Wikipedia talk:Notability/Historical/Non-notability

Drawing the Line

Obviously, the most difficult task is deciding where we draw the line in this policy between inclusionism and deletionism. Personally, I fall very fall towards inclusionism, too far for most people, but I'm committed to compromising. And of course, any decision is both somewhat arbitrary and difficult to define/enforce. Honestly, I can't of anything at the moment. Throw out something, anything, just to get something to work with. --Ephilei 06:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Wait! So the proposal will state that nn has no part to play?! So I could write an article about my family's memorial day picnic? I'm not against this, (well, maybe I am) but everyone else will be. If this succeeds, it will fundamentally define Wikipedia. It needs to have wide support, not only to pass but to nurture an environment where editors (even deletionists!) feel productive.

Is there a policy that an article must have the potential of out growing stubness? That wouldn't prohibit my picnic article, but it would prevent some that should be merged and redirected. That would be a good start.--Ephilei 02:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this article should advocate merging information onto small main pages. For example, merging infromation on some 3rd place winner from some spelling bee onto a page about that spelling bee.

However, you could write an article on your family's memorial day picnic - if its verifiable, and not original research. For example, if the news covered your family's picnic. If its just your site talking about your family - thats OR. If its just some memorial day videos, that not verifiable. Thats the point of this article - its not saying that every item you can think of gets an article - its saying that notability isn't considered - instead OR, NPOV, and Verifiability are considered instead - along with the numerous other policies and guidelines on wikipedia. Fresheneesz 07:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

And will this simply mean all the articles that fall under this guideline become second-class articles? To ease navigation, they can't be included in categories with notable articles, they can't be mixed with the others in disambiguation pages, they must always come up last in searches, they will never be found on the main page, whether Featured or In the news or Did you know. Most importantly, they won't be linked from notable articles. Who is going to read them? Who is going to ensure that they follow Verifiability, NPOV, and Original research, if no one is interested in it or bound to find it? You mentioned before that you think there is a lot of wasted effort gone into deleting articles, but monitoring the hordes of non-notable articles (and there will be millions) creates far more work. Including non-notable or non-important articles will inevitably result in these articles not being verified, not being neutral; no one is going to be watching them to ensure that they don't become that. In order for Wikipedia to be reliable, there absolutely must be a minimum of independent interest in the article. If there isn't, the article is either only edited by vandals, or it is edited by Bob's family, who are not neutral.

Perhaps requirements for notability should be relaxed in certain cases, but there must still be a requirement for notability (or something very much like it). The proper place for changing notability criteria and recommendations is Wikipedia:Notability. —Centrx→talk • 08:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"they can't be included in categories with notable articles, .. can't be mixed .. in disambiguation pages, .. must .. come up last in searches"

Why? I believe searches are based on semantics, not popularity or size. As far as I'm concerned, this article is proposing that verifiable non-notables become first-class articles with the rest. "creates far more work" - Articles that aren't edited don't require work. There are plenty of articles that aren't monitored for quality, verifiability, or anyother such thing. However, they are still good stub information, and might grow into nice articles. For example, the article Cabintaxi is terribly written (used to look worse too), and is based off of a copy edit from one outdated page somewhere. However, it is still interesting and useful information. Should this article be removed? I've seen NN articles removed for having more google hits than cabinentaxi's 162.

Oh yea, i've heard about bob's family not being neutral - we should really revoke their editing rights. But in all seriousness, is it really up to us to assume that these articles "probably won't be neutral" ? My opinion is no, we are not a bunch of crystal balls, and we shouldn't treat ourselves as if we were.

A large part of this policy is to encourage new editors. By allowing people to edit stuff they are interested in - things they see aren't on wikipedia but should be - we get new editors that in the future will help us handle the millions of new articles we will inevitably get. Wikipedia isn't about censorship, and its not about exclusion either. The amount of stuff on this site hasn't been too much for us yet, why draw the line and say "this is how much we can take - kill the rest"?

Lastly, I've discussed it at Wikipedia talk:Notability, and it isn't the "proper place" to begin writing a guideline proposal. Remember, WP:NN is just a very popular essay, not a guideline or policy. If you want me to copy-paste this proposal right onto Wikipedia:Notability you can go right ahead and do that yourself - but i'm pretty sure there'd be some pretty angry locals at your door in the morning. Fresheneesz 09:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

First, there is no good reason why someone looking through a category or searching on a traditional, important, encyclopedic subject should be required to wade through dozens articles in which no one but a handful of people in the world are interested. Someone looking at the "Websites" category should not have to browse through millions (and millions of websites would qualify under your criteria) of non-notable websites to come across ones like Netcraft, Moviefone, or Acronym Finder. Second, in order to still have the articles comply with Verifiability, Original research, and NPOV, which is what the essay says, the articles would have to be monitored. Notable articles get watchlisted because a variety of people are interested in the subject, and if an editor happens to come across an obscure article with some falsities, it can be resolved and it is not a great burden; in your recommendation, there would be millions upon millions of articles (millions in just websites alone) that have no editor interest—aside perhaps from the websites creator who is likely to be quite biased. If, on the other hand, you were to now say that NPOV, OR, and V are not so important, any reader could come across an article that asserts all manner of personal theories, extravagantly vain statements, under the guise of an encyclopedia with authoritative information. You underestimate the magnitude of your proposal. There are currently 1.2 million articles on the English Wikipedia. What you propose would result in 10's of millions of articles at a minimum. What is to ensure that these would follow NPOV and OR? The reason I recommend you bring it up on Wikipedia:Notability is because this is a non-starter. We are not a crystal ball, yes (though that applies to predicting future events in articles, not anticipating major consequences of policies), but the fact remains that the first step toward implementing this idea would be to relax the Notability essay and get agreement to do that. A change of this magnitude would require small steps rather than a brash change. Wikipedia:Five pillars does not merely state that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it furthermore states that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is not a collection of source documents or trivia, a dictionary, a soapbox, a newspaper, vanity publisher, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or a web directory." All of these things can be neutral and verifiable, but do not qualify under your idea. As I said on the Village pump, the Notability essay is designed to flesh out what the above statement means as a consequence of it. What you are proposing is not opposing an essay, but the whole foundation of Wikipedia heretofore. The first step, likewise, for gaining consensus on this is to convince people that Notability needs to be relaxed. The essay you have posted here is not going to be implemented without the first steps of gaining consensus to relax Notability, and seeing the practical results of that relaxation. We do not require a crystal ball to do that. —Centrx→talk • 20:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but I think that it might be best to relax both this proposal, and the essay at the same time - to coincide at a consensus. When you say "millions of websites and millions of other things would qualify", you're misinterpreting what this article is about. This guideline proposal does not urge people to disregard what wikipedia is not (or any other policy), but asks people to use those policies and guidlines in place of "notability". The millions of websites you speak of would violate OR, because I would guess people would simply narrate what they think the site is about - or advertise what their site does, which would be POV.

Perhaps this isn't clear from the page, and I invite you to change the wording of the proposal to reflect that this proposal is not meant to give all non-notables a place - only ones that don't violate policy and other guidelines. Fresheneesz 23:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Why would an accurate description of a website be POV? It is not original research, all the information is right there on the website and is verifiable. The source is the website, and it would be silly to require a newspaper article or a book to verify the contents of a website that anyone can look at right on the Internet. Or do you suggest that the source instead be another website? And if what is stated on that other website is reliable, why isn't the text and functions of the first website, which are readily accessible by anyone, also reliable? Even articles about quite notable websites with daily thousands of visitors and newspaper mentions have as their source the clear, verifiable source of going to the website and seeing what it does. —Centrx→talk • 23:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability requires reliable sources, and while it may seem like a website would be a reliable source about itself, that's not always true (inflated claims of importance, history, impact, etc., not to mention the fact that it's obviously biased towards promoting itself). Even given those, WP:RS requires several third-party sources, and if there aren't any of those articles or books about a website it's just not verfiable, and therefore shouldn't be included. Ziggurat 23:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not talking about claims made on a website, I am talking about looking at what the site actually does. If you go to www.superbad.com or www.ytmnd.com (though these happen to be notable sites, which is how I know about them), the sites can be accurately and verifiably described, without reference to looking at any "About this site" section. Even if it were just claims, it would still be accurate to say "This website claims to...". Where does WP:RS say that everything must have several sources? Is it really necessary to have three or more independent sources for us to state "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" or "CNN.com is a news website run by CNN."? —Centrx→talk • 02:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's perform a thought experiment: I'm a fan of the website [asdf.com] and I write an article about it using the information on the site. If (a) I'm a inexperienced editor, I don't add a category; if (b) I'm a decent editor, I put in a category Websites because I see there is a subcategory Pointless websites (bc that's what it is. Takes care of the category problem. Now, because asdf.com is so nn, there's no decent place to link to it from. Or, say I manage to find 2 pages to link to it from: 1 on a page about humorous websites, 1 on a page about letter combos. 99% of readers don't care about funny websites or letter combos so they are never bothered with it - for good or ill. Takes care of the linking problem. Check the main article about for something new on monitering accuracy/vandalism. --Ephilei 01:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Back to the initial issue of drawing the line - I agree we need a compromise or nothing will pass. I see the point that proposing something on the opposite extreme will "swing the pendulum" of opinion to land in the middle, however, a failed a proposal is just a failed proposal. A few people might change their minds to land in the middle, but there will still be nothing officially approved. To me, having something approved is the ultimate goal, no matter what the approach or compromise. There's little point in relaxing the Notability essay because its just an essay - not a policy/guideline. I think we need a clean a approach, but something that can be approved as is. Before we argue about whether the proposal should pass (and we should argue!) let's create a proposal that we can support! --Ephilei 01:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have the time to read this thread word for word at the moment, but I would like to note that I did too much a lot of thinking about this sort of thing in my early Wikipedia days. The results of that are here. Feel free to make use of some of that if you think it's sensible. --L33tminion | (talk) 23:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. But how can we draw this line? With what critera do we judge if someone can use notability? Perhaps if the article has questionable verifiability, is questionably OR, or is questionably POV AND if fixing those problems would lead to an article that doesn't assert importance. I think we should draw a line, but we should be careful that this proposal doesn't contradict itself.

As for the website scenario, www.asdf.com, is it independantly verifiable? is the information you wrote on it OR? Probably. It might even have some POV in it. Its very difficult to write an article about a subject that noone else has written about yet - such as junky websites. Fresheneesz 20:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm showing my ignorance, but are only primary sources allowed? If I want to add info to the plot of Moby Dick, do I need to use cliff notes or the like instead of simply reading and summarizing? Isn't there a difference between OR and summarizing/reguritating? Nevertheless, I think you're on to something - whether policy or not, that method would do well as a distinct dividing line to compromise. It's still arbitrary, but it's distinct nonetheless! --Ephilei 04:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I certianly can't agree with this as a policy. Otherwise it gives license to just about anyone to put their pet project on wikipedia. Anything written or put on the internet can be verified as existing and would then qualify for an article. Notability guidelines are important for preventing such types of articles. You'll end up with thousands of 2 or 3 sentence stubs about every fly by night company that ever existed and who has a pulse and can find wikipedia.--Crossmr 18:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Crossmr. I think there are already too many stupid articles on Wikipedia, so I strongly oppose a proposal that would open the door for thousands more. As for the discussion back at the top of this section, the fact that someone said a family picnic could actually be included as an article under this proposal only furthers my argument. Small town newspapers cover virtually everything that everyone in the town does. I was mentioned in my town's paper once or twice. Does that mean I should have an article? Dbinder (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You guys don't understand what verifiability is. This has been gone over before - a site that exists is *not* verification enough to put it on wikipedia. This simply isn't an issue. If you read the proposal, you would know this.

However, since this is a recurring please *PLEASE* tell me how to clarify the fact that small town newspapers do NOT give people the verifiability needed to put it on wikipedia. Fresheneesz 21:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The last time I checked, this was a talk page. Apparently you don't know what that means. Since this section is called "Drawing the line", it's appropriate to point out where the line should be drawn. If something is only in one small town's newspaper (my town has about 12,000 people and I certainly don't think most things here are notable enough to put on WP), then it shouldn't be covered. As others have said, every insignificant event that ever occurred would have a stub article. These articles would only be maintained by a few people from that town, few people would care, and they would simply be a waste of space and clutter up search results. Dbinder (talk) 00:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok. thanks for not reading my previous comment. Your small town newspaper is *not* a verifiable source. Notability doesn't even become an issue for a topic that is only verified in a small town newspaper. Fresheneesz 06:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually I read your comment. You should try clarifying what you say. Since the rest of your post was argumentative and sarcastic, I assumed that line was as well. Furthermore, your earlier comment "However, you could write an article on your family's memorial day picnic - if its verifiable, and not original research. For example, if the news covered your family's picnic." Indicates that you think small, insignificant events are valid. The only news that would cover it would be a small-town paper. Dbinder (talk) 13:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

<YAWN> Can y'all take this to User_talk: ? He-said-she-said isn't very interesting for the rest of us... — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 13:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yea, please. If you're gonna argue about semantics, this isn't the place. User Talk:Fresheneesz. I might add: insignificance is in the eyes of the beholder. Fresheneesz 01:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I never actually read your reply to this, but the person was talking to both of us. Dbinder (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems redundant.

Why not just improve the existing and established Wikipedia:Notability? Just zis Guy you know? 22:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Because that page is an already established guideline (by established I mean has a lot of precedent) not a proposal and because it argues the opposite of this proposal. And I'm sure people wouldn't like it if we blanked all that pre-existing info. Basically, for clarity. --Ephilei 02:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I read this knowing the history of the original contributor and see that had it existed it would have boosted his attempts to have certain articles included, and other articles expanded. I find it hard to WP:AGF when I see a newly proposed guideline which closely mirrors another extant and widely accepted practice and several extant guidelines such as WP:BIO and WP:NMG but which appears to promote the inclusion of material which has been excluded, written by the author of that material. Look at the history of personal rapid transit, UniModal etc. This looks like a retrospective attempt to legislate against results the author did not like. And yes, I know that this lack of good faith makes me a bad person. For me, notability has always been a simple matter of whether there is sufficient external coverage to verify botht eh content and the neutrality of the article; I perceive a real issue right now with subjects which are stated to be "verifiable" by reference to sites which support them, and newspaper coverage garnered by their proponents, but which lack either the credibility of robust peer-review, or in some cases the credibility to inspire peer review: some things are simply dismissed as crank nonsense and not covered at all. We deleted Aetherometry partly for this reason. The section on "upkeep cost" is redundant per WP:NOT paper anyway, which is widely understood.

