Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Notability

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Agarwalaav (talk | contribs) at 10:28, 4 February 2008 (→‎Gama Prasad Agarwalla: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcuts
Archive
Archives


WP:DEGRADE

Reading some AFDs got me thinking, so I wrote Wikipedia:Notability does not degrade over time. Might be insane, but tossing it out for consideration. Is this a lunatic essay, or did I just describe practice that is policy? Lawrence § t/e 08:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you correctly describe the process. The concept is similar to Wikipedia:N#TEMP.--Kubigula (talk) 23:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The deal with secondary sources

"A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

The guideline in a nutshell requests secondary sources to establish notability. While this may work on a large number of cases it is often not so helpful. I feel rewording is necessary.

For example an average person serving in the armed forces will have a secondary source covering his life. This does not make every serviceman notable. Also in some cases authors of books do not get secondary coverage of their biography for a while even if the book they wrote is popular and had critical review. And lastly in the case of certain topics such as articles on fiction related content the lack of secondary sources do not always mean the topic is non-notable.

Also in the case of WP:SPINOUTs and WP:STUBs this guideline seems to be being contradictory.

-- Cat chi? 22:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

SPINOUT and this guideline are not contradictory. Notability relates to a topic that may be comprised of an article and some spinoff ones. --MASEM 22:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So if I have a source that extensively covers a spesific topic. Say about a bird family. Am I banned from creating individual WP:SPINOUT articles for the individual species? Even if the source covers the family in great detail and not the individual species. Or how about history. The articles tend to get too long and are then chopped into smaller peices broken into arbitrary time periods. Does WP:N ban those? I think there needs to be a clarification on how WP:SPINOUT, WP:STUB and WP:N integrates together. -- Cat chi? 13:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
There's a lot of whatifs here, but lets assume that the bird family is what is notable, not individual birds, but you have a lot (excess of SIZE) of info on the family. Then I would expect that one could have a SPINOFF to one article to list off each bird in the family with brief information which may not be notable on its own (but within the notability of the topic, which is the bird family); there may be another SPINOFF for "Migratory patterns" of the bird family, if that's a large amount of info, or the like. If each individual bird, on the other hand, has their own notability, then it makes sense to make separate articles for each, and one to summarize the family.
For History, it makes complete sense that one may break it down into large, general periods agreed by the editor consensus; the selection of where to break the timelines should be based on some generally accepted secondary reference point, whether it's by century, age of man, or major wars/events. However, likely each section can stand on its own in terms of notability. --MASEM 13:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does he qualify?

So, Sailor Bob Adamson a teacher and writer has two books he has written at Amazon, one book about him, and two books written by a student of his (John Wheeler). [[1]], 4,300 google hits for his full name, in quotes. [[2]]

His article was deleted about a year ago, has his notability increased yet enough to warrant an article? Sethie (talk) 04:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't sound like it. His student's books are irrelevant, and books about himself are probably not enough to establish notability. Google tests are typically not enough to prove or disprove anything. What's changed in the year? Torc2 (talk) 05:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Lords Of Zeroah.

I have recently tried to make a Wikipedia Page on a recent "Company / Group" that me and my friends have come up with for Video Game Designing. We have created a few games using "RPG MAKER 2003" to show that we have the ability and we have shown our friends and some people over the WWW our games.

The Lords Of Zeroah is a low end group of people, a guild on gaia, soon to have a website, and its ran by two of the memebers

The leader "The Wind Lord Zolaga" - Tim. The helper "ReapeR Is The New Death" - Brandon.

Please let me know if i would beable to make a wikipedia on this, and for what i would have to do to get it started. --ReapeRs PreY (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ReapeRs PreY. It's really quite simple. Once your company has become well known enough that it is discussed in some detail in independent, published, reliable sources that are wholly independent of the company and attempts to promote it, then it can have an entry at Wikipedia. The reason for this is that, as an encyclopedia, we are by definition a tertiary source, so our information must synthesize already published sources. There are other sites that use Wiki software which are not encyclopedias, where an entry on your company might be appropriate right now.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to what Fuhghettaboutit said, any article about your company should be written by someone not connected with the company who has noticed it. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines

WP:FICT has been revised

WP:FICT, the notability guideline for elements within a work of fiction (characters, places, elements, etc) has a new proposal/revision that is now live [3] Everyone is encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page. Ned Scott 22:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (serial works)

There is a proposal to split WP:EPISODE into a more general notability guideline, Wikipedia:Notability (serial works), and make the rest of WP:EPISODE just a MOS guideline. Please join in at WT:EPISODE#Proposed split of EPISODE and/or Wikipedia talk:Notability (serial works). -- Ned Scott 22:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

