable sub-topic, but the second is not. But why? ... why do we say that the one topic is notable and the other isn't? My answer... because we can establish that the first is notable (through reference to reliable sources), but can not do so for the second. Blueboar (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Remember, all notability is doing is to prevent WP from being indiscriminate. When the topic of an article is very clear as it is in the cases of most non-list articles, we can easily just if the inclusion of the topic is indiscriminate via notability. When it is a "List of X" list, we start with notability of X, but can also apply other metrics to prevent indiscriminate coverage (eg "List of people" would make no sense to have due to size and scope). When we get to "List of Y of X", notability is still there for topic X, but now the question of if we really need a list of Y of X should be asked, and again, that's now fully outside of notability and back to indiscriminate coverage. And this is going to be very very subjective. I agree that "List of birds of North America" seems non-indiscriminate, while "List of birds of Willsboro" is (due to a highly limited scope). What "size" geographic feature X does a switch flip to make "List of birds of X" go from indiscriminate to discriminate? You will likely not find one consistent answer from a survey of editors. Which means that any attempt to set an answer is going to become prescriptive, not descriptive, something we want to avoid on WP.

I think when we get to this point, we're going to want to take the approach done by WP:NFC. That it, we can lay out ground rules for the general cases but specific cases have to considered. But we can certainly provide general classes of where lists are appropriate and where they are not based on past consensus discussions. Disagreements would need to be dealt with via standard dispute resolution. --MASEM (t) 21:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I think List of birds of Willsboro, New York could be a very viable article if the sources exist to support it. Significant coverage is significant coverage, and if two or more respectable publishing houses, magazines, or other reliable sources have published enough information to write the list, the list is viable and appropriate. We do not judge importance as a part of determining notability. This is obvious through the thousands and thousands of articles and lists we have on subjects many, if not most, people would consider trivial, unimportant, or (to use I word I hate seeing misused in this fashion) "unencyclopedic" in some way. I also don't see why a limited scope should be considered a negative quality in determining an appropriate list topic, unless it keeps the list to less than a dozen entries. Such a small list would obviously be better off embedded in a parent article. Our notability guidelines do not exist to determine the worthiness of an article, but rather its viability. We write articles, or create list articles, which will have sufficient sources to support their content. That's the spirit of WP:NOTPAPER. And nothing should be placed in this guideline that attempts to override or undermine that policy. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 23:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Count me as one more person who thinks it's just a little too soon to bring this up. We didn't settle it in the RFC and stopped trying pretty quickly. If we need to explicitly say that there's no consistent policy on this and these are deleted and/or kept due to reasons outside this guideline, then we should say it. But no sense on pretending that the current guideline knows how to handle them. (Although in my opinion, it should still go back to third-party sources.) Shooterwalker (talk) 00:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I had too much going on in RL to take part is this seemingly drama-filled RfC. Suffice it to say though, I think just skimming through the archive, List of Y of/in/at/from/etc X did not have a clear consensus that the Y, the descriminatory part) of the larger topic, needed to be considered for whether a "topic" was notable; indeed I seen many cases where people did not want it. Therefore I would have to side with Masem here.陣内_Jinnai 03:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is coming down to the question of: "when do we have to establish or re-establish notability?" In answering this we have two related but separate sub-questions:

1. Assuming that we have established that topic "X" is notable, do we need to re-establish notability in article "List of X"? (or for more complex topics: if we have established that topic "X of/in/that Y" is notable, do we need to re-establish notability in article "List of X of/in/that Y"?)
2. Assuming that we have established that topic "X" is notable, do we need to establish that topic "X of/in/that Y" is notable? (or is the notability of "X" inherited by "X of/in/that Y"?). Blueboar (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Limiting ourselves to only asking about notability does not work, since as I've said there is also the concept of indiscriminate nature. Notability of "X" in "List of X" or "List of Y of X" assures that this is not some niche topic that isn't covered by sources or comes from original research; but at the same time, just because "X" is notable doesn't mean "List of X" or any spinout "List of Y of X" list is immediately acceptable. We would never have "List of people" because that's just too impossibly large to be useful. Having sources that talk about "list of X" or "Y of X" helps, but it is also not a requirement used in practice (again, that's what we're trying to capture - what practice is, not what we want it to be). I still think that SALAT needs to make sure the point about indiscriminate groups is addressed as an aspect of what makes a good list - to be evaluated after the notability of the main topic of the list "X" has been evaluated. But again, I stress - this is a very subjective measure - clearly from AFDs what is a discriminate collection to some is an indiscriminate collection to others. We are not going to be able to write any exacting advice for this at this time. And thus I think we should simply remain silent and only address the key result of the RFC: For lists that are "Lists of X", we expect X to be a notable topic in itself, or the list itself to be notable. --MASEM (t) 20:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Sigh... OK... lets do this a step at a time