Here's a specific example: the exhortation to (in bold) full merge information speaks directly to a situation where a hypothetical concept, UniModal, was written up in a level of detail quite indefensible for a system which lacks a backer, a prototype, or a customer. Fresheneesz argued long and hard about the amount of merge. The word full here looks like a deliberate attempt to retrospectively legislate against my reduction of the amount of content (in my view almost all of it was already in the main article anyway, but that is another matter and not truly relevant, only the existence of the dispute is relevant). It also goes directly against WP:NPOV#Undue weight, because it asks for all information, whether provably significant or not, to be merged. That is simply a bad idea. Just zis Guy you know? 11:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am most definately thinking of my past experiences on wikipedia as a reason to have this guideline. I like thinking of ways things I've done in the past or present could be more easily done in a better way. I think this guideline provides that better way by urging users to focus on concrete policy, rather than notability - which is neither guideline nor policy, and is very very subjective. However, I assure you I don't plan on pushing a million new articles on wikipedia if this proposal goes through. I sincerely think this would be a step in the right direction for wikipedia, and I really think that the current emphasis on not biting newcommers is understated - we need new editors. I really doubt I'll be creating any new controversial non-notable articles anytime soon. So this guideline isn't for me specifically.

You bring up a good point about "full merge". The article does suggest an action that might be against policy in some cases. I'll change the wording to reflect that concern. Fresheneesz 19:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

But your entire premise is that you were right and I was wrong I would challenge that interpretation (see also the deletion review, for example, which endorsed my view). What you originally wrote was, in essence, a POV-pusher's charter, and directly at odds with a number of well-established guidelines such as WP:BIO, WP:NMG and WP:CSD. The fact that notability is included in the (highly restricted) criteria for speedy deletion, an area where there is strong resistance to any extension, is evidence that there is a widespread agreement that notability is, in the end, a useful term to describe that content which is worth including. I would suggest you spend a bit more time around CAT:CSD and WP:AFD before judging the merit of notability as currently understood. Just zis Guy you know? 20:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to say I was right and you were wrong, but I think this guideline would have saved much time in comming to the eventual consensus to keep the page UniModal.

Non-notability seems to be only mentioned on the Criteria for speedy deltion page to assert that non-notability is *not* in fact criteria for speedy deletion, if the article establishes "importance". And the biography tag mentions non-notable people and vanity pages. I do see the problem with loosing the ability to use notability as a qualifier, and I think that it would be good to go into the reasons and explore ways of chaning this proposal so it allows wikipedia to grow without causing problems. Fresheneesz 23:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

An article that is not important or significant could not possibly assert importance or significance, so strictly construed, it would be deleted under those criteria. —Centrx→talk • 20:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Perfect, but asserting significance is usually not what people are refering to when they say "notability". Thats a good reason why notability is not a useful base on which to argue - other policy suffices, and makes things less complicated as well. Fresheneesz 03:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Straw man?

The essay lists "problems with keeping non-notable pages" and then proceeds to shoot these down as arguments. Indeed, as arguments for deleting non-notable pages in general they are not strong. But isn't this setting up a straw man? The essay will be stronger if it tackles the arguments from Wikipedia:Notability#Arguments for deleting non-notable articles. --Lambiam^Talk 12:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is a straw man. This proposal is meant as something entirely separate from the essay, and it doesn't interpret (or misinterpret) anything from that essay. The thing is, the essay is an essay, and I really think there should be a clear guideline on this subject. Fresheneesz 19:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

aetherometry

I removed this paragraph pending further discussion:

"As an example, Wikipedia had for a long time an article on a crank theory called aetherometry. It documented the theory and systematically debunked it. It was for some considerable time one of the leading sources of information on the subject. But it was deleted, because the debunking was original research, as the theory had never been published or discussed in any peer-reviewed journal; that left the pro-aetherometry side only, which was therefore non-neutral. It was not possible to cover the subject neutrally without original research, because the theory itself was non-notable and had not been given so much as a passing nod by the scientific press. The only reliable primary sources were those promoting the theory, and there were no reliable secondary sources at all."

I think this precedent sort of goes against what this guideline is advising. I think that the main idea of aetherometry could have been (and might very well have been) merged with Aether theories. Noting that the entire subject was deleted with no redirect (I just took the liberty of RDing it to aether theory) I think goes against the intent of this guideline. Comments? Fresheneesz 20:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

If the article was deleted for being original research, then it was not deleted for non-notability and this essay would not apply. —Centrx→talk • 22:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It was deleted as a non-notable crank theory (which is also why it was not merged: it was a minor POV which would have been accorded undue weight). We have plenty of notable crank theories. But do feel free to find a better example. Just zis Guy you know? 22:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

removed quote of Brion Vibber

Just a question, why was it removed again? Fresheneesz 09:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea. I've readded it pending explanation. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Undue weight of separate articles

I've looked over the undue weight part of NPOV, and I've never seen any way to interpret that separate articles can by themselves constitute undue weight. Could someone please quote something that can be interpretted as such? It seems like the following sentence directly contradicts such thinking anyway:

"None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them."

Fresheneesz 09:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Uncontested, I removed this "(although note that sometimes the existence of a separate article in and of itself constitutes undue weight, for example in the case of a minor theory with few adherents)." Fresheneesz 03:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• I've made some edits to bring this into line with current policies. The section talks of merging information into main articles, however, it should be wroth noting that if the presentation of that information in the main article would be deemed as undue weight, it should be deleted. That's per WP:NPOV, which I can't see anyone disputing. If a topic is considered to be not of worth in a main article, then guidance on content forking directs that it should not be given its own article. Wikipedia:Content forking:

• "However, it is possible for editors to act in bad faith and make article spinouts as POV forks. For instance: Editor A tries three times to insert a statement of his POV in an article section called "Criticism of XYZ"; each time the change is reverted by other editors. So he announces that he is spinning off a new article called Criticism of XYZ, and for the initial text of this article, he uses the "Criticism of XYZ" section of the main XYZ article -- with the disputed statement that he could not get accepted by consensus. This is a POV fork; Editor A is trying to get around the fact that his changes have not met consensus by inserting them in a different location."

• As can be seen, if the information being merged or inserted into the article is consensually removed, then an article on it is POV forking. We must ensure that guidance on POV forking and given undue weight is adhered to. If information should not exist in a main article since it gives that view undue weight, the content forking guidance states it should not have its own article as this constitutes a POV fork. Steve block Talk 19:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with most of that - espcially the POV fork and articles containing undue weight. However, I think that suggesting we delete an article that would put undue weight on a main article is against the spirit of this proposal - its certainly not what I intended when I began it. The "worth" of an article is what this proposal is about - ie that "worth" is inherintly biased by the individual asserting the worth, and thus not a useful way of classifying (or deleting) articles. Fresheneesz 23:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Also note that WP:NPOV does not suggest deleting articles in the way you explain. Fresheneesz 23:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The guidance on content forking is quite clear. Information which doesn't belong in the main article should not have its own article if that constitutes a POV fork. Regards what you intended for this proposal, this is a wiki, we are all gfree to edit and amend. If you wish to change current policies and guidelines, you do that at the specific talk page, not by attempting to write a separate proposal. To be honest, I think I'd reject this proposal at the moment, as it adds nothing new to Wikipedia. The worth of an article is what we debate at WP:AFD. I'm not sure what you feel this proposal addresses. Steve block Talk 11:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I already said, I agree with you about the POV fork thing. This proposal intends to "ban" (not truely ban since it would be a guideline not policy) the use of notability in discussions of an article's worth. This would be quite a large change, and so I have to assume that what you mean by "adds nothing" is that it doesn't make wikipedia better. I simply disagree. Fresheneesz 20:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Then this proposal should be upfront about the fact that it simply wants to ban notability as a word from wikipedia. That's unworkable, and please assume good faith. Steve block Talk 20:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps ban isn't the right word. However, I do think the proposal makes its intent very clear, especially in the nutshell - "Notability should not be used to argue for or against inclusion of information inside an article, or inclusion of an article itself". Fresheneesz 21:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Importance

There is currently a proposed policy that directly contradicts this proposed guideline (and therefore would overrule it if passed) Clinkophonist 23:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you be more specific as to what contradicts? I looked over it and I can't quite understand the intent of the proposed policy - or how one would use it. Fresheneesz 03:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Even assuming they do contradict, I don't think Wikipedia is schizophrenic enough to give both consensus. Policy doesn't overrule guidelines; it accords with guidelines. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

against current guidelines?

I removed this header from the page:

This is against current guidelines

Of course it is—it's a proposal to repeal certain guidelines that have gained currency.

I'm pretty sure this proposal doesn't go against guidelines. This proposal is meant to make people use current guidelines and policy rather than the non-policy idea of "notability". Can anyone shed some light on this addition? Fresheneesz 03:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I will add in this header again, and explain that this guidelines does not, and does not intend to, violate or contradict any official policy or guidelines. Fresheneesz 23:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

See CSD A7 and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information point 6. Both explicitly affirm that there must be a minimum threshold of notability for an article to be included in Wikipedia. Furthermore, this proposal would suggest that AFDs shouldn't delete things for non-notability, which currently they do routinely. The proposal as-is is largely against consensus (with 70–80% being in favor of CSD A7, as I recall), and consensus is basically equivalent to policy (or at least guideline) on Wikipedia. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well this brings up a good point. However, both points specifically address people - ie vanity pages. I think it is quite reasonable to require that articles "assert importance" - meaning that the article explains why someone or something is important. However, I think it might be prudent to explicitely yeild to vanity guidelines in this proposal. My personal preference is that this proposal not contradict any existing official policy or guideline.

What do you think is the best way to do this? Fresheneesz 06:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

So you don't think articles need be important, but think they should still be required to assert importance? Doesn't that work out to saying that articles on unimportant stuff are fine provided they lie about their importance? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose. However if they lie, then its obviously not verifiable, unless everyone's (the media is) lying - in which case we're just screwed. I think "asserting importance" is a really slippery-slope sort of concept, as it doesn't neccessarily mean anything different than being important. The problem is that "asserting importance" is not part of policy right now... unless its part of AfD or something. Fresheneesz 08:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a CSD. If an article doesn't assert the importance of its subject, any admin can delete it at any time. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

In that case, why don't we reinforce the need for an article to "assert importance", and explain the difference between notability and importance. I think this article says a tiny bit on asserting importance already. Fresheneesz 03:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is any difference between notability and importance. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me add my two cents here: WP:NOT states "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not:" and the list starts. I have a real hard time understanding how the proposal is coherent with this policy. Sure, there is this bit about importance but, as noted above, how should one distinguish "important" from "notable". Most of the notability guidelines are essentially trying to build consensus objective criteria for importance of the subject with the goal, precisely, of avoiding pointless debates where a handful of editors argue "it's important because it's important to me." I would also add that two key arguments are missing in favor of not including any verifiable information.

1. protection against spam. Wikipedia is being targeted over and over by small companies writing articles for their products. They're not necessarily written as advertisements but since Wikipedia is such a fantastic tool for Google bombing even a neutral article on whatever shampoo is valuable to that shampoo's manufacturer.
2. Protecting the credibility of Wikipedia. Pascal.Tesson 22:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The first argument is fine - the second one is rather vague. How does deleting small verifiable articles protect wikipedia's credibility? Note also that spam won't be independantly verifiable, and probably will be OR. In fact, spam is OR.

Also, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information does not in any way refer to the notability of an article. Fresheneesz 04:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the spamming problem on Wikipedia. It's not only about external links, it's also about, for instance, small corporations using Wikipedia as a boost to their notoriety and web-presence. Even a perfectly NPOV verifiable description of a three-employee hot-dog stand is an abuse of Wikipedia's reputation. Also, I think you are simply not reading the parts of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information that go against your views. For instance, the Wiki is not a memorial section says: "Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered." I guess you'll argue that the word "notable" is not used but that would not convince many people... Pascal.Tesson 21:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I do realize that. I disagree tho - I think that a perfectly NPOV verifiable article *isn't* abuse. A company can make a website about their product or whatever, but that information must be kept to standard, and of couse we all know its V OR NPOV etc.

Re WP:NOT: Well, my little bit of bias is that I'm reading "establishing importance" (ie claim to fame) different than "notability". Notability can have lots of different meanings, but in my mind "establishing importance" is a narrow specific thing, which refers to the reason the article is useful or interesting. Still subjective, but on a much narrower and smaller scale. I'm not going to argue semantics, of course notability can describe that tenant :-D . But I think notability is not a good describer of anything, much less someone's "claim to fame".

For example, say there is a person in some small county in new jersey who won a world record for something obscure. Notable? Maybe, maybe not - depends on your definition. But the article can still "establish importance" (in my mind) by stating the world record thing. Fresheneesz 08:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Rearranging this page

I think it would be good to discuss how we could rearrange this page, in order to better emphasize the main points of the guidline. For example, people might read part of it and might think that it violates this or that policy, because the arguments to dispell that thought are buried in the page. Does anyone have any suggestions as to how we could reorganize the page? Fresheneesz 08:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I changed "Arguments against using notability" to "Nn articles are beneficial" as the contents are very similar, these are the main points and need to be put plainly, and arguements against notability could be merged with "Arguements for using notability" --Ephilei 06:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

importance problem

The concept of "importance" needs to be discussed. I don't see any problem with an article stating why its subject is "important" - but to me, notability is much more than that. Notability implies some sort of widespread popularity, which I don't think should be a requirement of an article. However, the problem with importance is that it can be a synonym for notability - which isn't good. We need to find a way to describe these concepts without muddling ourselves up with insufficient words. Fresheneesz 04:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I tend to use importance as a synonym for notability for no other reason than there's too much jargon to keep straight. --05:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

"Nn articles are beneficial"

This section contains several excellent examples of begging the question :-) I'm still waiting for a good example of a subject which is not "notable" by normal editors' standards but which has achieved sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources to allow its coverage in line with WP:V and WP:NPOV. The comments about covering tiny minority views also still look like a barrow-pusher's charter. Just zis Guy you know? 19:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Your point proves why notability is useless - you claim that in every case Verifiability and NPOV is sufficeient. This proposal agrees. Fresheneesz 20:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree that that section is misleading and disingenuous for instance by confusing nn articles with nn opinions and censorship or by insinuating that there is some sort of financial advantage for Wikipedia to allow nn articles. The argument that deleting nn articles is a waste of everybody's time of course completely disregards the considerable problems associated with time wasted on nn articles by WikiGnomes taking time to stop vandalism, remove spam, categorize and keep to a reasonnable standard all these articles. Point 1 is pure speculation and I would say the same if someone defended without substantiating the claim that editors who see categories clogged with useless junk are likely to leave WP. It also assumes that everyone agrees with the proposition "more editors = higher quality WP" since it is pointed out that these extra editors would not contribute significantly to making the existing entries better. Point 6 argues that if an article is written then more people will read it. I suppose that's trivially true but how is that a benefit? How is point 7 representing a "benefit of nn articles"? Pascal.Tesson 22:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Quite ... you're not the only person who didn't miss the exhortation to attract new "editors and donors" (emphasis mine). That aside, frankly, this whole proposal airily assumes that a vast horde of new editors means a higher quality encyclopedia, but if everything's included as long as it's verifiable? Categories become useless overnight, as they'd be overwhelmed by every high school football player (who can link to a hometown newspaper), every amateur actor and play (ditto), every writer of anything at all, so long as there's a link, every "band" that has a Myspace page, every corner grocery store with a website. Right now, the whole notability side has a fundamental premise -- that allowing indiscriminate cruft weakens Wikipedia's quality and credibility. I'm not sure why a quality encyclopedia is a bad thing, but I am sure that Wikipedia's market share will evaporate overnight to some new similar effort that is seen to maintain some standards. RGTraynor 22:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

