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 76.167.163.164 (talk) at 23:08, 3 September 2008 (→‎Ed Kalnins, Wasilla Assembly of God, Larry Kroon, and Wasilla Bible Church). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcuts
Archive
Archives


Wikipedia:Relevance

In a better nutshell

For the busy people, the article has this quick encapsulation of the notability article:

There are several important things that we left out of this nutshell, which the reader can get by reading the rest of the article. Think about these questions and ask yourself if they are important to an editor being pointed to this page for the first time.

  • Why is notability important? What impact does notability have on Wikipedia articles?
  • What happens if an idea is not notable? Do only notable ideas deserve articles?

If course, anyone who reads the article in its length can answer these questions. However, these are fundamental issues that govern whether an article survives deletion or if an inexperienced editor creates a legitimate Wikipedia article. Leaving these issues out of the nutshell statement is avoidable. Consider this version:

Granted, the original version specifies the agreed definition of notability, but this article does not simply define. Notability matters, and the term's use extends far beyond bare meaning. My motivation here is to make the notability statement connect with how notability affects the business of Wikipedia, because the existing version does not. —Kanodin 21:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subjects don't "deserve" articles. The lack of information in reliable secondary sources is not so much a question of merit as a question of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. If there isn't enough reasonable coverage out there, we have no way of writing a decent article on the topic. The emotional judgment of "deserves" might be the ultimate arbiter when it comes to ignoring all rules, but the basic principle of notability is not "should we" but "can we?" SDY (talk) 21:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See this earlier discussion - an article needs to be about a notable topic, but a notable topic does not need an article as sometimes it is better to cover such in the context of a larger topic. So the version you propose is not correct.
That said, maybe the wording needs to be flipped around:
that is, re-emphasizing that article topics should be notable (and that non-notable topics should not have articles), while reiterating the definition of notability. --MASEM 21:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I very much prefer Masem's version, which I think puts it well while also sounding friendly and positive. Lankiveil (speak to me) 14:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Also, because it correctly allows for what I have said just below about the role of the "GNG". Now what we need is a definition of "presumed" that doesn't presume to much. :). DGG (talk) 03:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Short and to the point, explains that notability is desired and why, but still leaves enough room to breathe. – sgeureka t•c 12:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
^ What Sgeureka said. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand Masem's objection to "deserves", and I have no problem with avoiding the word. In fact, I think the substance of what I wanted to add is Masem's new sentence. I am going to leave the original nutshell sentence (since the flipped version is logically identical and switching would require rehashing the rest of the article), and add Article topics should be notable. Surprisingly, that's all that I think is missing. If anyone disagrees, please revert/adjust the corresponding edit and explain. —Kanodin 06:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this is a guideline (thus not absolute), and the second sentence of the lead uses the same word, there is nothing wrong with using "should". (even policies use "should", with the understanding there are always exceptions). --MASEM 12:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Should" is OK for describing preferred behaviour. It is not useful for describing dubious facts (where a real fact would be worded "Article topics are notable"). When saying "Article topics should be notable", what are you saying? That editors should strive to make article topics notable? That is not appropriate, because a topic is either notable or not, and an editor cannot make a non-notable topic notable. The fact that notability is a requirement for articles derives from WP:DEL#REASON (or perhaps the behaviour that WP:DEL describes). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec, to Smokey Joe and Gavin) The next step up from "should" is "must", and it's certainly not (yet) the case that notability is a requirement. I can't see any other word choice that is appropriate there.
  • The other aspect to consider is that notability is not 100% objective. Even by the GNG, what constitutes "significant coverage" is not a question that can be answered easily; there's obvious cases on where it does happen, obvious cases where it doesn't, but a large number of articles that hit AFD for being "non-notable" fall in a subjective grey area. This is not like WP:V where sourcing is can be very apparently, and while exactly what are reliable sources up in the area, there's much more objective guidance on that. Because we cannot be objective when it comes to notability, we cannot say that article topics "must" be notable since there's no absolute measure of that. --MASEM 13:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think anyone has ever claimed that WP:N to be 100% objective, as whether a source is reliable or secondary will always require an element of judgement. However, I have not seen any alternative proposals for inclusion criteria that are more objective; as far as I can see, alternative proposals (such as FEAPOALT) seem to be based on so called "consensus", which is little more than so called "expert opinion". I don't see any reason for the proposed change, unless you have come up with a clear and well defined proposal reason why WP:N should be watered down by changing the wording. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Reread the OP's question and why this change was suggested. The nutshell covers the fact of what the GNG says, but does not explain why an editor should be aware of that. Since the statement "article topics should be notable" is a replication of text in the first paragraph of the body of the guideline, this statement of "why" should be added to the nutshell; it does not change any meaning of the guideline at all but enhances the first-time reader's understanding of the importance of the guideline. --MASEM 14:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is not the purpose of this guideline to explain why policies and guidelines exist, and more importantly we should not attempt to provide an explaination in a nutshell; this falls outside the scope of WP:N. In any case, the reasons provided by Kanodin as to why WP:N exists are an expression of his opinion only, not a statement of fact. My own view is that WP:N exists as an inclusion criteria because, where there are sufficient independent sources exist to satisfy the content principles of Wikipedia, then that is best criteria by which it can be judged whether or not to have an article on a particular topic. If you can think of other inclusion criteria that should be used, then state them, don't try and water down WP:N as if it were only one of many (better) alternatives.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