I was assuming that, since almost everyone discussing this now was also involved in the RFC, there was no need for us to re-debate the issues again here. I am once again reminded not to assume. So... lets go back to basics... I think the RFC was clear: There was a clear consensus that in articles entitled "List of X" the topic is X... and X must be notable. (only one editor opposed this consensus... he did so repeatedly and with great vigor, but it was still only one editor and everyone else disagreed with him). I therefore propose that we accept this consensus for use in this policy Any one object? 69.3.193.226 (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Request for nutshell revision: Add published

This undo to the guideline was made in good faith. Please discuss the following: "Published" is used in Wikipedia:Notability and it should be added to the nutshell so that the nutshell reads: "This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia covers notable topics—those that have been "noticed" to a significant degree by published independent sources". Thanks! -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it adds any clarity. I understand the problem you're trying to solve. But this doesn't get us there. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

So what would an unpublished source be, as opposed to a published one? patsw (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I reverted. I think what you're trying to get at with "published" is more precisely stated as "reliable sources," since you clearly want to exclude something some guy said on the Internet. If a third party decided to publish it, however, that is another matter: I think this is what you are trying to get at. Spelling that out to exclude self-published, vanity press, or low quality forms of "publication" gets us to the current wording regarding independence, reliability, etc. Everything that you rightly think should be excluded, on the other hand, can claim to have been "published" on someone's blog, through their laser printer at work, etc. It's not a matter of the spirit of your edit, which I think was on the right track, but the wording. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 21:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Attempt to develop consensus on notability

After participating in AfDs of a model at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Cloutier, I've begun an attempt to develop an additional set of notability criteria for models to go along with the GNG. There appears to be no real consensus in this area, and as someone else has noted, similar problems existed in bios of athletes until WP:ATHLETE was developed to provide guidance. My work-in-progress is here [5]. I invite everyone here to drop in, provide feedback, discuss and make revisions as you see fit. I'm not an expert in this area so all of your input is most appreciated. Discussion can take place at the very bottom of the page. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Persistent confusion of notability with weight

I keep seeing WP:NOTE invoked to challenge inclusion of content in an article, where WP:UNDUE is proper. What brings this to a focus for me now is this statement by an experienced editor arguing against inclusion of a new theory (which has not yet had wide exposure) in context of an article about a mainstream theory.

It's clear you have a problem with the applicability of WP:N. Perhaps you should re-read WP:UNDUE, and also WP:Fringe theories#Notability versus acceptance, which are essentially the application of WP:N to article content.

Would it be helpful if the section WP:NNC stated more explicitly how and why these are distinct? They both depend upon WP:RS, but there they part company. WP:UNDUE restricts inclusion of marginal ideas in articles about mainstream ideas, and requires reliable sources that talk about the relation of the former to the latter. This sounds sort of like "notability within that particular mainstream field" but any WP:RS mention suffices for notability whereas this more particularly requires something affirming the relationship.

The reference to WP:Fringe is problematic too. WP:Fringe says "To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability", and the portion of WP:Fringe theories#Notability versus acceptance which is relevant to the point refers only to WP:UNDUE, not to WP:NOT.

In WP:NNC, how would you characterize the distinction between WP:NOT and the relevant parts of WP:NPOV (WP:UNDUE and WP:GEVAL anyway) so as to make it more difficult for editors to persist in this confusion? Bn (talk) 23:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It's one of my pet peeves, but even I make use the (plain-English) "notable" on occasion when I'm talking about whether something is DUE. I don't think that most editors actually think that wikiNotability (=gets a separate article) and wikiDUE (=important enough to mention) are interchangeable concepts. I think we just need to individually and collectively make the effort to be clear, and explain when necessary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully suggest that you are underestimating the problem. I quoted an editor who says "WP:UNDUE and WP:Fringe theories#Notability versus acceptance ... are essentially the application of WP:N to article content." That's a pretty unequivocal assertion that they are interchangeable. And that is pretty representative of the interpretations that I've been running across (obviously an unscientific nonsurvey).

The phrase that you offered to distinguish them is actually no exception. With all respect, WP:DUE is not equivalent to "important enough to mention". Yes, WP:DUE says "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all". But just prior to that it says "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views." In other words, the emphasis in the policy is on inclusion of minority views in a balanced way, but "important enough to mention" reduces this to inclusion vs. exclusion--which is what WP:N is about.

