Jump to content

Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Reevaluation

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Notability

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 212.200.240.232 (talk) at 22:48, 12 February 2009 (→‎Supporters of the Proposal). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:RFCpolicy

Although notability is a long-standing guideline, some users believe that it is time to reassess its appropriateness and meaning. This request for comment has been lead to by (often controversial) discussions at WT:FICT, WP:Notability/RFC:compromise, and WT:N, not to mention the countless AFD's in which notability has played a role and has been disputed.

Note that this request for comment is just designed to determine community position on 1) whether or not there should be notability guidelines at all, rather than simply using other policies and guidelines such as WP:V, WP:NOT, WP:OR, and WP:RS, 2) whether or not the current notability guidelines should be changed or left as it is, and 3) whether or not it should be renamed.

Please remember to be civil in all discussions on this page. It is perfectly acceptable to respond to other users' comments, so please watch this page if you add any comments.

In an effort to keep each particular argument for or against notability in a central location, each of the two main sections on this page is split into four subsections. The first two subsections are locations to put your opinions on whether or not something should be done with the notability guideline, and if so what should be done. Feel free to add further subsections to these areas to separate different arguments. The second two subsections are for !votes, and should contain little if any actual discussion. Anything that doesn't fall into one of these categories, such as observations on general trends in the RFC, should be placed on the talk page.

Clarifications

Each of the three sections below should be considered separately: e.g., you may believe that notability should exist, but needs to be changed. In this case please put comments in both applicable sections so that the results of this RFC may be more easily interpreted. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology

  • "Appropriate sources": shorthand for "significant coverage in reliable third-party sources". These are sources that help an article meet the GNG.
  • "GNG": the General Notability Guideline. This says that "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." It also defines words such as "significant", "reliable source", "independent", and "presumed".
  • "SNG": the subject-specific notability guidelines such as WP:MUSIC and WP:ATHLETE.
  • "RFC": Request for Comment, a discussion that Wikipedians use to resolve disputes among smaller groups of editors.

Should WP:N continue to exist as a guideline, or be demoted/deleted?

WP:SNOW indicates an overwheleming "Keep." Possible changes and alterations to notability can and should be discussed below. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should Wikipedia:Notability stay marked as a guideline? Should it be demoted to essay, rejected, or historical status? Or should it be deleted altogether? Discuss these options below.

Arguments for existence as guideline

  • Sorry A Nobody, I really think this needs to exist
  • It shouldn't exist because we want to exclude article below a certain threshold, but because it's an easy test for what articles can be verified and what articles can't.
  • It's also extremely helpful to point newcomers towards this rather than moving into the murky realms of WP:V, which would likely result in a huge argument and would not get the same result: if I tell a newcomer "your article must have recieved coverage in newspaper articles and the like", he'll fix it up much easier than if I start explaining about verifiability and what a reliable source is anyway (that's rather subjective).
  • It's much harder to argue with "Delete doesn't meet the notabiltiy criteria" than "Delete article is unverifiable". While the definition of a reliable source is fairly plain, there is a huge amount of content out there that is borderline. For example the other day I exchanged emails with someone from a company who's article I had tagged for deletion. The company was clearly using Wikipedia to promote their business, but when he said he would let the article remain neutral if recreated, and provided some sources I know weren't lying, but might not be regarded as reliable sources by our standards, I pointed him to notability and that was the end of the discussion.
Pattont/c 22:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We want Wikipedia to be relevant. The excessive coverage of every Pokemon character is already a standing joke among critics of Wikipedia. Abolishing WP:N would lead to more articles about even less notable subjects.
  • People use Wikipedia to establish notability. We are fighting a deluge of articles promoting some unknown company and other articles created for selfish reasons. Since we can't really accuse someone of being selfish, WP:N is the easiest argument against such articles. — Sebastian 23:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you know why the notability guidelines exist; they exist solely to allow deletion of articles which cannot be verified. If pokemon characters have had enough coverage to be verified and have enough content to warrant a seperate article, then i see no problem with that. The problem of course is taht they almost never are verifiable, and notability empowers us to delete them.--Pattont/c 16:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Standing on the shoulders of giants In theory it is might seem easy to change or replace our existing inclusion criteria based on objective evidence, but in practise I have yet to see an alternative proposal that would be Better, Less complex or Unbiased Equivalent of WP:Notability. What is amazing about WP:GNG is that it provides guidance in less than 260 words, can be summaried in one sentence, yet it offers editorial flexibility and a high degree of quality control over article content for every subject matter under the sun. I think that is pretty amazing, so it not suprising that an alternative has not been found since it was created.
    Sadly, this RFC does not offer such any alternative. For some editors who think standing on the shoulders of giants is beneath them, this RFC is an opportunity to complain, demand that this guideline is watered downdown, or plead for an exemption for a class of articles or lists to be exempted in order to accomodate such topics as fringe science theories, fancruft, spam, hoaxes or topics that are not encyclopedic.
    However, I recomend that you support the existence of Wikipedia:Notability on the grounds that it is based on the type of sourcing needed to write encyclopedic articles. Generations before us realised that the best way to advance our understanding about the world around is by rely on the knowledge accumulated direct from reliable secondary sources, rather than getting information third-hand though hearsay, rumour or personal opinion. Wikipedians of the present recognise that you need objective evidence to resolve editorial disputes between editors with differing but valid viewpoints. And tomorrow? There is already a great a vast range of high quality content coming on line every day just waiting to be harvested. Suuport WP:N and secure a bright future for Wikipedia. Why demand less? --Gavin Collins (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments against existence as guideline