This straw-man argument comes up every time someone mentions doing away with notability. WP:V and WP:RS already prevent these 'articles'. "every high school football player (who can link to a hometown newspaper)" in which they have been mentioned non-trivially by multiple sources? That narrows the field considerably. "every writer of anything at all, so long as there's a link" to a reliable source, yep. Again, not nearly as large as you seem to think, as most websites don't qualify as a reliable source. For example, "every "band" that has a Myspace page" Myspace ain't reliable, and so ain't usable. If verifiability and the requirement for multiple non-trivial third-party reliable sources are maintained, notability is simply useless. Ziggurat 23:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Boy oh boy am I happy to read such common sense. Could not have said it better. I would also add that there is little evidence that this new horde of editors would do much more than create a new entry about their grade-school math teacher and leave. Pascal.Tesson 22:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

A statement on MySpace from the band would be assumed, like similar generic self-identifying statements, to be accurate. If the band states on their MySpace page that they are a "Christian rock" band, there is no reason to think that is incorrect. You don't need to cite the New York Times to verify that anyone can edit most all Wikipedia pages. —Centrx→talk • 02:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

True, but the crucial point here is that current policy requires multiple independent sources to justify the inclusion of an article, regardless of the use of notability. If a band only has a MySpace page, they can't be included. Think of it as 'objective notability' if you like, or at least 'out-sourced notability'. Verifiability requires proof that the world has taken notice somehow; notability only that Wikipedians have taken notice. Ziggurat 23:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much. We aren't AfDing significant articles, and any time someone tries the condemnation is immediate. What this proposal would enshrine is the insignificant and trivial, and I wonder why someone driven away from editing on Wikipedia because it's an encyclopedia with standards constitutes a loss to us. RGTraynor 04:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Because while most will not contribute to articles you view as significant, some will. And what you view as unimportant, some will undoubtedly view as important: to some, you are AFDing articles every bit as important as many of those whose AFDs are shot down or never attempted. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

A MySpace that calls itself the official website of a Christian rock band is evidence that a MySpace exists that calls itself the official website of a Christian rock band. It isn't evidence that the Christian rock band actually exists. MySpace is not a reliable secondary source; it's only valid as a source indicating that someone on MySpace said something specific. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

"Categories become useless overnight"? What about using subcategories, such as Category:Notable college football players? This is addressed in the article. And why does any fully-referenced and verifiable article reduce Wikipedia's credibility? Why does one part of the encyclopedia covering trivial material reduce the quality of the other parts of the encyclopedia that cover important things? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

"time wasted on nn articles by WikiGnomes taking time to stop vandalism, remove spam, categorize and keep to a reasonnable standard all these articles": See argument one under Arguments in favor of using notability.

"Point 1 is pure speculation": No, it's not. At least, the argument that people leave Wikipedia when their articles are deleted isn't, it's quite easily verifiable. That getting people involved in Wikipedia is an actively bad thing (rather than being at least slightly good, or neutral at worst) I find hard to accept, although in principle it's arguable.

"categories clogged with useless junk": No articles will be clogged with useless junk. See argument two under Arguments in favor of using notability. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit that I don't really think the section Nn articles are beneficial is very convincing at all (sorry, Fresheeneesz). It makes too many kind of dubious points without supporting them. I phrased Arguments in favor of using notability as point-counterargument specifically because I feel there are inherent limitations to a quickie kind of list, and also note that in my original version I didn't include any of those list's points because they are, as JzG points out, begging the question: you're appealing to motives that your notability-friendly readers won't have, which is pointless. Supporters of notability don't care that "WP can do the same for nn topics as it does for notable topics", or that "Users can have further depth" in comic-book articles, or that "if a[ non-notable] article is written . . . people are bound to read it". Play to your audience, don't preach to the choir.

Neither would they agree that "wikipedia is a collection of information that is verifiable and NPOV", and I'm sorry, but I have to say that I find the discourse under "Non-notable articles will increase WP's size, making it harder to monitor for quality" both unnecessary (since the issue is already covered in the very first point of that section) and sort of rambling. I would suggest that those two subsections of "Arguments in favor of notability" be removed, the entire section "Nn articles are beneficial" be removed, and the subsection "Non-notable topics do not belong" (addressing, as it did, a specific criticism made on WP:NN) be restored. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm ecstatic there is much constructive criticism about this section. But instead of spending so much time talking about it, please go ahead and just edit it however you see fit (very little changes have been made so far). My main purpose when writing it was to shift the emphasis from arguing against notability to the more positive arguing for nn. I wanted more to get the ball rolling than to write a polished and consensual apologetic. So it's broken - fix it! However, if you remove a section entirely, may I suggest its better to cross it out just so people know what used to be there without searching the history. When the proposal is somewhat close to voting, then of course those sections should be removed entirely. --Ephilei 05:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't write the "Nn articles are beneficial" section, so don't be sorry to me : D . But I did look over it and either things were fine with me, or I weren't unsure enough about them to delete them. Definately fix it up - by all means. Fresheneesz 18:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Simetrical - thanks for finaling editing "benefits of nn"! But I think you went a little too far. Is it really the consensus opinion that the section is compeltely worthless? I re-inserted the section, but removed two sections that were highly criticized (with good reason) namely begging the question. --Ephilei 21:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, I don't know what consensus was, I was just being bold. Some of the section continues to beg the question: "The less frequent reading of nn articles is better than no reading at all." "Someone finds it worth reading." Point 6 is also not a good argument because of the fact that such pages can be easily locked against recreation. On review of the remainder, you're correct that it all makes reasonable points and should be included; I would either change the format of that section or the format of the next, though, and bring the names in sync. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree! The initial bullet points where just laziness - certainly not good form. I didn't know a page could be locked from being recreated, so I'll make that correction. --Ephilei 07:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

bad example

Comment - actually a poor example. Autosexuality is entirely notable; the critiscism of the article, amongst other things, is that it is unsourced OR. TerriersFan 17:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Notability is a good criteria

I'm against any policy that attempts to say notability is not a valid factor to consider. Sure, it is subjective, but so is NPOV and "good writing style". We make judgement calls all the time. Notability is just another judgement call we have to make. I call for rejection of this proposal. Johntex\^talk 01:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Well . . . perhaps you could make more specific objections to the actual content of the proposal? It doesn't consist solely of "notability is subjective". Actually, I'm not sure it makes that argument at all. What are your arguments in favor of notability? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

My mention of subjectivity was because of other comments here on this page.

My objection is very simple. The goal of this proposal (as I understand it) is to say that "Notability should not be used to argue for or against inclusion of information inside an article..." I object to that basic premise. The proposal can't be fixed without altering the basic premise of the proposal. There are no improvements I can offer to this proposal because it is going in entirely the wrong direction.

Consideration of notability is a good thing because it allows us to weed out information that is citable, yet unimportant. The reason we want to weed out these things is becuase they cause a dilution of the overall encyclopeida and lead to reader and editor fatigue. As it stands, we routinely consider notability in deciding whether to keep articles. Even though I don't always agree with the decision we reach, for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Airlines flight 1740, it is an important part of the process. We should not be considering a proposal that would eliminate notability as a factor in our decisions. Johntex\^talk 15:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that notability has more or less widespread usage. However, I disagree that this proposal would cause "editor and reader fatigue" - especially "reader fatigue" because absolutely no readers attempt to read the entire wikipedia. Neither do editors edit the entire wikipedia - people do what they can when they want to, on their own time. Fatigue simply won't happen excepteing the hyper-OCD editors.

As for subjectiveness, I would argue that NPOV is much much less subjective than notabilty. Like whether a maroon car is red or brown, most people can agree on that, but if an article is "important enough" is going to be a continued source of controversy and wasted debate until we learn to disregard such subjectivity in our AfDs. And "good writing style" is never used as sole grounds for deletion, and shouldn't be used as grounds for deltion at all - ie so fix it. Fresheneesz 19:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't asking for suggested improvements, I was asking for criticisms, i.e., why you oppose the proposal. The point of this page is to lead to discussion, thereby hopefully influencing community opinion. As far as I can see, your only objection is "becuase they cause a dilution of the overall encyclopeida and lead to reader and editor fatigue"? Well, for one, I don't see how an encyclopedia can be diluted. And second, I don't see how having pages that few people so much as look at would cause anyone fatigue. Could you elaborate? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I guess I prefer to offer solutions rather than objections. Since I fundamentally object to the proposal, the only solution I see is to not make this policy. But since you asked, here are five objections:

1. Reader fatigue: The more non-notable articles we have, the more of them will be encountered by the average reader. They will get there by following links in articles, by browsing categories, by clicking the "random article" button.
2. Editor fatique: Right now, we have a certain balance between people who tend to write new articles, and those that tend to copyedit those articles, wikify them, categorize them, etc. Allowing articles in on any given topic, no matter how minor, will tend to shift the balance so that there is not enough copyeditors to keep up. Average article quality will suffer.
3. Vandal-fighting fatigue: every single article here carries a risk that someone will vandalize it. The more articles there are in comparison to the number of vandal-watchers, the more likely this vandalism will go undetected and lower the overall quality of the project.
4. Perception: If we allow articles regardless of notability, it opens up a flood gate of articles on extremely minor topics. Anyone who appeared in a single newspaper story will now be verfiable and hence would be fair game for an article. This would hurt the public perception of the project as a serious encyclopedia.
5. System fatique: Although Wikipedia is not paper, it does have finite resources. Openning the floodgates to a morass of non-notable articles will stress the system undesirably. Johntex\^talk 20:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, tho a couple of those are not new arguments, and are actually addressed in the proposal. I suppose you didn't read my argument against number 1 and 2 of your fatigue arguments - it isn't people's job to read wikipedia, therefore no reader will read to exhaustion - people read basically for fun or for information, links included. Editors are similar, as i already stated. On average quality - Why not have 100 articles only, no more - and keep them tip top shape. That way average quality will be near-perfect. Is this desirable?

No. Rather, the goal is to have the greatest number of high-quality articles - quantity and quality combined, neither in excess. With 100 articles in tip top shape, don't you think most editors would simply leave wikipedia because their expertise isn't accepted?

Number 3, vandal-fighting fatigue is not imperative on rarely read articles, and someone already brought up the argument that more articles will NOT increase views of vandalism, unless of course it increases readership (a good thing).

Number 4, perception - Not just anyone mentioned in some random hick newspaper is verifiable. Verifiability has to do with whether its verifiable by wikipedians - NOT verifiable in theory. Maybe I'll dig up a second quote from Jimbo that I can emphasize this point with.

Number 5, system fatigue - Wikipedia does *not* have finite resources. It has the infinity of time to complete and grow. What possible stress could be put on wikipedia that would cause it to collapse - my theory is that nothing can do such a thing except physical attack (like destroying the servers and backups). Fresheneesz 06:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

1 - Reader fatique - as I use it here, has more to do with the reader hitting on several bad articles and having their experience diminished. It is not about them trying to read every article.

2 - Editor fatique - it is a sort of job to work on Wikipedia, in the sense that acting as an unpaid tour guide at a musuem is a job. You don't have to be paid in cash for it to be a job. There is a level of responsibility and a level of committment to doing the job well.

3 - Vandal-fighting-fatique - rarely read articles are the biggest problem with respect to undetected vandalism. Readership of the article is the surest way to detect vandalism. Allowins scores of articles with virtually zero readership is a recipe for undetected vandalism.

4 - Anyone who has ever been mentioned in a newspaper absolutely is verfiable, at least with respect to the incident mentioned in the newspaper. One could easily write a stub around that one incident.

5 - system fatique - you're kidding right? How many times have you gotten errors trying to make changes to a page? How many appeals for more funds have we seen? It is not important how many theoretical resources we may some day have. What is relevant is our resources at any one point in time, and at all points in time, compared to the load on our resources.

And please don't bother digging up a quote from Jimbo. He has said, "...I think that almost any argument, on any topic, which has premises beginning with "Jimbo said..." is a pretty weak argument. Surely the merits of the proposal should be primary, not what I happen to think". Let's reason this out on our own. Johntex\^talk 11:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Some thoughts because both John and Fresh have made some great points

1.)Reader Fatigue-IMO, this is the weakest contention point. Readers search for what they want to read and click on links of things from articles that interest them. "Random Article" fans already know it's a crap shoot with what they might get and maybe that's part of the appeal. Wikipedia's search engine is fairly apt (and can always be improved) so I don't think there is much worry to readers having to swim through nonsense to get at what they want to read.

2.)Editor Fatigue-While I don't think "fatigue" is the best way of describing this point, I think that John's contention of the balance between article writers & article editors being skewed is very valid. Rather then promoting fatigue (because as Fresh said people only work on what they want to and to the extent they want to), I think the off-balance will contribute to an overall diminishment in article quality. While I don't think we need to the go to the extreme that the "100 articles" line of thought ask for, what needs to be determined in this proposition is how much of a diminishment in article quality can Wikipedia stomach before it starts to diminish the overall usefulness of the project.

3.) Vandals- Vandalism is a form of attention getting. The articles that are most targeted are those that get the most views because it is the reaction that gets the vandal's off. Few vandals will see getting their kicks on articles that no one is reading.

4.) Perception-This is a big sticking point for me personally. I share with the visions of Wikipedians who want Wikipedia to be a resource for people seeking knowledge--for school work, for media articles, etc. The more that it is widely perceived that Wikipedia is a good source for people to turn to, the better. The key to supporting this proposal for me, is whether overall this change would improve Wikipedia's perception and usage in the world.