I acknowledge the long-standing inclusion/exclusion debate, but that debate is about articles on topics of questionable notability, and it does not apply with equal force or in the same manner to subordinate mention of such topics within an unquestioned article. Ludwigs2 has offered a gorilla cage metaphor that expresses this difference of treatment very well. Notability shoots down dangerous gorillas that are running around loose in their own article. Due weight aims to put the beast contentedly on display in a habitat-appropriate enclosure for the edification of wikipedia readers. A hunting rifle is not an appropriate tool for building a cage. The WP:RS test for subordinate conclusion is more subtle than that for notability: sources affirmed as reliable for the mainstream topic must affirm the relationship between the marginal topic and the mainstream topic. That is an appropriate and pretty powerful tool.

That debate is driven by the influx of editors clamoring for articles about their favorite marginal topics. Subordinate mention safely encapsulated within an article about a mainstream idea is the right way to deal with them. They have to stay there unless and until they can pass the test of notability for a freestanding article. It gives them something immediate so they're not left frothing at the barred gate, and it gives them a constructive idea of what is needed for their pet topic to be worthy of its own encyclopedia article. For the gorilla to be contented the habitat must be responsibly represented, and that means getting the beast safely away from those who are deeply vested in being big game hunters.

Quick recap: Why talk about WP:DUE in the discussion of WP:N? Because the big gun of notability is being invoked where neutrality is proper, and relative weight is being treated as essentially equivalent to an extension of notability from articles (its proper domain) to content within articles. Rather, the two policies, notability and neutrality, complement each other, and we need to work with one in each hand. If we obscure the differences between them we tie one hand behind us. Here's what that tactical error might look like: If we say neutrality is just notability applied to articles, then if it's so-called 'notable' enough for inclusion in an article why isn't it notable enough for its own standalone article? Bn (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

"We" don't say anything of the sort. You found one person who said that WP:DUE is analogous to (but not identical to) WP:N. One person is not the community. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I think what we have here is a meta-debate over a (perceived) lack of clarity in WP:DUE, using WP:NOT as a model of clarity. The common problem editors dealing with both WP:DUE and WP:NOT issues is that people see Wikipedia as a place to give fringe theories more prominence, raise them higher in the search engine results, and putting them side by side in articles with the mainstream. It's about a creating bigger audience, using (or exploiting) the anyone can edit pillar here. To the point about WP:DUE: I think it's much harder to generalize editing content within an article. WP:DUE can never be as precise as WP:NOT and all its related guidelines. Each content dispute depends a great deal on tone and text size and that varies from article to article. It is also an analog of the advocacy editors v. "good article" editors which comes up even in the non-WP:DUE conflicts, which we try to manage with the behavioral and dispute guidelines. patsw (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I quoted one person (who said a lot more of the same sort in that discussion). What I said was that I have seen this fairly frequently, and this one instance piqued me to bring up the issue here. I thought that you agreed with this when you said that it's one of your pet peeves. I'm sure of what I quoted and what I said, but I gather I misinterpreted your words. Sorry, evidently I don't know what you're doing. ;-> Bn (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Patsw, some discussion I've seen suggests that WP:NOT is not a model of clarity ;-> precisely because of the long-standing inclusion/exclusion tug of war among those who have formulated and revised it, and my only suggestion for clarification was actually about WP:NNC. But irrespective of how clearly the two policies are written, my central point is the need to maintain the distinction. The policies are very clear that

• WP:NOT is for articles as a whole and not for content within articles.
• WP:DUE is for content within articles and not for articles as a whole.

If we say that WP:DUE is equivalent to WP:NOT as applied to content within articles ("=important enough to mention"), that distinction is reduced to nonsense, and we are ignoring the unique strengths of a valuable tool for managing the wild and woolies — or outright throwing it away.

If you mean that explaining the complexities of Wikipedia editing by making an equivalence between WP:NOT and WP:DUE is really dumb, we agree. patsw (talk) 05:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

So I do think my question is valid: "In WP:NNC, how would you characterize the distinction between WP:NOT and the relevant parts of WP:NPOV (WP:UNDUE and WP:GEVAL anyway) so as to make it more difficult for editors to persist in this confusion?" We've heard one response: "What confusion? We don't do that." I thought it was sort of obvious that this occurs fairly often. Am I wrong? Bn (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

If people are confused by the current wording of WP:NNC, then I think think they would be just as confused by any edit I could make. The confusion is not inherent to the current wording of WP:NNC, but, at least for new editors, that different criteria are applied to the article creation and article content. patsw (talk) 05:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

A couple of suggestions occur to me. Sometimes what seems a subtle change can have good effect. One suggestion is to remove the word "directly" from the title of WP:NNC. It suggests that neutrality notability guidelines indirectly limit article content. I would also rephrase the title slightly to reflect the phrase "The question of content coverage within a given page..." in the body of this section. The present title is

• Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content

The amended title would be

• Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article

Secondly, I think your last statement is excellent. I propose that we insert it just before the last sentence of the first paragraph. It emphasizes the distinction between notability and neutrality/weight and points the reader to look more carefully at the neutrality policy. The paragraph as a whole would then read:

The notability guidelines are only used to determine whether a topic can have its own separate article or list on Wikipedia. They do not govern article content or whether to include an item in a list. Different criteria apply to article creation and article content. The question of content coverage within a given page is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies.