Why does Wikipedia need this? And no, I'm not a disgruntled editor whose fancruft or the like got deleted, I'm just genuinally curious. If an article has reliable sources, why should its "encyclopedic" nature matter? For example I could write an article about myself, citing publically available records of my date of birth, school certificates and so forth. In my opinion it is already clear that Wikipedia has become something very different from an old print encyclopedia. We don't need to worry about how many pages we're going to fill up. Why not make Wikipedia's ultimate goal (and when I say ultimate, I mean over many thousands of years) to be a source of information on every single object, being or concept in the universe, both past and present, regardless of how important or "notable" it is? --81.158.148.64 (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible the effort is being used to channel the energies of editors into areas that are currently weak and could use more review. There are still thousands of articles on notable topics that have weak to no sourcing, and weak content.Wjhonson (talk) 06:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This guideline violates the no original research policy

The statement "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." is original research. The statement is like saying "A topic is presumed to be "cool" if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The argument is pure original research. It assumes what a source does not say. The mere existence of "significant coverage" is used to assume a subject is worthy of notice. Unless a reliable source explicitly says something is notable, the "notability" of a subject is not verifiable. Verifiability is the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia, not notability.

This paragraph is also false: "The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines." Substantial coverage in reliable sources is not objective evidence that a subject is "worthy of notice." Substantial coverage in reliable sources is...substantial coverage in reliable sources. Any argument or assumption based upon that violates the policy on no original research. There can be no objective evidence that a subject is "worthy of notice" — only subjective opinions. --Pixelface (talk) 04:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is like saying "A topic is presumed to be "cool" if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." ... but the notability guideline is neither Cool nor an article. It's a guideline and inherently will contain original research due to the inherent lack of secondary sources that determine our policies for us— that is, unless there's some sort of Wikigod out there that I'm unaware of. --slakr\ talk / 04:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Unlike the articles, Wikipedia policies and guidelines are not themselves subject to the policies and guidelines. Otherwise, we could well say that WP:NOR is original research and WP:V is unverified.--Kubigula (talk) 04:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree. I think guidelines must not violate policies. Using the existence of sources to claim that a subject is "worthy of notice", when the sources do not say the subject is "worthy of notice" violates at least 2 of Wikipedia's core policies. --Pixelface (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Policies like WP:OR and WP:V regulate article content, they do not govern internal Wikipedia processes.--Kubigula (talk) 05:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources

Why does the nutshell require secondary sources, but the article does not? Hobit (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's stated in the first section, that "Sources,"[5] defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. --MASEM 21:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It’s kind of an awkward compromise. Generally, secondary sources are required. However, when you get to the fine print, you find there can be situations where you don’t need secondary sources because you are able to demonstrate notability by some other means. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that statement is wrong. Sources that say a subject is "worthy of notice" provide the most evidence that a subject is "worthy of notice." Coverage, by itself, does not indicate a subject is worthy of notice. I'm beginning to think this guideline should be renamed Wikipedia:Coverage. --Pixelface (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A source that says a subject is "worthy of notice" is almost certainly a secondary source, and therefore fits the description. Do you find many such sources? Such explicit claims of worthiness would be nice, but aren’t required, and I would wonder as to whether they are independent.
Yes, WP:N has become more explicit about coverage than about the poorly defined notion of “notability”, as it is more useful and fits better with focusing contributions on better sourcing, which is good for the product. No, moving to Wikipedia:Coverage would be a bad thing because “notability” is so firmly entrenched in our culture. If it were moved then the use of “notability” throughout the project would revert to being misused. “Coverage” is also prone to misuse. Many non notable things are well covered by non-impendent or non-secondary sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In order to claim a subject is notable, that claim needs to be verifiable per policy. If editors want "coverage" to be the criteria for inclusion, fine. But coverage is not the same as notability. --Pixelface (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that’s right. Coverage is already required. All content must be attributable. Yes, coverage is not the same as notability, but some sorts of coverage (not all) are useful for verifiably demonstrating notability. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But please notice the nutshell isn't a summary of the actual article. The article doesn't require secondary sources, the nutshell does. That's a bad summary by definition. Hobit (talk) 11:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

notability exceptions?

What articles or article types are exempt from falling under Wikipedia:Notability? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 23:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're not exemptions, it's just that certain properties result in a default assumption of notability. For example, most geographic locations are assumed to be notable even if there isn't a specific source provided, since it's assumed the location will be covered by secondary sources like maps, government documents, local papers, etc. "List of TopicX" articles typically are viewed as sub-articles of TopicX - if TopicX is notable, the associated List article will be assumed to be notable too. Torc2 (talk) 23:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Subjects that are unlikely to be pushed by vested interests are generally unaffected by WP:N. Such subjects tend to be from the natural world or our distant history. Recent human creations, such as commercial products or theories need to demonstrate interest beyond that of the author or other beneficiaries. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's certainly nothing stopping someone here from suggesting we add a Notability#Geographic section. It's likely that it's just not important enough for any warring over it. Perhaps THOR could be more specific in why he came here to ask his question? I'm sure there is a specific article he has in mind. Wjhonson (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I was spurred to ask from a specific article, it's something I've run across before and should have asked before this point.