5.) System- High Traffic is more the cause of those error messages that John is referencing then in the number of pages that Wiki has. Of course one can make the assumption that more articles=more editors=more readers (and potentially more donations), which overall would essentially be a good thing. Agne27 02:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

As a corollary to the vandalism point, uncorrected vandalism results in the page not meeting Wikipedia policies of verifiability, NPOV, OR. This is in combination with the Editor Fatigue point: many of the new pages that would result from this proposal would end up not meeting those Wikipedia content policies and the result would be that someone spends time cleaning it up, an exorbitant task considering the number, or such articles get deleted in the same way that non-notable articles are deleted now, in which case the proposal would change nothing. It is not just attention-getting vandalism, it is adding unverifiable statements. —Centrx→talk • 05:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

On "diminishment in article quality" - Such a proposal will *not* diminish article quality. Average article quality based on some arbitrary measure of quality divided by number of articles (Q/N) will go down. However, Q/T (quality divided by topics) will go up, or remain the same. A non-existant article is the topic with the worst quality of them all. Fresheneesz 20:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

A non-existant article is the topic with the worst quality of them all.-That is a GREAT line. Agne27 01:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

3. At some point in the probably not-too-distant future, Rob Church's mw:Patroller extension will permit us to systematically verify that no edit to the encyclopedia is vandalism. Therefore, vandalism to unimportant pages will be caught quickly just as vandalism to important pages.
4. I'm very skeptical that anyone will think less of our "important" articles just from the fact that they're in the same encyclopedia as "unimportant" ones.
5. Please see Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance. None of us is in any position to judge whether notability policies can have nontrivial impact on server performance. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Biting the Newbies

It's a point that I don't think is given enough attention. A lot of new contributors start out with nn articles and sometimes the AfD debates can get a little testy, leaving newbies with a feeling of being bitten. Overall the rest of Wikipedia has to compensate in trying to maintain a welcoming community. Letting newbies cut their teeth with nn, encouraging clean up and stub prodding with proper tags, can potentially encourage their growth into better editors--versus scaring them in the get-go. Agne27 02:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a point I bring up in my notability essay. I think this point, with the subjectivity and redundancy arguments, are the three most important in any discussion about the utility of notability. Ziggurat 02:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent essay. Overall, with this project page and your essay, my fears about maintaining the quality of Wikipedia are not completely alleviated but I certainly see the value in lessening the weight of notability.Agne27 03:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Actually, I think the best way to remove notability would be to make it completely redundant. This is possible just by clarifying the existing policies, especially WP:V and WP:RS, and if it's done properly the quality of Wikipedia overall will be significantly enhanced (sources are essential!) rather than diminished. I've had a few thoughts on this subject wandering around for a couple of years now (damn, I feel Wiki-old), and some day I may try to clarify and strengthen WP:V and WP:RS along those lines. I prefer to prove that the term is unnecessary rather than argue it :) Ziggurat 03:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The usual counterargument, which I do not endorse, is "So what? They're only going to contribute to cruft anyway." Some hard evidence might be useful, if someone were willing to dig it up, but it might be hard to come by (since how are you going to know what anyone would have done in the future?). —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

A reply to that counterargument would point out that sentiment goes against Good Faith. Wikipedia is based on the assumption that every contributor brings with them value and worth in their contribution. Chasing away newbies because you don't think their contribution will be "up to snuff" is counterproductive to the Wikipedia spirit. It's much more beneficial to engage them and work with them in crafting quality articles rather then rushing to delete themAgne27 02:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm reminded of an RfA candidate or two (successful ones) who started out with cruft and copyvios. As for "If you let everyone write on something as long as they can provide good sources, cruft will take over Wikipedia and it will be useless", I see it as the same argument as that against Wikipedia in general: "If you let everyone edit, they'll just vandalise Wikipedia and it'll be useless." I agree with them both to the same degree (that is, not at all :) Ziggurat 02:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Remove the word 'notable' in all forms from wikipedia?

That's what this proposal looks like. It appears to be an attempt at removing all references of 'notability' or related terms from wikipedia. The article title is almost improper. This reads more like an essay on not using the term 'notability'. The 'arguements for' the term contain lengthy counter-arguements to Wikipedia:Notability, and hardly sounds like good policy or guideline. Sadly for this page, Wikipedia:Notability is written better than this. It would need a nice cleanup to touch upon being a policy or guideline. Kevin_b_er 10:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This proposal *is* attempting to reduce the use of notability in article criteria (I don't know what you mean by "remove all references"). What did you think it would be? And thanks for the less than constructive criticism of our work. Would you care to offer any suggested improvements. Fresheneesz 19:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I also wanted to note that this page is not the evil twin of WP:NN. It is an attempt at at pushing a guidline, rather than being an essay that simply discusses both sides of the argument - like WP:NN is. Fresheneesz 19:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Yet its written as an essay designed to counter Wikipedia:Notability. It takes points of that essay and counters them one by one Its like an essay itself, despite the fact that you want it to become a guideline or policy. Kevin_b_er 00:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

What about that makes it less able to be a guideline? The essay on notability brings up points as to why notability is good for use as criteria - obviously this page tries to refute those claims in order to argue that it not be used as criteria. Do you have any suggestions for improvement? Fresheneesz 08:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Good Form

It seems a lot of people are criticizing the form (style, structure, stratedgy) of this proposal. Eg, "reads more like an essay than a proposal." I agree with all those criticisms but I'm clueless to solves them. Does anyone know a good example of an accepted proposal whose form we could emulate? Excuse my ignorance, but what the heck is a proposal supposed to look like anyway? --Ephilei 07:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I would guess one thing this page does too much of is list points as to why there needs to be a guideline about this, rather than tell the guideline itself. But this proposal isn't complicated, it just suggests not using notabilty, and thn theres that nice section on how to fix articles. So I'm not sure how to cure this, other than shotening the arguments sections, or displaying more prominantly the actual guildeline part of the page. Fresheneesz 18:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking, maybe we could split off the argument portions to an actual essay page - therby making this page a short concise guideline, which of course would point to the essay as backup. I was thinking also that it would be a good idea to put the page at Essay:Non-notability, making it pretty clear that its an essay. Fresheneesz 18:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Fresh, I think that is a great idea. You could also try and steer "debate" about the topic towards the Essay's discussion page and keep this one as focus on the framework of the guideline as possible.Agne27 18:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. I'm looking for a little more support before I split up the page. Fresheneesz 21:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I love the idea. You have my support. --Ephilei 05:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I made the preliminary move of all the essay-like stuff. It looks pretty broken to me, does anyone see a way of making it look better? Fresheneesz 04:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

An admin has deleted, and then moved the essay portion a couple times now. Apparently he doesn't like the idea that its in the "essay" namespace. I find it aggrivating that he isn't discussing a delete or move which is obviously contested. I think the Essay:Non-notability was a good place to put it, but now its at User:Fresheneesz/Non-notability. Its not *my* essay! Why is it there? Fresheneesz 23:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop moaning - you are totally at liberty to move it to anywhere in the Wikipedia: namespace. -- RHaworth 00:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Fiiine. What about Wikipedia:Essay: Non-notability and WP:E:NNOT, tho thats ugly. rrr. Oh well. I think for now I'll just move it to Wikipedia:Non-notability/Essay. Fresheneesz 17:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

There's no such thing as an "essay namespace". Essays about Wikipedia go in the Wikipedia namespace. Subpages are appropriate here. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

recurring articles

This part was deleted:

"They may be reoccurring pages that, once deleted, reappear because editors repeatedly think an article should be written about the certain subject."

I think its a valid arguement since it touches on the wasted effort that goes into deleting recurring pages. I'd like to know the reason for this passage's removal. Fresheneesz 08:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Per my discussion with Ephilei above. Pages can be locked against recreation, and routinely are. Look at Category:Protected deleted pages: a couple thousand deleted pages are currently protected with a notice that they shouldn't be recreated. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thats true, but it doesn't refute the fact that there are recurring pages that aren't and shouldn't be locked. Fresheneesz 21:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

A good example of this is MindTree, which was actually deleted several times and recreated with several alternate names after it was protected (1, 2, 3). It was deleted on terms of advertising (which it was) and recreation of deleted material (again, a good reason), but the original deletion was based on notability. The article was eventually expanded, sourced, and kept (4), and if someone had told the authors that they could just provide said sources and end the recreation battle it may have happened sooner. Ziggurat 22:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You raise some reasonable points. I would merge them into a general argument about effort, if you're going to include such an argument at all. (I don't think it's a particularly strong one, unless you can demonstrate a really overwhelming amount of effort spent: the answer is just "it's worth it", which is kind of impossible to refute. Keeping arguments few and strong is an important aspect of good rhetoric.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Definitely agreed, it's not a very strong point. Ziggurat 20:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The majority of repeatedly created pages are vanity or spam, deleted by WP:AFD, often by strong consensus. In my view the new page screen should highlight if there was a previously deleted version and why it was deleted. I'm more likely than some to userfyvanity autobiographies, there are some editors who ignore all hints and persist despite use of {{nn-userfy}} or equivalent text. It is very hard to come up with a rule for re-created content which is not ridiculously overcomplicated; best in the end to leave it to common sense. Just zis Guy you know? 08:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Disparity between the "nutshell" summary and the proposal body

I find myself dissagreeing with the summary, but agreeing with the body. In particular I dissagree with:

"Notability should not be used to argue for or against inclusion of information inside an article"

Instead I think the summary should read:

"Notability should not be used to argue for or against inclusion of information on Wikipedia – instead, official guidelines and policy relating to NPOV, NOR, and Verifiability should be used. However, it is valid to use it as a guide to the placement of that information."

I really do not mind if there are a million articles about schools, pets and teenage rock-bands that will never get a gig. But if "The Death-Thrash-Monkey-Killerz" want to appear on the Heavy Metal page, they better well have sold a few hundred thousand CDs. Perhaps this is covered by WP:NPOV#Undue weight but if this is the case, as the "nutshell" currently stands, it is directly contradicting WP:NPOV#Undue weight. On my understanding of WP:NPOV#Undue weight I actually don't think this is necessarily covered by it. For example if the Heavy Metal page contained a list of "sample Heavy Metal bands" then the only claim that is being made of the bands is that they play Heavy Metal, a claim that says nothing about how important a band they are. (Of course if the list was of "major Heavy Metal bands", then WP:NPOV#Undue weight would apply.) WP:NPOV#Undue weight is designed for areas where there is uncertainty, e.g. in a Unified Field Theory article, there should be a larger mention of String theory, and a smaller mention of Loop Quantum Gravity, because both are considered possibilities, but one is considered more likely than the other. There is no uncertainty about whether "The Death-Thrash-Monkey-Killerz" are indeed a Heavy Metal band.

Within an article you want only the notable facts about that subject. I don't mind the non-notable facts being on WP, but I really don't want them getting in the way of the notable ones. --cfp 21:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I'm in complete agreement with all of that, especially the suggested nutshell rewrite. Anyone disagree? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you're head is in the right place, but I don't think the nutshell part contradicts undue weight - in fact since that is official guideline, the nutshell line was meant to include it with "official guidelines and policy relating to NPOV, NOR, and Verifiability". Perhaps that needs to be more clear. I think your proposed addition is a good idea, i agree with that. Fresheneesz 01:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

So does anyone mind if I make the change described above then? --cfp 17:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope, be bold. Fresheneesz 21:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the wording is not yet right. Not only should articles be encyclopaedic but the content should be encyclopaedic. If a surgeon has a page, the information should be on his education, professional activities, papers he has written etc not a list of his cats and cars over the years, his views on garage music (permissable under these proposed guidelines if sourced since quotes do not contravene WP policies) or pictures of his annual summer holidays (all these things I have seen in articles!). TerriersFan 04:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

My rephrasal was designed to answer this very problem. The idea being that the surgeon's views on garage music would be moved off the surgeon's main page in accordance with: "However, it is valid to use it as a guide to the placement of that information." I'm going to make the change on the main page, but if you have a clearer still rephrase of it, feel free to make it. --cfp 16:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Minor issues are not encyclopedic

This section is referenced under the section Non-encyclopedic but is nowhere to be seen now. What should it refer to now? --Pkchan 13:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. 198.129.219.77 22:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Notability is a necessary concept

At peak times up to 8 articles a minute are created so we are not short of articles. In the last four days 11,000 articles have been created; a rate of one million a year.

Already we are having to 'stub' or 'tag' numerous articles that fall short of quality standards in the vain hope that they will be improved. Already editors cannot keep up with the flood of pages needing attention. If we open this tap further, the effect will be that we shall lose complete control of quality, if we haven't already.

Further, the wider we open the net the fewer people will be interested enough in the subjects and the fewer editors there will be to develop and maintain them.

The effect of the concept of minor subjects not being encyclopaedic is that it simply moves the argument from notability to whether something is minor - in some cases a distinction without a difference.

However, what will change is that every schoolboy will be able to write an article on themselves and their mates (people are verifiable and not minor), every tiny company will be able to get a page (companies are verifiable and not minor), every saleable product can get a page, every street can get a page etc.

If Wikipedia becomes a receptacle for the trivial then there is a danger that its reputation for being a serious encyclopaedia will collapse. In turn this would send away the good editors.