Bn (talk) 15:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I can agree to this. As a further thought... When discussing article content, it would probably help if experienced editors tried to avoid the word "notable"... and instead used other terms such as "note worthy". Blueboar (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you proposing that some such language as above be added to the amendment?

"Noteworthy" might be too close. Perhaps recognized? If reliable sources in the mainstream subject matter recognize some way that the marginal topic is related, then an article about the mainstream topic can include it to the extent that it is recognized.

Bn (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Felisa Wolfe-Simon, world top story scientist may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines

While reading the headlines in my native language newspaper I stumbled over a story on a life form capable of incorporating arsenic in place of phosphor. Pretty amazing stuff, and a quick search located the same story in New York Times, Der Spiegel, El País, and others.

Curious about the scientist I checked, yes, Wikipedia for Felisa Wolfe-Simon. The talk page says it all: She is likely an over-hyped scientist. The article is said to violate WP:AUTO, and if nominated for WP:AfD, she certainly won't pass WP:PROF. The deletion outcome is only a matter of time. but of course, with all the hype at present, play it safe and we could later merge her article to GFAJ-1, the bacteria [6].

How time has flown since Wikipedia's original vision of capturing the world's knowledge has degenerated into assessing if the knowledge really, I mean, really, is worthy of mention. "One could argue that this is not a major discovery, just a well-hyped one. Breeding bacteria is not the same as discovering a native species that can do the thing naturally. And anyway, exactly which awards are significant?" Furthermore, "there is not a single secondary source that analyzes her as a topic. "The awards and other things - by themselves - would never be enough to survive AFD". Wow, what was once created to keep out garage bands and self-published fringe lunatics is now being used to take out more serious stuff.

The key issue is if Wikipedia exists to offer a neutral encyclopedic service to readers on topics that mainstream media consider significant, or if Wikipedia editors themselves should act as gate keepers, screening away the worthy from the unworthy, protecting the sensitive eyes of the general reader from cruft and other calamities. Such screening is very much a matter of trust and AfD participants IMO requires extraordinary maturity, perspective and knowledge. There are no minimum requirements for chiming in on AfDs however, and given that most editors are annon, how could we possibly tell? But from article creation logs, we know that the interests of many AfD participants lie in Playstation games, in soccer tournaments, in baseball teams, in country X vs Y bilateral relations, and the like. Alarmingly, many AfD participants don't create any articles at all. I wouldn't be surprised if Felisa Wolfe-Simon wouldn't pass an AfD, be it on WP:PROF reasons, or if not, on the exceptionally vague criteria given in WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS, or WP:NOT, or other arguments routinely invoked in AfDs by "the community".

Preempting questions of who I am: I do have a 3 or 4k contributions history on a retired account, with about 100 articles created, in good standing. I left due to frustrations over AfDs and I intend to stay away from WP, to maintain my sanity. You.dont.know.what.you.dont.know (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me you are still here.Slatersteven (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I would think that this response from an editor covers thoughts of notability, showing that she meets PROF. Silverseren^C 19:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Conveniently weak arguments by convenient IPs and new accounts notwithstanding, I think the tone of the discussion on the article's talk page indicates that Felisa Wolfe-Simon meets any common-sense conception of notability and would definitely pass an AfD. Not that anyone's actually started one, and there's no indication that anyone will. Reyk _YO! 23:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

What is exactly is the problem? This is a lot of text complaining about the AfD process, despite the fact that this article has never been nominated and most likely wouldn't get deleted if it was. It reminds me of when my girlfriend came home from work angry at me and when I asked what was wrong she said, "there was this girl on the bus and if you had been there you would have just loved her." --Leivick (talk) 02:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It's strange that so many IPs and new accounts are wanting this article to be deleted. Usually it's the other way around. Maybe there's some sort of faction battle in the science camps about this that hasn't been reported? I wonder. Silverseren^C 02:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Or they are trying to make a point about AFD?Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• If you believe the article does not conform to policies and guidelines, edit the article, or nominate the article for deletion.
• If you believe the policies and guidelines can be improved, then improve them. patsw (talk) 16:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)