If articles which have no evidence of notability are combined in a composite article (a list of, or similar), is the latter article then exempt from qualifying under WP:N? Frequently in article deletion discussions people !vote to merge into a "list of" or similar; but if the single article is not notable under Wikipedia standards, how does a collection of non-notable information then meet that same standard? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does't. But we are a discursive democracy not a bureaucracy. Policy can change, in its details, and consensus can change. So after the great merge, you could then have a discussion on its talk page about possibly deleting it ! That's the nature of wikisociety.Wjhonson (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not advocating the deletion of a given article at this juncture, but am tagging one with {{notability}}. I was rebuffed (read: reverted) though, and informed that "Such lists are the compromise to having scads of individual pages. Each entity on the list may not meet WP:N, but collectively they do". Is this standard/consensus valid? Does a collection of non-notable subjects build up enough notability-mass to reach criticality and then make the collection of them notable? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 02:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why assume that a whole cannot be more notable than the sum of its parts? Individual songs aren't typically notable, but albums typically are. Torc2 (talk) 01:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But we don't take individual non-notable song articles and consolidate them into a single article List of songs from This Album. Whereas the album article itself (This Album) is notable on its own, and duly lists its contents. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 02:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same principle, just done in a different order. Parts that are individually not notable very well might be notable as a collection. Torc2 (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm not saying they can't be, but don't they still need evidence of that under Wikipedia:Notability? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 02:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It may be that the belief is that lacking further evidence, the group topic is by default notable while the individual topic by default isn't. That's not saying that evidence isn't necessary, just that there is some inconsistency with the way notability is handled, and the assumptions of notability might change between the two topics. Such is the case with songs vs. albums and (currently) episodes vs. series. The default assumption is that a song isn't individually notable unless and has to prove it is, yet an album by a notable group is assumed notable and simply doesn't list sources unless someone really makes an effort to show it's not. Torc2 (talk) 06:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(OD) You're still being a bit obtuse. Can you tell us what specific article you tagged? For example there might very well be notability for Famous Midgets as a list with bio snippets while each once may be non-notable. We really need to look at your specific case. I don't believe this is stated quite in policy, but we are also encouraged to use common sense in interpreting notability. Additionally, there is nothing stopping you from starting a new section for Notability for Lists.Wjhonson (talk) 06:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to bring up the article specifically (and was rather hoping nobody would dig through my contribs to find it) because I don't want to "be bringing in reinforcements to prove my point"; I just wanted some understanding or agreement before I pressed my point again.

I came across an AfD that was discussing an article lacking notability. The lack of notability wasn't denied or refuted (that I recall); but the majority of people were arguing to merge the content into the article Minor characters in CSI: Miami. I started thinking that the latter article was effectively a dumping ground for a collection of non-notable articles; and, in fact, couldn't find any evidence of notability or reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia. So I tagged it with {{notability}} and {{primary sources}}. AnteaterZot (talk · contribs) quickly removed the notability tagging saying (as above): "Removing notability tag. Such lists are the compromise to having scads of individual pages. Each entity on the list may not meet WP:N, but collectively they do, at least for well-known shows." Since I wasn't aware of a point of criticality whereupon non-notable articles massed together became spontaneously notable w/o meeting the requirements of this guideline, I brought it here before pushing further. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such lists which combine non-notable elements particularly for fictional works are generally acceptable, assuming that they are approached in the summary style method of breaking out discussion from notable topics. Now, arguably, that information along with List of CSI: Miami characters and most of the major characters with individual, non-notable articles (Horatio Caine) can be merged further into a single article to support CSI: Miami alone. (Some of this is what is discussed at WP:FICT). --MASEM 19:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that something contained in a list may not be notable as stand alone material, but is when contained in a list on the topic, does not mean it must not be sourced. verifiability is non-negotiable; everything requires sourcing. In practice, we often do dump material that is non-notable into a list without checking its verifiability, and that is a problem.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gama Prasad Agarwalla

Gama Prasad Agarwalla (1925-1989),was the producer of the film Assamese film "Piyali Phukan" which has the distinction of being the first Assamese film to bag a National Award i.e Certificate of Merit in the year 1955 by the Film Division under the Government of India.

Gama Prasad Agarwalla was born in Tezpur, Assam in 1925. He was a renowned name in the world of regional cinema in Assam as well as in India. He took film making as a hobby and was deeply involved in all his film projects. He setup Rup Jyoti Productions which was a production house for Assamese films and Rup Roshni Distributors which was a Distribution house for both Assamese and Hindi film. His efforts to bring Assamese cinema on a National stage were recognized when the Government of India awarded the film Piyoli Phukan with the Certificate of Merit in 1955. He was also awarded and honoured by the Government of Assam for his contribution to Assamese Cinema in the year 1988.

He produced or financed many Assamese films viz. Era Bator Sur, Puwati Nikhar Swopun etc. He also opened up many cinema halls in Arunachal Pradesh and Assam like Kamala Talkies Dhekiajuli, Kamala Talkies, Rangapara, Ganesh Talkies, Kharupetia. He was married to Bhanwri Devi. He was very popular among the residents of his home town, Tezpur in Assam. He died in 1989.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability&oldid=188999617"