more of less strict

The correct approach to the question of whether the subguidelines are more or less strict than the GNG is that they can be either, depending on what the community wants to do with that class of article. The GNG should be renamed the Default Notability Guideline, and used only when no other guideline applies. We do not need this as a guideline to make exceptions one way or another, because all the subguidelines are guidlines themseselves, andf intrinsically allow for exceptions in cases where individual articles needs to be considered notable or not and the subguidelines gives the wrong result. DGG (talk) 03:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid doing this will only encourage the continued proliferation of dozens of subguideline proposals with arbitrarily-defined notability standards for every minor class of topics. A core principle is necessary to unify all of these subguidelines. –Black Falcon (Talk) 17:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slight revamp of CSD for athletes needed?

The foregone Summer Olympic Games has just brought to the fore a possible need for the alteration of the CSD for notable athletes. There are a lot of athletes that only have a claim to an article because they have just competed at the Olympics (ie: at the top of the amateur sports game). Since quite a few of these folks don't have reference'able (new word) achievements other than competing in the games and most probably won't have greatly expanded articles later on in life; would it not be a better idea to include only those who have won medals at Olympic games or who also have other known credits to their names besides "just" competing in the Olympics? I know that to get to the Olympics you have to be at the top in your country and most will have won major national, if not international, awards but with out evidence of those should we allow the articles? I'm just worried we'll get lots of articles that end up as permanent stubs. Discussion? :-) fr33kman (talk) 03:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Competing in the Olympics without winning a medal is definitely not enough 'proof' of notability, but I don't think that this is a matter for speedy deletion. A statement to the effect that the subject competed in the Olympics qualifies, in my opinion, as an assertion of importance/significance. However, articles about Olympic competitors can and should be deleted (via PROD or AFD) if the competitors did not receive substantial coverage in reliable sources. –Black Falcon (Talk) 17:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, clearer now. You never want to take anything away from someone, especially not competing in the Olympics. The notability guidelines could be a bit clear perhaps because they state that if a person has competed at the top level in amateur athletics then they qualify. To me, clearly being in the Olympics is evidence of top amateur achievements, but it just didn't seem enough for an article on its own. :-) fr33kman (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

proposal

There have been several heated disputes over the notability guidelines. After huge arguments from inclusionists, deletionists, and all those in between... a few compromises have gained conditional support. We are now putting a few of those compromises to the larger community at a request for comment.