Abandon notability at your peril! TerriersFan 01:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Amen. Dbinder (talk) 04:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"However, what will change is that every schoolboy will be able to write an article on themselves and their mates (people are verifiable and not minor), every tiny company will be able to get a page (companies are verifiable and not minor), every saleable product can get a page, every street can get a page etc." This argument comes up a lot, and is based on a common misconception about what verifiability and reliable sources actually are. Can I suggest that you re-read WP:V and WP:RS to establish why this is not actually the case? Ziggurat 04:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I have read them and see no reason why my next-door neighbour's kid would not get an article - He can be verified from the Registry of Births, several mentions in his local paper, on his school's website, on his own website, in the parish magazine etc. And he has not done anything more than any other kid. Once the concept of notability goes, then provided someone is verifiable and sourced they are in - there will be no requirement that they have done anything interesting or important because that is what notability means! TerriersFan 04:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Of those sources, none save the Registry and the local paper even comes close to being a reliable source; the registry contains nothing but the fact of the birth, and is therefore irrelevant, and the local paper on its own isn't enough to satisfy "multiple third-party sources". Ziggurat 05:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice theoretical argument but in practice it won't wash. At the moment most articles that are created have inadequate sourcing. Therefore they are simply tagged. Indeed, if we insisted on multi-sourcing half the encyclopaedia would disappear. Are you proposing that once notability goes that articles without "multiple third-party sources" are deleted? Of course not; they will be tagged as now. The only difference being that trivial pages will survive. TerriersFan 15:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no, if they're likely to have multiple third-party sources they get tagged. When it's clear that there aren't any (a Google / Gnews / Gbook search can establish that very quickly) they get nominated at AfD, just like now, and this is either established for certain or sources are discovered. It's really not different from the mechanism we have now, except that requiring sources is a much less subjective and contentious way to approach it. An article without sources is heresay, and really quite useless in the long run for any encyclopedia. What I always ask when having this conversation is whether someone can point me to an article that would be kept, except for the reasoning of notability. I've yet to see one falling under this criterion that actually deserves to be deleted, and this makes the concept of notability quite simply redundant. Even something as seemingly non-notable as a small-town railway station can be done well, and that's what we should be aiming for. Ziggurat 21:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You've hit the nail right on the head: good articles with compelling prose is what we are aiming for, because the subject of an article is moot when even notable subjects can be poorly written. However, Ziggurat, one must be careful about using argumentum ad google, I think they have said repeatedly that the entire internet isn't indexed yet. For example, thumb fingernail may not be notable compared to fingernail, but if (say) enough is written about that particular fingernail in the parent article, it deserves its own article according to the way things are now. Also, while there are only 877 hits for the phrase "thumb fingernail", there are 13 billion of them on the planet. It can be demonstrated that Google is not God.^{[1][2][3][4][5]} --DavidHOzAu 04:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

repetitive issue - small town news and vanity pages

People keep saying things to the effect of "I don't agree with this proposal because I don't understand verifiability". People seem to think that an article is verifiable if information about its topic is posted on a lamppost in Schenectady. Is there something we can do about this ? Fresheneesz 22:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Get a stock reply and put it into a user subpage so you can cut and paste it where necessary. "Zis verifiability, eet does not mean what you theenk eet means..." Ziggurat 03:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I've made up this stock reply and already sent it to someone (you can probably guess who):

Hi, the issue of allowing articles small, locally verifiable information - such as an article on yourself - has come up again and again. The basic answer is that if you have sources that aren't "easily verifiable to wikipedians" (ie most likely via multipe reliable internet sources), then your topic or information isn't valid on wikipedia. You can't have an article on yourself anymore than you can have an article on anything thats just been covered in your local newspaper. Its simply not verifiable - especially by multiple sources. The non-notability proposal is *not* about overriding the main pillars or other policy. It is simply an extension, and defines the use of notability as irrelevant *because* other policy like NPOV, V, and NOR already cover the playing field in a much more objective way. I hope that helps you understand our policy better. Thanks. ~~~~

If anyone wants to use it or modify it, go right ahead. Fresheneesz 14:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with requiring sources to be "easily verifiable to wikipedians", and I can see no mention of this requirement on WP:V. Obscure academic journals are not easily verifiable to most wikipedians (unless you happen to be at a top university somewhere, or within reach of a major national library). Even non-obscure academic journals are fairly hard to get access to, as most local libraries will not carry them. Academic books are similar. Yet these should account for the bulk of all WP references. I think we have to accept that our doctor friend's hypothetical article (for example) is verifiable. I don't think this needs to be a problem though (see my comments below). --cfp 21:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Stock reply- Quantity vs Quality issue

Another repetitive issue is the argument formula More articles = less editors who care about subject = poorer quality level. Even though this issue has been answered time and again in the proposal and this talk page, it still persist because of the staying power of the above formula. We need something to counter that-something that is concise and catchy.Agne 16:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

My personal thought is that this problem is entirely independent of the notability issue. Even if nothing changes, we can expect the rate at which articles are created and edited to carry on growing exponentially (for a while at least), thus whatever happens WP needs systems in place both to help editors narrow down the range of pages they are monitoring (see assorted suggestions about searching on the intersection of categories/tags on meta) and systems to mark pages as differing in quality (something to be partially addressed by the new verified page version system coming in, and partly by new tagging systems developed to aid taking snap shots of the good bits of WP). --cfp 16:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

How about Likelihood of new article ∝ Number of wikipedians. (people/article is roughly constant.) Actually, we don't have to worry about poor article quality, especially when it is possible for one person to write well-referenced prose for their thesis. It is therefore obvious that the ability to write compelling prose does not depend on the number of people looking at it. (Yes, the extra eyes help, but it isn't necessary when even just one person has adopted an article with goal of making it featured. Heck, I even know of an article that an anon has adopted.) Besides, if one creates an article, one is proud of his/her work and will check back to make sure it isn't vandalised. The nature of wiki means that the average article quality will not fall below a certain level. More articles = poorer quality level is rather poor logic given the circumstances. --DavidHOzAu 13:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

stagnant

The development of this guideline seems to have stopped, is this a good time to call for a discussion on making it a real guideline? Fresheneesz 02:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I support the ideas in the guideline, but before we call for its adoption, I'd like to suggest a bit more work to improve the quality of expression. I've done some cleanup, but the proposal is still some way from being clear and concise. -- JimR 07:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Nutshell statement

"However, it is valid to use notability as a guide to the placement of information"

What exactly does this mean? It is not clear enough to be in a nutshell statement on its own and the essay does not expand on it. Ansell 04:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Originally it read: "Notability should not be used to argue for or against the inclusion of information on Wikipedia – instead, official guidelines and policy relating to NPOV, NOR, and Verifiability should be used. However, it is valid to use it as a guide to the placement of that information." Note the "that" not present in the version you removed. (See discussion above and revision as of 27th July of main page.) Someone edited it. Personally I think their edited version is less clear, but as I wrote the original version I was working under the assumption that my view on the matter was somewhat biased, so I wasn't going to change it back. If you agree with me, feel free to change it back. --cfp 11:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps that wasn't what you thought was unclear though. Basically what I/we meant was that if you have an article on stand up comedy, for example, it's valid to use notability to determine which stand up comics you mention on that page. But if your (hypothetical) neighbour Alice thinks she's a comedian and does stand up in her garage then there's nothing stopping her having her own page. --cfp 11:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I would not see the issue with the neighbour as a "Notability" issue at all for Wikipedia purposes. If there are enough people who comment on her in places that could be accessed by a Wikipedian for verification purposes, then I would see her article as being viable. By confusing the issue with the non-consensus notability definition that seems to be worked with by people attempting to write these guidelines I think that they forget the official policies and that anything which fits the five "pillars" can and will be included. Ansell 23:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The point is not whether her article is viable, it's whether she should be mentioned/linked on the main stand up comedy page. I.e. we use notability to determine where the information is, not whether it's there at all. Maybe I didn't understand you though. Could you explain what needs clarifying a bit? --cfp 23:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I edited the sentence from the original form "However, it is valid to use it as a guide to the placement of that information." because I thought the two "it"s in "it is valid to use it" were confusing. My understanding of the sentence Ansell removed from the nutshell statement is that it was intended to mean:

However, it is valid to use notability as a criterion for determining which among several articles should include the information under consideration.

Would that formulation be acceptable to everyone? Note that this is discussed in the essay, at WP:NNOT#Merging. -- JimR 07:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's definitely clearer than my original or what we have now IMHO. --cfp 21:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

If non-notability is not an issue, why couldn't I be in wikipedia?

I'm Finnish M.D. born in 1967. My name is in Finnish book, which lists all Finnish doctors. Book also tells my hobbies, my wifes name and my childrens names.[1]. Book can be found in finnish libraries. My CV can also be found in Finnisn internet consultation site [2] Could I write an article about my self? I have done absolutely nothing important in ensyclopedic sense.--Teveten 16:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Our whole point is that we think you should be able to (or at least someone else should be able to write an article about you as WP generally disproves of people writing their own page). It sounds like there is plenty of verifiable information about you and that is generally the chief challenge when writing pages about non-encyclopediac topics. The fundamental point is that it's rather hard to draw the line between encyclopediac topics and unencyclopediac ones, and that topics that currently seem to fall into the latter category may soon fall into the former. Given there's no cost to having unencyclopediac topics on WP, and there's a considerable cost to not having them (just look at WP votes for deletion and the train of new users who get utterly disheartened with WP after their page is listed there), there's no real reason to disallow unencyclopediac topics as long as they meet WP:V, WP:NPOV etc. --cfp 23:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced by the sources provided here; I doubt pressi.com would pass muster as a reliable source, as it "publishes and relays by email press releases, images, voice files and video by companies and other organisations in original form" (that is, there's no editorial oversight). The same goes for the consultation website. Ziggurat 00:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That link to to pressi.com was just to show to you that this book exist. As i wrote, that book about finnish doctors can be found in every finnish library, so it can be verified by any finnish en.wiki user. Problem is, that i don't think any one is interested about me in wikipedia. That means, that no one will ever check those sources to see, wheter information is correct (e.g do I really have 3 children; Linnea, Severi and Aada). That means e.g. that it's very easy to write hoaxes or that i could easily egaggerate my achievements.--Teveten 05:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The key concept here is verifiability. If you cited those sources any information you wrote allegedly based on them would be in theory verifiable, which is all that is really needed. Think how you personally use WP. If you having a minor, passing interest in a topic, you will look at its WP page and broadly trust what is written there, despite the fact that the page could have just been subtely vandalized (facts changed slightly). However if you actually care about a topic (you are researching it say) they I presume you will broadly distrust everything written here. Maybe you will check the page history to see how long it's been in its current state. I presume you would also follow any references given in the article to get more reliable information. I truly pray you would never make a medical diagnosis based on anything you read here. WP works best as a spring board. For non-critical information where you don't need a great deal of depth you may trust it, but for more important information you would be crazy not to follow up the given references to see if they genuinely do support WP's claims. WP is not intended to be a primary souce. No one above high school age would cite Encylopedia Brittanica let alone WP. This doesn't mean WP isn't useful, just that a sensible attitude to its reliability needs to be taken. Providing a page is verifiable (i.e. its cites sources) the interested reader can find out if it's rubbish or not. This is as true for pages about Finnish M.D.'s as it is for pages about the human heart. --cfp 13:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Five pillars states: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is not a collection of source documents or trivia....". I believe information about me in wikipedia would be trivia. I don't understand why we should turn wikipedia into trivipedia.--Teveten 14:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You, very modestly, believe information about you is trivia. However trivia in your five pillars quote is used with a different sense entirely. I have assorted books of "trivia" on my bookshelves. They do not contain "trivial" facts, rather they contain many quite important facts that WP also contains (heights of mountains, lengths of rivers etc.) The issue here is one of presentation. WP is not just a list of facts, it gives them context, explains the necessary background knowledge etc. So on this vein your page would, I hope, include links to your surgery's WP page, discussions of your specialties and your educational background. As it wouldn't have been you that created your page in the first page (due to the no self-promotion rules), the only factual information that would be added about you is information that at least one other person (whoever added it) found interesting. So it probably wouldn't include your height and shoe size. --cfp 17:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

In short, you do not put up a case for fulfilling the neutrality policy. Your sources are not outside commentaries. Also, the indiscriminate collection of information is an interpretable statement that does not fit with the notability concept. The examples on the Wikipedia is not page refer to specific subcategories of knowledge that fit in other places, it does not prescribe what level of interest must be put into an article before it is acceptable human knowledge.

Also, putting this argument up here as a straw man to endorse your point does not really convince me that the point is valid. Double negatives... or triple negatives are a well known way of pulling off inconsistent philsophical arguments. Ansell 23:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

We should vote now

Few months ago we had failed Proposal for defining "notability" in Wikipedia context. It was rejected because it did not get 75 percent support. Same voting procedure should be used now.--Teveten 15:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree there is still a lot of work that has to be done to this proposal if we want it to have even the tiniest chance of passing. Do not underestimate the amount of opposition this proposal will have. --cfp 23:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

My point is, that i dont think this proposal will (or should) ever pass. Therefore, this conversation is futile. We should vote to get this thing closed.--Teveten 05:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

OK well may I suggest you go and work on a proposal you think could and should pass. Meanwhile us who believe this proposal could and should pass will continue to work on it. You are not being personally inconvenienced by this discussion taking a long time so I fail to see any non-malicious reason as to why you would want it closed already. --cfp 12:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Why are you proposing something in order to get it falsified by consensus? That has never been the wiki-way. You cannot nullify this concept by getting a vote to close, this is an ongoing process. Ansell 23:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it that time of year again?

This discussion happens quite frequently (once or twice a year), but with different participants each time as people come and go from Wikipedia. It's worth noting that nowadays, with Wikipedia the size that it is, you're highly unlikely to gain consensus on something so controversial.

FWIW, I prefer Jimbo's definition - essentially, if it's verifiable it can go in, if not it's out. That kinda short-circuits the whole "notability" thing quite neatly. Dan100 (Talk) 08:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well that is broadly what we are arguing for.--cfp 10:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, this would-be policy is meant to make that short-circuit standard - instead of optional. Fresheneesz 06:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as stated in the section above, there are people who want to short-circuit the short-circuit and kill this proposal even though it is based heavily on what Jimbo has said. (Come to think of it, I'm sure that ignoring Jimbo is subverting m:Foundation issues and m:Power structure at some point.) As far as I am concerned, this is already policy. --DavidHOzAu 23:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Archive

Should I archive any content on this page - its gotten kinda long, and lots of it isn't active discussion. Fresheneesz 18:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. --DavidHOzAu 07:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

A fundamental problem

The foundation of this proposal claims that notability issues can be better dealt with through existing policy and guidelines. The problem with that statement is that existing policy and guidelines already deal with notability, and have done so for a long time. Off the top of my head I can name at least three policies, and at least seven guideline pages, all consensually accepted, that deal with notability and, in various degrees of explicity, call for or allow for deletion of articles on non-notable subjects. Guidelines should be descriptive rather than prescriptive, and as such I'm afraid this proposal is not really workable >Radiant< 21:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do name those policies and guidelines. Fresheneesz 21:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Here you go: WP:NOT WP:CSD WP:DVAIN, and pretty much everything in Category:Wikipedia notability criteria. >Radiant< 15:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing I found relating to notability on WP:CSD, in fact it specificaly says that notability is *not* criteria for speedy deletion. However it does require assertion of importance. While importance and notability may be synonyms under certain circumstances, they mean different things and have different connotations. This is one reason for this proposed guideline - the word "notability" is vauge and ambiguous, and impedes discussions on wikipedia.

WP:NOT mentions notability a couple times, but only requires "notability" for current events. WP:DVAIN refers to "importance" and "significance", but also mentions that the wording was not found to be satisfactory to wikipedians. Category:Wikipedia notability criteria contains 1 policy, and 3 guidelines. All of those refer to vanity articles about people.