  • Personally, I think that as long as things are verifiable and are encyclopedic, complying with the (oft forgotten) Five Pillars, which doesn't even mention "notability" (although it is linked to via "vanity press"), it should be in Wikipedia. The first pillar states that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should be verifiable, with no original research, and with references. It also states that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or battleground. And that's about it. Except for that one link, which I don't personally think makes sense, the current notability guideline has nothing to do with Wikipedia's five core principles. The first pillar should be the guide for what Wikipedia contains. It does not say that Wikipedia contains only "notable" topics. And the first pillar also says that Wikipedia contains information from general and specialized encyclopedias, alamanacs, and gazetteers. A specialized encyclopedia could well contain topics which fail the current notability guidelines, and so they should be included per the five pillars. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Notability" is an inherently subjective term, it is nothing more than an arbitrary "I like it/I don't like it" non-standard. Regardless of the outcome of this RfC, in practice editors will continue to create, work on, and come here for articles that a vocal minority subjectively declare non-notable. If we seriously believe that Wikipedia is something more than just a fun experiment and actually is something that has relevance to humanity in general and human knowledge in general, then anything that unreasonably seeks to restrict that end is a subversive ideology. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:N is yet one more obfuscation that limits the utility and user-friendliness of Wikipedia as already carefully and succinctly defined and established in The Five Pillars. To "promote a level of quality content" is already covered in the beauty and simplicity of the Pillars. Anything else becomes more bureaucracy for the sake of more bureaucracy. I will continue to argue for simplification of the encyclopedia intended as one anybody can edit, as increasingly complicated rules and regulations are more suitable for Government Tax Codes than for ease of use of Wikipedia. I accept with the greatest good will that each new change has been offered with the best of intentions and hopes for the future, but an encyclopedia "anyone can edit" must also be one that does not require a masters degree in linguistics. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Notability 17,511 word novel aptly entitled:
"How to create a Kafkaesque bureaucracy[1], alienate new editors, cause universal media disdain, and slow the growth of wikipedia"
  • Calling editors who have a different view from you nasty names, and/or assuming they support: "fringe science theories, fancruft, spam, hoaxes", is the exact reason why the media has been universally negative about wikipedia's deletion policies and notability. Those who question notability are not supporting such garbage: "fringe science theories, fancruft, spam, hoaxes" This is a poor slippery slope argument "If Notability falls so does wikipedia!" Please don't believe such histrionics. Wikipedia existed for years before Notability, in fact, many journalists and editors would argue it existed better before notability, and it will exist better after notability. For example, Wikipedia will probably retain more editors, and "fringe science theories, fancruft, spam, hoaxes" will still be removed from wikipedia. We are not questioning the vital WP:SPAM, or WP:V, or WP:NPOV, or WP:COI rules, all which handle such problems.
    Notability is not a simple or straightforward guideline. The notability page is 2017 words, plus 8 other content forks with 15,494 words, in addition to 30 other rejected notability pages, making notability a huge Rule Creep and Kafkaesque bureaucracy.
    This cannot really come to pass: "And tomorrow? There is already a great a vast range of high quality content coming on line every day just waiting to be harvested," unless editors seriously question how our notability and deletion guidelines work, because the majority or articles for deletion are new editors contributions, usually with notability being the number one reason an article is deleted. As the PC PRO journalist found when his entry The Political Quarterly was deleted,[2] the words should be changed to: "There is already a great a vast range of high quality content coming on line every day just waiting to be deleted."Ikip (talk) 01:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refactored comments by User:A Nobody