Please chime in at: Wikipedia talk:Notability/RFC:compromise. Randomran (talk) 03:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC is going as badly as I had feared, and I am in particular appalled by your conduct, criticizing A1 for a lack of specificity when you are the one who tore out the specificity and nuance to collapse it into a few sentences. Although I will participate in it, I am doing so only inasmuch as it is needed to clearly voice that the proposal under discussion on the RFC has no relation to the actual serious attempt at a policy shift that I am going to work on separately. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol Palin

I believe Bristol Palin has now become notable and an article should be created about her. Her pregnancy is currently a top news story in multiple independent and reliable sources and substantial information is available without relying on original research. Articles exist on such people as Jenna Bush, Amy Carter, and Chelsea Clinton, who would also not be notable if not for their parents' statures. Resistance to the article creation exists, so I am soliciting opinions here about whether she meets the notability criteria.--Appraiser (talk) 14:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There have been several threads about this over at WP:AN or WP:ANI (I forget which). I think the short answer is per BLP, attempts to create such an article is inappropriate at this time and admins are watching the situation carefully due to the issues around the Palins. Yes, she may be notable in the general sense, but BLP is overriding here. --MASEM 15:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there more to say about her than fits cleanly in Sarah Palin? Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. She is only noteworthy inasmuch as people can attack her mother through her pregnancy. Name one other 17 year old that has an article simply because she is pregnant and unmarried? padillaH (review me)(help me) 17:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Everything that can be said about her is already said in the parent article with no issues. Shereth 17:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Notability compromise - scope creep

<copied to Wikipedia talk:Notability/RFC:compromise to keep discussion about the RfC at the RfC talk page 18:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)>

Masem, forgive my revert of your last edit [1], but I have to ask the question, is this not an attempt to sabotage the RfC: Notability compromise by inviting additional, possibly conflicting, or even meaningless proposals to be added? I think the late additon by Kevin Murray illustrates this point: I don't believe there is widespread support for his proposal, and it just makes a long RFC longer. Surely it would be better to draft another, seperate RFC to cover addtional discussion points? --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid splitting discussion, please see this section on the RFC. --MASEM 15:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this discussion falls outside the scope of the RFC, and the reason I say this is that this discussion, as well as the call for alternative proposals is sabotage in all but name, in the sense that you are attempting to slow or capsize the RFC by over burdening it with last minute additions and amendments, similar in a sense to overloading a boat or making it too big so that it will sink. Another way of look at it is that you are attempting to hijack the discussions to serve your own agenda. This is out of order. If it is any consolation to Phil Sandifer, my own proposals were discussed and rejected on the discussion page during the draft of RFC and the point I wish to make here is that there was ample time to discuss amendments. There was also time to table an RFC ahead of this one, and there will be time to table another RFC after this is finished. In fairness I think you should withdraw both your proposal and the related discussion, which is little more than thinly-veiled spoiling tactics.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we want to delete the entire question A from the RFC, I have no objection whatsoever. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess I see what you're saying, though I've seen other RFCs and similar discussions where new proposals were allowed. I don't want to dissuade Phil from not participating, either, and while Issue A (which, regardless of the branching article approach or not, is still important to consider the general case of spinouts on their own) may not accurately represent Phil's POV (or anyone else's for that matter), but still allow him to express his views somewhere in the discussion. --MASEM 16:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not saying it is not allowed, I am saying that it is not good ettiquette to add last minute amendments for which there is not time to discuss, particularly in view of the fact that his proposal for sub-articles is central to the discussions, and I appeal to you again to withdraw your comments and withdraw the last section as soon as possible, before it growns to a size where it over extends and sinks the RFC. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's fairly obvious some mechanism is needed to add proposals and craft alternate versions. Phil's concerns about the wording choices and the like are entirely spot on IMO (and we do not see eye to eye on notability issues, particularly in regards to spin-offs). I almost opposed the version of my own proposal that made it into the RfC (only weakly supporting it), due to the horrendous wording and complete lack of connection to the underlying rationale accompanying the pre-RfC proposal. Other editors have also raised concerns about the wording and clarity of various options. When participants in notability discussions can barely recognize or support their own ideas because of wording issues and participants in the RfC note poor wording and/or a lack of clarity, it's readily apparent that the RfC needs adjusting either by adding alternate proposals and/or adding further proposals. In the absence of a means to address these shortcomings, the RfC will be essentially useless as a fair measure of consensus. (It should not be difficult to understand that if people fail to support or are reluctant to support proposals they otherwise would endorse because the proposals are poorly worded or unclear, then the RfC will be utterly inaccurate in measuring the actual opinions of the participants.) Vassyana (talk) 01:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(copy of comment in RFC) - Literally everyone has their own proposal. The idea is to present several overall "spirits" to pick from, rather than dozens of different rewordings of overall spirits (e.g.: "notability is inherited" versus "articles can be of endless size, and they are spread out over multiple branching sub-articles".) I suspect some people might feel strongly enough about wording issues that they would reject one proposal or another. But I doubt wording changes would result in a substantial change in support or opposition. Nothing would please me more than being proven wrong -- assuming that this RFC reaches no consensus. (Which would be a perfectly legitimate result: it reveals the nature of the dispute, and gives us evidence that the dispute needs a more authoritative resolution.) Randomran (talk) 04:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will reply on the RfC talk page. Vassyana (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia General Notability Guideline and Sarah Palin