Are there any other significant contradictions to this proposal? I agree that there are a few stumbling blocks, however those problems are nowhere near "a fundamental problem". Fresheneesz 18:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• If you think "notability" means something different from "importance" or "significance", please explain so in a clear and non-ambiguous way. The word 'notability' is not at all vague and ambiguous. It is, however, subjective, which is why we try to form consensual guidelines on the matter (and have done so in the past). There are certainly more than three of those; it appears you forgot to count WP:CORP and WP:FICT, neither of which is about vanity articles about people. Your proposal seeks to strike out all that consensual work of the past couple of years, and that is why it will fail. >Radiant< 18:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Rejected

Okay, I should have read the entire talk page archive before commenting. There are many objections to this proposal on its very talk page, and there is still the fact that it contradicts several well-established policies and guidelines. To amend (or revoke) policy, try discussing it on the policy's talk page, not here. Simply put, until you somehow manage to repeal WP:NOT, this proposal will not fly. Since this proposal obviously does not have consensual support, I have marked it as {{rejected}} (see WP:POL for details). This does not mean discussion must stop, but simply that this proposal as written, or any close variation thereof, won't work. >Radiant< 10:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry Radiant, but marking this as rejected is utterly uncalled for. We have not even finished the proposal yet! When it is in a presentable state we will gather community input, and then (and only then) may the proposal be rejected. To reject our proposal on the basis that it contradicts WP:NOT is utterly perverse. The whole point of our proposal is that no separate notability policy is needed other than what is contained in official policies. Furthermore, WP:NOT contains plenty that supports our cause and nothing that contradicts it:

• "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia" is the first thing on the page and is a strong argument for our proposal!
• I cannot see how any of the follow contradict our proposal:
  • "Wikipedia is not a dictionary"
  • "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought"
  • "Wikipedia is not a soapbox"
  • "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files"
  • "Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, webspace provider or social networking site"
  • "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball"
  • "Wikipedia is not censored"
• This leaves "Wikipedia is not a directory" and "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", which I will discuss more fully:
  • "Wikipedia is not a directory":
    • "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics" - This is a style guide rather than a notability one. It is also frequently ignored in my experience.
    • "Genealogical entries or phonebook entries." - Partly this is a style guideline, i.e. don't create pages without any real information on the topic, and don't give out needless personal information. The text of this subsection does go rather further than its title: "Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. One measure of publicity is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line).", which I presume is one of the chief things you think our proposal is in direct contradiction with. This view would be incorrect though. Firstly note the wording, "some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety". This is very uncommital. It does not preclude fame in a local neighbourhood for example. Broadly this is consistent with the idea I mentioned above (somewhere) that if someone else cares enough to write a verifiable page about another person, then they must have some degree of fame. The measure of publicity requires an equally low-level of fame. If a topic wasn't mentioned in "several external sources (on or off-line)" it wouldn't even be verifiable!
    • "Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guides, or a resource for conducting business." - Again this is a style guide.
  • "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information":
    • "Lists of Frequently Asked Questions." - This is a sensible style guideline. It has no bearing on notability.
    • "Travel guides." - Again this is a style, not a notability issue. (And there is a place for such material on WMF sister projects.)
    • "Memorials." - Principally a style guidline again, though the text of this subsection does go a bit further: "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered.". However clearly "fame" here is meant in the same very low-level sense defined in more detail in "Genealogical entries or phonebook entries."
    • "Instruction manuals." - Again a style guideline and a suggestion that such content should be moved to WMF sister projects.
    • "Internet guides." - Style guideline again. (Basically a specific statement of the neutrality requirement.)
    • "Textbooks and annotated texts." - Move to a sister project.
    • "Plot summaries." - It states "A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger article." which means plot summaries are really just book stubs. Certainly not a notability issue.

Please continue to find aspects of existing policy that you believe our proposal contradicts, as I'm sure it will help us to tighten and refine our proposal. In future though I would appreciate it if you could be more specific about which aspects of existing policies you believe to be problematic for us, and describe precisely why you believe that aspect contradicts our proposal. Thanks, --cfp 14:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• That's a good start, but I should mention that this proposal also contravenes WP:CSD, WP:DEL (which explicitly allows for deletion on grounds of non-notability), WP:DVAIN, and general precedent. Also, you omit the fact that {{IncGuide}} pressently lists no less than ten consensual guidelines related to notability. This proposal as written would invalidate all of those.>Radiant< 15:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• WP:CSD: I quote: "Non-notable subjects with their importance asserted: Articles that have obviously non-notable subjects are still not eligible for speedy deletion unless the article "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject". If the article gives a claim that might be construed by anyone as making the subject notable, even if this claim seems ridiculous, it should be taken to a wider forum. However, articles with only a statement like "This guy was like so friggin' notable!" can be deleted per CSD A1 because it gives no context about the subject." So any article that make even the slightest claim to notability can not be speedy deleted. Going to the trouble of actually making an article (unless it is obviously a joke, in which case it can be deleted for other reasons) is itself clearly a claim of notability, so it seems to be things can never rightly be speedy deleted on notability grounds. --cfp 17:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• WP:DEL: I can find no mention of notability on this page. Please give a specific quote. --cfp 18:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• WP:DVAIN: I could not agree more that people should be strongly discouraged from writing their own pages, and I suppose I would even grudgingly support speedy deletions of articles about their creator, where this can be irrefutably established. This is because, as mentioned previously, there being someone unrelated to you who is prepared to write about you is an effective guarantee of a minimum (but acceptable) level of notability. --cfp 18:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Regarding "WP:NOT a directory", please read User:Uncle_G/On_notability.>Radiant< 15:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Uh huh. It's not official policy, so it's not really relevant to the issue at hand. Notability really isn't mentioned very often in official policy. --cfp 17:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• The line "Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame" does indeed mean that a threshold of notability exists, and any person who falls below that bar does not get an article in Wikipedia. We have frequent discussions on the height of this threshold, but this proposal alleges that there is no threshold.>Radiant< 15:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The reason it is OK to act as if there is no threshhold, is the following. If I go to the trouble of writing an article and it's not a vanity article, and it's verifiable etc. then the subject has "some sort of fame" - people care about it (if it's not a vanity article it's almost impossible that I'm the only person), and if it's verifiable it will have "been featured in several external sources (on or off-line)". --cfp 17:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• You think of most of WP:NOT as style guides; however, they are not. If an article is a phonebook entry, the point is not that it should be rewritten in a different style. The point is that we routinely delete such articles unless they explicitly state what's so special about their subject.>Radiant< 15:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

See reply to Centrx below. --cfp 17:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• HTH! >Radiant< 15:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Naming all these items as styleguides makes no sense whatsoever. —Centrx→talk • 16:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I should be more clear. What I mean by a style guide in these contexts is the categories of information it is acceptable to put in WP. This is independent from notability. It is as wrong to put in George Bush's phone number as it is to put in my next-door neighbour's. Nonetheless I would argue against blanket deletion of phone book entries. OK if someone adds 100s of phone book entries at the same time then they are problably a bot programmed by someone messing around, and they should all be deleted. But if a single phone book entry is added, the phone number should be deleted, the article should be marked as a stub, and the pages creator should be encouraged to write something else about the individual. If it turns out to be a vanity page, obviously it goes, but if it doesn't, and the user manages to write something verifiable, then that by itself probably means the topic is sufficiently famous to meet the very low standards specified in "Wikipedia is not a directory". --cfp 17:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

They are free to write about the person, but that writing would replace the phone number; the fact remains that the phone number listing does not belong in Wikipedia and is removed. That is not a point of style. —Centrx→talk • 17:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

OK so call it "categories of information it is acceptable to put in WP" instead of style if you want. My points still stand. (I was using style as shorthand for "encyclopediac style" I guess, in retrospect it probably wasn't the best word. I hope we can agree that the points I had described as "style" have nothing to do with notability at least.--cfp 18:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Information that is not acceptable to put in Wikipedia is deleted. That is policy and that is what is done. —Centrx→talk • 18:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• (deindent) That is exactly the point. We have "categories of information it is acceptable to put in WP". That implies we also have categories of information that are not acceptable for WP. We call the latter non-encyclopedic, or non-notable, or a variety of other terms. But we do not want articles on them. >Radiant< 18:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Nope. There is a difference between deleting specific categories of information that are pre-agreed in official guidelines (e.g. phone numbers) and deleting whole topics. If a page has a phone number, remove it (no matter how notable the page the phone number is on). WP:NOT describes a few other such broad categories of information that WP should not contain. This is nothing to do with the notability of the underlying topic. If a page only contains information in these broad categories, then its editors should be encouraged to improve it, and if they don't then at that point even I would grudgingly allow the page to be deleted (or better, emptied). But this route to deletion is a long way away from the current one which goes roughly "the topic isn't notable", "OK lets delete it!". Nowhere in WP:NOT is notability mentioned. I have nothing against information (not whole pages!) being deleted if it goes against anything in WP:NOT, but this still does not allow notability to ever enter the deletion argument, as I argued extensively above. --cfp 19:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Deletion is not about what you grudgingly allow, it's about what consensus thinks. And consensus does not agree with you here. Also, you misunderstand WP:NOT if you believe that notability is different from the "some claim to fame" mentioned there. >Radiant< 01:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Before i'm finished reading this bit here, could you please refrain from interrupting peoples posts. I find it very difficult to read if one segment is left unsigned because someone interjected with a comment. Thanks! Fresheneesz 20:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok i'm done reading, but very confused. This section grew very fast and is difficult to follow. Could you three enumerate and summarize your points (short summary)?

I find it interesting that radiant brings up the same points i refuted above. He is only left with WP:NOT. Also, I was told that "style guides" are actually guidelines - so arguing as to whether to call something a style guide or a guideline is moot - if what i've been told is true, of course. Fresheneesz 20:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• You didn't refute anything, you just failed to understand it. Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random information, and biography articles are only for people with some claim to fame. Very easy. Basically, you are interpreting policies the way you would like people to act, whereas on Wikipedia policies are based on how people do act. Arguing semantics won't get you anywhere. >Radiant< 01:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I have added sigs to each comment to make it clearer who said what. Sorry for breaking up peoples posts originally. --cfp 21:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Cfp. Radient, you're getting impatient. I understood very well. However, I disagree with you. That is a difference that shouldn't be confused. Guidelines and policy are *not* simply how people act, they are how all people should act in the future. They are not simply for historical reference.

Also, you communicate very well to me that you don't understand this proposal in your quote "Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random information". Fresheneesz 05:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Guidelines are not simply how people act, but a succesful guideline is based upon how people act. This proposal is based on the opposite of how people act. Do you seriously expect our thousands of editors to invert the way they act because you say so? In a bureaucratic structure, you might be able to make them do just that - but it is well-established that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and hence you cannot enforce rules 'from the top'.
• You two have every right to your opinion. However, the fact is obvious that consensus has a very different opinion. That means that this proposal runs counter to consensus, which is why it is {{rejected}} (and your removal of the template doesn't change that fact). Per WP:POL: a rejected proposal is any proposal that has no consensual support, regardless of whether there's active discussion. I appreciate the good intentions of you two, but I can only say that your efforts here are misguided. >Radiant< 10:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This has support. What do you think all these editors are doing here? This proposal *is* in fact based on how many people act. I started this proposal because a fellow editor came to me suggesting it. You are direly wrong if you think that people do not already follow this proposal.

Radiant, you are pushing a barrow doing everything in your power to deter this proposal and perpetuate your pet project WP:NOT - whose space you stole from the notabilty essay. I find your actions to be bad-faith, and I hope you would reconsider them. Fresheneesz 21:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• WP:NOT is not my pet project, it's official policy. If you would just read through the recent logs you would see that this page definitely does not describe how people act. It describes how you and a few others would like them to act. >Radiant< 21:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Very bad mess up on my part. I appologize. I meant WP:NN (i think "NOT" when i think notability). However, I disagree wholeheartedly that people don't act the way this policy describes. Many people simply don't use notability, and use actual policy instead. Its easier to see those people that cry "not notable" than it is to see all the people that don't - those are the people that are arguing with official policy. Fresheneesz 21:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Misconceptions

I just read the above discussion I have identified the following problems:

• Misconception that this proposal attempts to remove all notability guidelines from Wikipedia.
• Misconception that this proposal will allow unverifiable information. (See #Is it that time of year again?)
• Misconception that there has ever been consensus on "Notability" as a guideline; WP:N is just a proposal at the moment, is it not?
• Misconception that there is already consensus on this proposal. (There have been attempts to push this proposal to an early vote only for the purpose of falsification... yet why would a vote be needed if there is already clear-cut consensus on notability as Radiant has been claiming? Because no consensus exists.)
• Misconception that {{rejected}} applies to a proposal where no specific attempt to determine consensus about the proposal has been undertaken.

This is what I can see from an objective viewpoint of a neutral observer. Interpret them as you will. --DavidHOzAu 12:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• 1. This proposal starts with the words that there would be no need for notability criteria. Yet such criteria presently exists. That is a contradiction.
  2. I'm not sure where that came from but that's not what I read in that paragraph.
  3. Incorrect.
  4. Incorrect, since we do not vote on proposals.
  5. I assume that by "specific" attempt you mean a vote? Again, we do not vote on proposals. I have explained this perfectly well in the previous section.
• So yes, there are a lot of misconceptions, but most of them lie in the opposite direction. >Radiant< 19:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I charge you to show me where a consensus for general notability critera. I belive it simply does not exist. Notability has a niche environment with vanity articles about people and current events. Thats *it*. Fresheneesz 21:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• I have already done so - the existence of CSD#A7 and any guidelines on {{IncGuide}}. >Radiant< 21:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, if you browse several days worth of AFDs you'll find a couple hundred discussions where consensus was reached to delete an article based on its subject's non-notability. To me this argues not only against the adotion of this proposal as policy, but also against the idea that the proposal will ever be accepted by community consensus. Andrew Levine 05:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I know you think "notability" and "importance" is the same thing, but I don't think so. This essay does not argue against assertion of importance - or even "assertion of notability" per se. However, notability criteria is more than just assertion - and CSD specifically disagrees with you "Articles that have obviously non-notable subjects are still not eligible for speedy deletion".