Complete context is available on the talk page. User:A Nobody should feel free to edit his comments below as necessary for their new placement here and/or remove this notice as well as the heading. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:13, 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)

More of an opinion piece by a segment of the community than reflective of some kind of real majority in practice. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is such an over the top if not baffling and anti-wikipedic concept that it is really nothing more than an April Fools prank and should be acknowledged as such so as not to confuse anyone. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support marking as a humorous essay. Sincerely, A NobodyMy talk 17:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability clearly lacks sufficient support to be considered a guideline given the opposes above, calls for renames, 189 editors with userboxes opposing it, etc. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support marking as historical. Given the widespread opposition that brought about this RfC in the first placed, it should be acknowledged that this is a failed guideline. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)--A NobodyMy talk 17:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support existence as guideline

This section is to voice your general support for the existence of a notability guideline. Support voiced here does not necessarily constitute support of the current guideline's content, or its current name. You can support the guideline's existence here while also supporting a content or name change in the sections below.

  1. Are you kidding? I know this is a serious request, but the general notability guideline stands as one of the essential gatekeepers to promote a level of quality content. While I am prepared to enter into a discussion about the merits of refining its use as an inclusion guideline, WP:N has proven to be a effective means to balance encyclopedic quality with broad coverage while still permiting growth of articles over time. We tried building an encyclopedia using WP:NOT as our guide, and quite rightly found it wanting. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 21:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: In practice it is used subjectively and as such has been stunningly ineffective due to its subjective interpretation and misuse. What does it do that WP:VERIFIABILITY does not do? If we agree with an inclusion guideline, why not rename it as "inclusion guideline", which is objective sounding? Best, --A NobodyMy talk 21:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree it is applied subjectively at times. However, the guideline when properly understood is objective - when reliable sources independent of the subject of a proposed article have written about it in a meaningful way, it's appropriate to have a stand alone article. WP:V is absolutely not the same thing - my social security number is verifiable, but it doesn't merit encycolpedic coverage. Defining the distinction in the negative (e.g. WP:NOTDIRECTORY has proved difficult for editors to apply evenly; notability has worked far better. We'll see how other feel soon enough. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 21:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that in the hundreds of AfDs I have participated in, it is almost never used objectively, rather in hundreds of AfDs, people say BOTH "non-notable" and "notable," which means it is interpreted varyingly with at sometimes it being apparent that when people use "notable/non-notable" they are just using their own personal definition of the concept. If someone cited something like Wikipedia:Inclusion guideline, it will be clear that they are citing an actual guideline. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 21:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It seems to me WP:N is there to filter out material of the "indiscriminate collection of information" sort. -- Kendrick7talk 21:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Shouldn't quality content and the filtering the out indiscriminate information be handled pretty well by other policies, like WP:V, which aren't as controversial? -Drilnoth (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, a telephone listing is verifiable by looking it up in the phone book. That doesn't mean wikipedia should include an article on every telephone listing. -- Kendrick7talk 21:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That should be considered indiscriminate per WP:NOT, without the need for the current WP:N to also support it. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, but generally, not all information which is verifiable is encyclopedic. The point of WP:N is to answer that question, although I suppose WP:NOT is useful also. -- Kendrick7talk 22:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's basically what I mean... if WP:NOT, a policy, was used more than WP:N, a guideline, it should have similar results (probably a little looser, allowing for more articles which meet WP:5, but not a complete guide to phone numbers or My neighbor's dog). -Drilnoth (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Notability isn't just there to filter out bad content. It's there to keep focus on the worthiness of whole topics rather than individual facts. If we got rid of it, I think that would complicate and ambiguate (if that's a word) the distinction between articles that belong and articles that don't. Deletion discussions would then disintegrate into arguments over the number of verifiable facts present in an article and what number constitutes a worthy article. It would force us to micro-manage content to an impractical point. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:47, 10 Feb 2009 (UTC)