A controversy related to certain entities related to Sarah Palin has arisen in the Wikipedia community. This includes articles involving Ed Kalnins, Wasilla Assembly of God, Larry Kroon, and Wasilla Bible Church. Discussions are heated because of the political environment, and allegations of censorship.

I argue as follows for inclusion of articles on some of her former teachers, pastors, churches, and schools, but not inclusion of others.

Wikipedia:Notability The Wikipedia general notability guideline policy allows for articles on persons or entities known only because they are related to major historical figures in some circumstances.

The teachers of historical figures, thinkers, mathematicians, painters, scientists, etc., are all notable for their relation to the ideas or actions of the historical figure. This is especially true if the teacher made controversial statements, and the same kind of controversial statements are what made the historical figure notable.

For example, suppose writings of the philosophy teacher of Socrates were discovered. The teacher would be known only for their relation to Socrates. But no one would argue that verifiable information about “the philosophy teacher of Socrates” would be of intense intellectual interest, and if anything, would be valid for a Wikipedia article. In fact, if you noticed the link for philosophy teacher of Socrates, you likely would want to see who it is and what their ideas are.

If Sarah Palin had a meteorology teacher who teaches the controversial idea that carbon dioxide does not cause global warming. Since Palin is notable for her controversial position on global warming, that teacher and their ideas would become notable.

But Palin’s high school astronomy teacher, even if he or she had controversial views, would not be noteworthy, as Palin is not known for her astronomy policy.

Arguments for The Alaska Pipeline put forth by Governor Palin, and for the War in Iraq by Vice Presidential Candidate Palin, explicitly included both being God’s Will. The former is consistent with the ideas of Larry Kroon. The later are explicitly the stated controversial ideas of her teacher in this area, Ed Kalnins. Ed Kalnins thereby becomes notable by his relationship to the controversial ideas of Palin, not just by his relation to Palin. This makes Kalnins notable in itself, while a former pastor of Palin who did not teach this would not be notable.

All of the teachers, schools, churches, or theories that teach controversial ideas, if they are the same as controversial ideas by which Palin has become notable, are thus notable.

They are notable for their relationship, not just to Palin, but to the policies and ideas by which Palin has become noteworthy.

Churches and pastors of Palin that are not linked to controversial policies of Palin are not notable.

Ed Kalnins, Wasilla Assembly of God, Larry Kroon, and Wasilla Bible Church have been the subject of controversy in The Atlantic Monthly, Newsweek, the Chicago Tribune, New Jersey Times of Trenton, ABC News, MSNBC, and other news sources. But suppose they were not. 76.167.163.164 (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability&oldid=236124418"