I can't go through every peice of stuff in {{IncGuide}}. I'd appreciate specific references and quotes. However, I do see now that many of those notability pages are in fact guidelines (I didn't see them that way before) give notability criteria that allows the inclusion of an article. I still would appreciate specifics. Fresheneesz 21:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

In regards to point 4 above: I suppose Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance was all a waste of time? --DavidHOzAu 09:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• That's a nice straw man. See WP:VIE for details. >Radiant< 16:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

What are you saying is a strawman? And what does voting have to do with anything? I don't understand why you think CSD requires notability - it just doesn't. Fresheneesz 05:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I think i see why you said "straw man", but its not. A straw man is based on a misinterpretation of the opponents views. You're using the term incorrectly - or you're misunderstanding DavidHOzAu. Also, quoting VIE will get you nowhere if you're trying to discount the lengthy discussion at Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance. Votes gauge consensus, and discussion does better. That page has both and lots of it. Basic consensus is that fame and importance were not the correct terms to use. Fresheneesz 05:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• David made a straw man in his attempt to rebutt my point four. Besides, you misinterpret that talk page (aside from the fact that it's about two and a half years out of date). >Radiant< 14:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

We do vote on proposals. On wikipedia, voting is simply used to gauge consensus - and is not binding. WP:VIE says the same. Voting is polling, and polling should not be the sole gauge of consensus, but it is very useful to help. Fresheneesz 19:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• That is simply false. Polls on proposals are routinely and swiftly closed as a Bad Thing. >Radiant< 19:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thats ridiculous. AfDs and CSDs are in most cases poll based. Discussion evolve around people "agree" or "disagree", "delete" or "keep". You're seeing only what you want to see. Fresheneesz 20:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• No, but interesting you should say that. If you think AFD is a vote you are seriously mistaken (and as a side point, AFD is entirely unrelated to guideline proposals). Individual speedy deletions are (obviously) the work of a single admin. As I stated before, it would help if you were more familiar with how Wikipedia works before you attempt to change it. >Radiant< 20:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's not get sarky. Fresheneesz didn't say that AfD is a vote, s/he said that it was poll-based, which it obviously is (WP:VIE is talking about it when it says "many administrative decision processes are poll-based"). It's not a FPP vote, it's an informal poll to establish whether a consensus exists, and there's a huge difference between the two. Ziggurat 23:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

One thing to clean up

I have made a copy edit to the article. The only thing I can see that needs to be fixed is the section titled Ways of improving non-notable articles. Perhaps we can fork it off to Wikipedia:List of ways to improve notability in articles or Help:How to improve notability in articles? Anyway, once we are finished polishing, we can get consensus for this as a guideline— I don't think it could be a policy because "use the policies, newbs!" is circular logic. However, a guideline saying "please use the policies" makes sense. --DavidHOzAu 02:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

So, did you just switch the "misconceptions" section to the top? I disagree with forking, becuase its integral to the proposal, and this page isn't too large to incorporate it (forks diffuse information - a tactic only neccessary to keep pages from becomming too huge). Also, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at with the "use the policies, newbs!" argument. Fresheneesz 03:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I moved it to the top. Okay, we shouldn't fork it. I meant that a policy page that encouraged editors to use existing policy seems kind of a redundant. However, a guideline stating "follow policy- don't substitute notability for verifiability" does make sense: it is no longer a self reference. If it were policy, it would have to be something new instead of "this is a policy page - follow policy". I just meant that getting consensus for {{guideline}} is probably more marketable. --DavidHOzAu 07:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this could be policy, it's just that sometimes I have strange ideas about hierarchies. --DavidHOzAu 07:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• So you want to create a policy that forbids common practice? Good luck with that. >Radiant< 15:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Lets keep this a guideline proposal. One reason to not have this as policy anywhere in the near future is because, as radiant says, "notability" is a term that is commonly used. However, as a guideline, we can *encourage* people to avoid using notability, not forbid it. Fresheneesz 19:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The likelihood of this being accepted by the community

Just because I was curious, I went to the most recent day of closed discussions in the AFD deletions log -- August 31 -- and counted up every single discussion on articles in which consensus to delete was reached based entirely on non-notability (and where NPOV, Original Research, Verfiability, and WP:NOT did not enter into the discussion). There were by my count 57 such deletions. That's in a single day, and it doesn't count all the A7 speedy-deletions, nor the successful proposed deletions which cited lack of notability alone. For this reason, I think that the community as a whole accepts notability as an article inclusion requirement. Because of the vast number of deletions motivated solely by non-notability, I don't think it is likely that this proposal will succeed. Andrew Levine 17:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the whole point of the proposal was to steer people away from using "notability-only" as a requirement for inclusion because it is used so often and that is potentially hurting the project for reasons listed in the proposal. The obstacle to being accepted will be to get a consenus in the community to see the greater benefit in getting away from "notability-only" and to the more broad inclusion standards that the proposal is advocating. Agne 17:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand that, but I'm pointing out the level of opposition this may face. It will be hard if not impossible to convince that many people that "delete, NN" is hurting Wikipedia.Andrew Levine 18:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it will be difficult to convince people on a large scale. However, note that many people are already convinced, and not only those actively working on this proposal. Personally, I find it TONS easier to debate for deleting an article based on verifiability, than to say "well i don't think that subject's notable". See my (less than respectful) comments at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sommi. People said NN, but how can you back that claim up without resorting to WP:V or OR or something? I'm sure my comment didn't help or hinder that debate, but its an example. The page had about 8 or 10 links to sources, but none of them went anywhere that actually verified anything. Therefore it was not verifiable. Just my 2 cents and a rant.. m. Fresheneesz 19:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, I just want to note that every reference to "non-notable A7" is misinterpreting CSD. CSD specifically says (as i have mentioned way too many times) that "non-notability" is not criteria for speedy deletion. A7 is about the assertion of importance - meaning that the article explains the significance of the subject. This doesn't have to include the widespread notability of a subject. Fresheneesz 19:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I have indeed seen you mention it many times, but I have yet to see a clear explanation of the difference. Wouldn't people who currently contribute to AfD discussions with "Delete, non-notable" just write "Delete, unimportant" instead? Would anything really change? Andrew Levine 04:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Mm, well, I've seen other people have better explanations of the difference than me, but "assertion of importance" (from CSD) is more about the explanation of the significance of a subject. This is as oppposed to notability which not only has many different meanings, but is usually used to describe the fame of a subject, or how well known it is world-wide (or nation-wide). An example used in the proposal is the Qubit Field Theory, which is not very notable. However the article on it does assert its importance, and is verifiable.

Of course, since there are many different meanings attached to "notable", I wouldn't be surprised if someone said "well you're wrong, Qubit Field Theory is notable, because its verifiable/important/true/interesting/etc." And this is one of the fundamental problems with the term "notable". Fresheneesz 06:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The word "important" definitely has more subjective connotations than its synonym "notable." I don't think Mon Mothma is "important". A lot of others would disagree. Also, I don't see anything in the Qubit Field Theory article that says why it's important. Andrew Levine 12:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

So it seems this all boils down to semantics. The obvious solution, then, is to redirect Wikipedia:Importance to Wikipedia:Notability, and make it clear on that page that for practical purposes on the Wiki, if not in real life, the two should be considered synonymous. >Radiant< 16:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Subjectivity is only a small part of the issue. I'm most concerned with our ability to communicate between ourselves, newbs and long-time users alike. I find that arguments using notability are difficult to understand, because of the many different connations that may or may not be intended in the argument. Also, "assertion of importance or significance" is different from whether that information is important *to you*.

Qubit Field Theory asserts its importance by saying "Qubit Field Theory seeks to resolve this issue by removing the commutation restriction in order to make the capacity to store information a finite value".

This isn't boiling down to anything, the use of both the term "notability" and the idea of "notability" has a wide range of associated problems. Subjectivity, ambiguity, implicit POV, undue deletions, biting newbies, wasted time in discussions. All of those are reasons notability is bad for us. Those don't boil down to any single thing, except notability. Fresheneesz 09:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Streamlining

I think this proposal needs a little more streamlining. First and foremost, it needs organization. A concise set of the actual guidlines should appear at the top, and at the top or in the first header or two only. Second should be a *summary* of the reasons for this proposal - all refering back to the essay for more information. I think by putting the essay on a separate page, we undercut its usefulness - a summary section should restore that. Third should be the misconceptions - those are for the minority of people who come here and misconstrue the page - they shouldn't be priority on the page. We should however refer to the misconceptions in the beggining, to give them better visibility.

In the misconceptions, we should add that this guideline doesn't violate NOT, and why thats so. Of course, if it does infact violate NOT, we need to deal with that. Also, the actual guidelines need to be consolidated, and if possible, made more clear. Its much easier to do this in a group, so even if your comment is just "I don't agree", I'd appreciate comment. Fresheneesz 09:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Why notability is important

Notability is important and should become a policy for Wikipedia because there are cases where verifiable opinions do not belong in certain parts of Wikipedia. For example, it is verifiable that there are people that believe the Hubble Ultra Deep Field is peering into the "deepest, darkest secrets of God", but even though this is a verifiable quote it is not notable with respect to the actual article on the subject of the HUDF. On the other hand, it might be reasonable to mention this verifiable opinion in another article where the opinion may be more notable. Notability enables editors to make editorial decisions about what ideas deserve mention in an article and what ideas deserve exclusion. To put it another way, we don't want the article on time to include mention of time cube just because Gene Ray's opinions are verifiable. The reason why time cube is excluded from the article on time is because of notability. --ScienceApologist 22:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I would have thought that the reason it's excluded from the article on time is WP:NPOV#Undue weight, which is policy and has nothing to do with notability. Ziggurat 00:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Also we explicitly allow notability to be used as a guideline as to where in WP information should be placed. --cfp 11:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

For an example of that, see writing about fiction and the fiction inclusion guideline. --DavidHOzAu 06:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Flood of local newspaper obituaries

Most local newspapers run a regular obituary section -- several paragraphs on every person in the area who has died. Clearly every person is important to someone, at least their immediate family and closest friends. Given the published obituary, they are equally verifiable. Most of the same people would also be noted by local newspapers at the time they were born, and married - so that would be three unrelated mentions for most people who lived in an area with a local newspaper. No doubt one or more of their immediate family and closest friends would feel strongly enough about them to write very similar paragraphs for the Wikipedia as for the local newspaper.

Notability is the only factor stopping Wikipedia being flooded by an unmaintainable stream of these obituary articles. The disambiguation page for relatively common names is already long - see Tom Jones, Michael Jackson (disambiguation) - already tens of names each. Without Notability, these pages would be tens of thousands of names each, and every name would become a disambiguation page, while the common ones would need to be nested, so Tom Jones (telephone repairman, Cincinatti, Ohio) would need to be a disambiguation page. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

That hasn't happened yet, so it seems a little doom-saying to prognosticate such a possibility. Nevertheless, I don't agree with your assessment that it's Wikipedia:Notability guidelines keeping such an event from happening. WP:NOT does treat this as a special case (NOT genealogical entries), but one could easily say that the totality of verifiable sources provided for such a person is insufficient to provide a neutral point of view (how do we know that Tom Jones wasn't an awful telephone repairman who insulted all his customers?). Also, as is often pointed out, birth and death notices are not reliable sources, because there's no process of editorial oversight and fact-checking; effectively they're classified ads with a particular purpose. Ziggurat 22:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yea, people not only need to be verifiable, but also need to assert significance. The fact that they died, or were born, or were married, or were a repairman, does not assert any significance. Even if they could, obituaries are written in a POV fasion, usually constrewing the dead as good people, as a way of honoring them. Fresheneesz 06:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add that WP:VAIN already cover this and happens to be an accepted guideline; it's good stuff. Let's keep this article on topic, hmmm? (Besides, even if that problem does happen, we can always make a separate project called wikituary.) --DavidHOzAu 06:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Since a lot of obituaries are primary sources, WP:NOR would also apply here. No need to invoke notability to exclude such things. JYolkowski // talk 15:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• We should distinguish between paid death announcements ("classified ads with a particular purpose" asUser:Ziggurat says) and obituaries written or edited by the newspaper's staff, which are generally acceptable as reliable sources. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 15:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Paid ads are primary sources, while obituaries written by newspaper staff are secondary sources and are thus fair game to use as references. JYolkowski // talk 16:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Just remember that verifiability isn't the only thing that articles must follow. However, non-ad obituaries still are most likely written in a POV style, are limitedly verifiable (ie, only in one or two local newspapers that wikipedians would never have access to without a huge effort), and most of those people can't assert their significance (being dead isn't a new thing). Fresheneesz 19:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this might be good.

Hi.

I think this might be good (I've been arguing here for "rigor" etc. in regards to this whole "notability" thing), since it gives a little more "substance" or whatever you want to call it -- ie. fundamental Wikipedia policy (WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NOT) therefore becomes the arbiter of what can and cannot be included in Wikipedia -- and not fuzzy, VAGUE "notability" ideas. It _is_ possible to write an article about something that some people consider "non-notable" agreeing with these policies if reliable, verifiable sources exist. 70.101.147.60 08:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, it's quite possible to write such an article. It's also quite possible to delete such. Both creation and deletion of such happens a couple hundred times per week. FYI. >Radiant< 16:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Radiant, he meant that its possible to write, defend, and keep those types of articles. Did you really think he was speculating at the possibility that someone can write something? Fresheneesz 18:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I think his comments did not reflect our actual practice, hence my response. We frequently get articles that fail "notability ideas" and we delete them as a measure to keep up the quality of the encyclopedia. >Radiant< 18:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

There really are articles that get deleted despite having reliable, verifiable sources? That seems to be a remarkable claim, given that every notability guideline has a 'clause' that a source with multiple reliable third-party (etc. etc.) sources should not be deleted. Can you give some examples? Ziggurat 20:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Check the AFD logs, you'll see plenty of things being deleted for non-notability. >Radiant< 21:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

That's not what the anon is saying at all. Check the comment, specifically "It _is_ possible to write an article about something that some people consider "non-notable" agreeing with these policies if reliable, verifiable sources exist." You suggest that such articles, i.e. those considered non-notable but that happen to have reliable, verifiable sources, do get deleted. I'm surprised, given that the notability guidelines all state that such articles shouldn't be deleted, (presumably because such sources demonstrate notability). See, for example, WP:BIO ("The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person."), WP:CORP ("The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself."), WP:MUSIC ("Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media"), and so forth. Again, I'll ask for specific examples of this kind, because I don't think they exist (and if they do, I don't think they're following the notability guidelines). Ziggurat 21:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This should explain the argument. >Radiant< 21:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

In which case then, "notability" would equal having such sources, etc. making the idea of having it as something separate from verfiability, neutral point of view, etc. very odd. What I'm pointing out is that all that should be needed to determine what can and cannot be included are WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NOT, but not some separate "notability policy" that provides additional stipulations. WP:V and WP:RS seem adequate enough. 70.101.147.60 23:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the first part of that page a lot, thanks for pointing it out. What this is effectively saying is that notability=verifiability (I don't buy the counter-argument at the end, however, which is why I say that notability is redundant). The second part seems to imply that secondary conditions can allow an article to override verifiability requirements, which is to me an extraordinary and fundamentally flawed proposition (and one that seems to get shot down whenever it is proposed in a more general forum). But I've yet to see an example of a deletion such as you describe, and I'm serious in that request: something that is verifiable, but that has been deleted. If there are hundreds every day it must be simple just to pick one out. Ziggurat 21:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, is what should be "allowed"? We have the policies of neutral point of view, no original research, verifiability, and "what Wikipedia is not". But the way this seems is that there is a fifth, that is distinct but is not formalized as much as those: notability. But what exactly makes something notable -- it has to be formalized like the other four if it should become one of those core content-governing policies. If it means that it should appear in a "significant" source, then it would seem best handled through WP:RS and then WP:N is just redundant. 70.101.147.60 23:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• I go to the log for a week ago (Sep 17) and the very first article listed is David Enoch, who was deleted despite being verifiable in the olympiad's chess database, and a commentary on schizophrenia. QED. >Radiant< 21:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, taking a look at the AfD, the nom was specifically for lack of verifiability, and I don't see any mention of those sources in said AfD. (not being an admin, I can't check, but I would be surprised if the sources you mention above satisfied WP:RS). Ziggurat 22:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Three people in the debate said NN. However, you're basically asking me to do the research to disprove your assumptions - whereas you could easily do your own research in an attempt to prove them. You don't need admin rights for that. >Radiant< 22:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, what I'm essentially saying is that I have yet to see a real article which did satisfy verifiability, NPOV, and OR requirements, but which failed notability and were thus deleted (which is how I interpret your claim at the top of this discussion!). I did have a look for any online sources for an article on David Enoch, and found none sufficient for an article (the Olympiad database certainly wasn't, and I haven't been able to locate the schizophrenia commentary). From my perspective, I'm asking for evidence or proof of your original assumption. Please excuse me if I'm coming across as rude, but I just haven't seen any articles that really need notability criteria in order to be deleted, so those criteria just seem redundant (and editing-instruction bloat). It's difficult to prove a negative point unless someone can show me a good counterexample showing where they are needed. Ziggurat 23:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this happens too often. As an administrator, I have never closed an AfD as delete when the article undisputably met our three core content policies. JYolkowski // talk 01:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

As another example, Category:Victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks used to be a lot bigger, and all those people are verifiable from newspaper articles. The excess was deleted on grounds that Wikipedia is not a memorial. >Radiant< 14:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Please pick out one example - its not easy to find something thats *no longer* in the link you provided. I would guess that "those people" were not verified in multiple reliable sources, and probably couldn't assert significance (CSD:A7). Give us one i'm wrong about. Fresheneesz 18:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

straw poll?

Does anyone know how to organize and conduct a good straw poll? I'm interested to know the thoughts of people outside this talk page, and also to perhaps gain some contributors and fix some problems. Anyone know where to start? Fresheneesz 18:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• We do not vote on proposals. >Radiant< 18:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh did I say vote? I meant straw poll. Oh wait, I didn't say vote.. Fresheneesz 07:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

We don't straw poll on proposals either. Simply put, the reality is this: you have been working on this proposal for about three months. It has been advertised at the village pump several times, talk pages of related guidelines, Jimbo's personal page, and about a hundred talk pages of individual editors. Yet after all that and after all your dedicated enthousiasm, there's only a handful of people interested in this proposal. You can draw your own conclusion from that. >Radiant< 08:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

No. Therse only a handful that are actively editing this page - like most pages on wikipedia. I would go so far as to say this page has much more support and active editors than your pet proposals. Fresheneesz 18:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

And you base that assumption on what, exactly? >Radiant< 21:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen this proposal before today (my fault for not paying closer attention). I like what I've read so far. It may need a bit of tweaking, but the general concept is useful and necessary, in my opinion. Thought I'd throw out my 2 cents, I would be happy to help if you want. · j e r s y k o talk · 20:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• It has a number of good ideas, it just needs some editing so that it doesn't contradict existing guidelines and current practice. Your feedback is of course welcome. >Radiant< 21:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

i oppose this proposal, which will quickly fill the encyclopedia with crap. —ptk✰fgs 01:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• While I also oppose this proposal, there is nothing wrong with formally guaging interest. Radiant, your name seems to appear often whenever users suggest polling for anything. Call it voting, call it polling, call it whatever the hell you want, but it's essentially all the same thing. People don't have to write long paragraphs to express their opinion. If someone simply says "I support it" then that should be valid. </rant> DB (talk) 01:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, no. Based on Wikipedia's experience with creating things, it has been strongly shown that voting serves to polarize an issue rather than resolve it. It makes people judge only one version of a proposal without regard for alternatives. And it encourages people to not think but simply rubberstamp. That is not a good way of forming consensus, or creating guidelines. Wikipedia is not formal, and that is why there's something wrong with formally gauging interest. >Radiant< 08:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, people could respond that they:
      1. Support the proposal in its current form
      2. Oppose the concept of non-notability altogether
      3. Support aspects of the proposal and would like to see other parts changed
    • Considering the length of this talk page, it is difficult to see who really stands where. There already has been quite a bit of discussion on this issue, and it's natural that the creators of the proposal would like to see who still supports it and specifically what parts they support before continuing. If an overwhelming number oppose it, then it probably won't last much longer. Likewise, if an overwhelming majority support it either wholly or with reservations, then the proposal can be tweaked and continued. Furthermore, straw polls aren't by policy always bad. In fact, it says that "polls can be useful for a quick gauge of opinion". You have the right to your opinion, and that appears to be that polls should never be used, but don't confuse your opinion with official policy. Finally, if parts of the proposal contradict existing guidelines, that doesn't mean they absolutely have to be removed. I don't remember reading anywhere that existing guidelines can never be changed by consensus. DB (talk) 18:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• You misunderstand me. The point is whether straw polls should be used; the point isn't even whether I agree with this proposal. The point is that this proposal is backwards, and based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. Remember that guidelines are descriptive. What should happen is that people look at existing practice and precedent, and write it down in a sensible way. This proposal, on the other hand, runs almost entirely counter to current practice, and for some reason the creators expect that editors will simply change their behavior because of this page. Wikipedia doesn't work that way, because our basis is not the rules - our basis is the encyclopedia.
• So you're going about it entirely the wrong way. You can't hold a poll here and on the basis of that strike out WP:BIO, and the other guidelines contradicted by this proposal. Instead, you must find a way to change the way people think and act. Talk to them; discuss WP:BIO; if you want, try and nominate if for deletion so it no longer contradicts this. When you have changed how people act, you can document that and that will be a guideline. But it doesn't workt he other way around. >Radiant< 19:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read lots of the above, but I get the jist. Radiant - I don't care whether you like polls or not, I want one, and I want anyone who wants to give their opinion to give it - CONSCICELY. So i'm going to make a section below this one, for a straw poll. If you comment on how "we don't do that", i'm going to move your comment up here, outta the way. Fresheneesz 07:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now that I've read it... I agree with DB, obviously. And using polls isn't a misunderstanding of how wikipedia works. Wikipedia isn't a beuracracy, i'm sure you've noticed (maybe.. i shouldn't be so sure) - but it doesn't have a specific way of working. WE choose how it works, and many of us have chosen to use polls at certain times. This is one of them. Please discuss the use of polls *elsewhere*. Fresheneesz 07:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Of course I noticed, since I wrote that clause. You are wrong, by the way - YOU don't choose how Wikipedia works; consensus chooses how Wikipedia works. And consensus is almost diametrically opposed to polling. Your argument now boils down to "I want this" as you say above; I'm sure you realize that's not a very strong argument. >Radiant< 09:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Whilst I'm not unsympathetic to this proposal, experience tells me it has zero chance of gathering anything near a consensus. Mark it as rejected and move on. --Doc 11:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I really do not see the problem with just letting a straw poll go through so he can guage what needs to be worked on. I never seen anything on Wikipedia that says a user can only conduct a straw poll under XYZ circumstances and its usually the method used for people to better guage others opinions. The straw poll should not be used to determine if this becomes a guideline however, just used to guage what needs to be tweaked on the proposal. --NuclearUmpf 12:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

1) Nothing needs to be tweeked, as the underlying principle will never get consensus. 2)Anyway, if you want to gauge what needs tweeked, polls are a terrible method. where do I vote, if I'd like to ommit part, change 6 words of part 2, and rename the preamble. That type of tweeking neds a discusion not a poll. It also seems that despite attempts at publicing this, few people want to discuss it. Don't use polls just to attract numbers here. All you'll get is some discussion and a string of 'oppose' or 'support' votes - that will clarify nothing. But as I say, whatever the merits of this, we've discussed notability in Wikipedia coutless times, and you'll get no consensus. --Doc 12:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You can make a straw poll that asks who agree's with section 1, then section 2, then section 3 etc. People would state agree and then a reason, or oppose and a reason. In your case the oppose would be followed with "do not agree with word 6", the poll can help the user determine what needs the most work and focus. As I said I really do not see the point of everyone objecting to a straw poll, if the poll does not help the user then what was the harm done? People will just go back to discussion and its lesson learned, or formulate a new poll that better helps guage understanding. --NuclearUmpf 12:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You have to understand that polls are not "voting" methods and people really should not be stating only oppose or only keep as that gives no understanding. Much like on AfD, simply oppose or keep comments are treated with less value as there is no explanation to go with them, no understanding of the topic or expression of opinion. --NuclearUmpf 13:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

But polls are where you count things. What you're arguing for is a discussion, where people indicate what they like and don't like, and suggest changes. Isn't that what has been happeing here? Only it is pretty obvious that there is no enthusiasm for this however you tweek it. --Doc 15:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Any issue you have with straw polls would probably be best left on the straw poll page. Wikipedia allows and even encourages straw polls as a way of garnering concensus. Straw polls do not merely state which side but why, they help others understand without being confrontational. People discussing has a bkac and forth affect, where as a straw poll is more of a collection of thoughts. I can argue all day for why straw polls may be good, and you can argue why they may be bad and how they are really voting, however the issue here is why not have a straw poll. I have never actually seen one refused by so many people on really no grounds. I mean what negative impact does it serve for one to be made and people to throw their thoughts into the pot? --NuclearUmpf 16:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to be accused of not assuming good faith. I think both opponents and proponents of this proposal are motivated by a desire to improve our encyclopedia. However, I wanted to throw out a thought that could explain what's going on (perhaps it does not). Is it possible that people are opposing a straw poll on this page out of a desire, conscious or unconscious, to avoid determining exactly what the consensus is on notability and non-notability? As it stands, there are numerous "notability" articles that have been, rightly or wrongly, listed as "guidelines" very recently. The proponents of the notability guidelines point to an amorphous "consensus" that exists on notability without a lot of hard evidence. I suspect that if this non-notability article as well as the notability articles are put to a staw poll, the purported "consensus" on all of them will be found to be non-existent. · j e r s y k o talk · 16:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is no consensus. We don't need a straw poll to determine that. Every AfD discussion, every school deletion debate tells the same story. There will be no meta-policy on notability, the only thing that can be done are to try to work out guidelines for individual subject area inclusions. My only motivation for objecting to a poll, is that there is no point in asking a question to which the answer, or rather lack of it, is patently obvious. --Doc 16:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

To think if they were just allowed to ask that question this could have ended some time ago and not involved AN/I and would have ended the question/debate. This seems to be one of those situations where it would have been faster to allow the snow to fall then to argue over why it shouldnt start. --NuclearUmpf 23:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I find this utterly ridiculous. Radiant removed my poll section below saying "You just don't get it". Apparently what I don't "get" is that radiant is the god of wikipedia, and I must do what He says. That connotation frankly pisses me off. His removal of my section is 100% bad faith, and if people don't want to participate in my straw poll - perhaps if they think its a waste of time like doc does - then NOONE WILL RESPOND TO IT.

Doc - why are you wasting your time even *discussing* this, if time is such a concern to you? This makes no sense to me. I just don't understand why I have to fight to have a straw poll. Radiant and his posse are trying to bully their ideals on the rest of us - alleging a consensus that only exists in their minds. I want to know what *actual* people think, which is why I want a poll. Fresheneesz 01:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Go watch AfD, many 'actual' people use notability as a criteria, others don't. --Doc 01:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The issue at hand is really that this can't be a guideline, it doesn't have widespread support by virtue of a widespread use of the term, where this is an active attempt at prohibiting it. Since the guidelines are, for the most part, based upon consensus, there can't be a magical new guideline-by-fiat that overrides the active and ongoing use of . Kevin_b_er 07:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Guidelines are descriptive not proscriptive. They should reflect what is, and not attempt to establish a new reality. The fact is that a lot of people use notability as a criteria, others don't. That is evidenced in hundreds of deletion debates and polls each month. A straw poll here would likely reflect that lack of consensus. However, even if by some fluke one staw poll here endorsed this guideline, it would still be meaningless, as this isn't what happens, and thus isn't a guideline. For the time being the notion that notability shouldn't feature in deletion debates clearly does not command any consensus. Thus, this is clearly rejected as a guideline and should be marked as such. If you want to change that state of affairs - go argue the case on each deletion debate and convince people - I wish you good luck.--Doc 11:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

A guideline can be descriptive, OR proscriptive, OR both. As long as it has consensus. I really think you guys are making up some consensus - because what i see right now is *no consensus* - which means that we keep this as a proposal, and keep working toward a consensus. Fresheneesz 20:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

We mark things as rejected not when there is a consensus against them, but when it is obvious that no matter the discussion no consensus for them can be acheived at this juncture. Actually, I do like the idea of not using notability. But notability is constantly used as a criterion by a good number of the community. The idea that it shouldn't be used has often been argued and just as often rejected. The idea has no consensus, indeed perhaps even a majority against it. Ergo that idea has been rejected by the community.--Doc 20:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

"No consensus" is different from the consensus to reject a proposal. "No consensus" means that the community has not come to agreement. Fresheneesz 21:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

No, please re-read what I wrote, that's not how it works. You don't need 'consensus to reject a proposal', it just needs to be clear that it is a non-starter. This is a non-started.--Doc 21:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I read what you wrote, but I don't believe you. Seriously, I think you're just making up your own rules. Wikipedia works on consensus, and if people are disputing something - *anything* - then that dispute needs to be resolved with consensus, no matter what it is. You may think this is a "non-starter" or whatever, but the group of people that have worked to build this proposal would most certainly disagree. Fresheneesz 21:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• You should start with reading WP:NPA and WP:CIV. Then, please realize that Doc isn't making up his own rules, but citing WP:POL. A proposal needs consensus to be accepted, so any proposal with lack of consensus is rejected. And that obviously includes this one. >Radiant< 22:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll here

Closed for the time being--Doc 21:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC) :Please place your vote here, saying whether you: *Like it *Like it, but improvement needed, or *don't like it

PLEASE also add the reason(s) for your opinion, whether you like it or not. Also, please do not separate votes into two or three sections (don't separate like vs don't like votes).

* Like it - it would allow afd discussions to go smoother, would reduce harrasment of legit articles, yet still doesn't condone "junk" articles. Fresheneesz 07:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I've striken this. You don't just start a straw poll, when there is clear opposition to it, no clarity concerning its significance and no agreement on its wording. I'm opposed to this, true. But wait and see what others are saying, and what point they think there would be in the poll.--Doc 21:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I started this straw poll because I *don't* think that there is clear opposition to it. I think a straw poll will show just how much opposition there really is. What are you scared of Doc? Are you scared that people will actually support my proposal.

Your act of mutilating my post is *vandalism*. Please note that I will take the neccessary action if you continue to vandalize my work. Fresheneesz 23:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)