    Note: Extended discussion removed. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 02:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Didn't we already go through with this during the last RfC on NOTE? I don't see what people are trying to get accomplished here. I thought the resounding support for NOTE quieted this discussion. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 22:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like the last RFC was mainly designed to discuss the interpretation of the current N, rather than N itself. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Semantics. It still carried an implication as to whether notability was appropriate or not, which was resoundingly supported in the "are all spinouts notable?" section. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 22:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It has pretty resounding opposition, which is why it lacks consensus and should be marked as disputed, failed, or an essay. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is getting old. Your category of random blokes who don't like notability don't matter at all. Until they're up in arms and asking for NOTE to get demoted, it means nothing that they decided to put a userbox on their page. As I've said in the past, I don't care for your arguments as I practically never find them convincing or logical for that matter, so take your irritable replying to every position that doesn't agree with you elsewhere. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 22:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It shows that far more people oppose this guideline then will realistically comment to support it, which is why their position counts far more than here and why the guideline lacks any consensus per common sense. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 22:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you talking about this poll: Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise? Only 83 editors responded to whether the Notability guidelines were needed. This question was #8, in a poll which I have argued was badly written, and was not widely advertised. (WP:CENT) is not read by a majority of wikipedians. Ikip (talk) 00:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, the proposals in the RFC were written and copy-edited by the community, and the RFC was put on watchlist notice. It's harder to get more advertising than that without WP:CANVASSING Randomran (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. WP:N is pretty much a logical conclusion of the interaction of WP:NOT, WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NPOV, and it is bigger than the sum of its parts. It is a rough estimation for how good an article can become (in the GA/FA/FL sense), and the articles that fail WP:N are those that can never be good. If no replacement or alternative is offered for a removed WP:N, then it's more bureaucratic to remove those unimprovable bad articles (at least 5 policies need to be cited and argued instead of 1 common-sense guideline). Under these conditions, I'd regard the removal of WP:N as a deliberate attempt to make wikipedia suck, and I can't support that. (Feel free to pick holes into my arguments, but I won't respond as there are better wiki-things to do than endlessly defending my position.) – sgeureka t•c 22:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Extended discussion removed. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 02:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Generally speaking, yes. Protonk (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support existance. Notability is a subset of "encyclopedic." If it's not notable, it's not encylcopedic. There are other things that may not be encyclopedic, such as certain things of very local notability, such as a local city councilperson who is a political gadfly. An article about such a person would likely die in AFD unless he had a significant impact on policies or was known outside the locality, but that's outside the scope of this discussion. The only way I would support getting rid of notability is if it were merged into a broader guideline called "encyclopedic." I don't see this happening any time soon, and I'm not going to push for it anytime soon either. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What would you make of a guideline called "Wikipedic", because per our First pillar, we're not only an encylopedia, but also an almanac and gazatteer? Best, --A NobodyMy talk 23:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support retention. My reasoning is essentially the same as Davidwr's above. Deor (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. WP:N deals with two important policy concerns: WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, otherwise any person verifiable from census records and phone book listing could have an article, and WP:NPOV in cases where the only sources are non-independent it is essentially impossible to meet the standard of WP:NPOV without violating WP:OR. WP:N provides an easy heuristic for identifying such articles which would probably have to be deleted anyway. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support if you believe that Wikipedia should remain an Encyclopedia, not a Wookieepedia. --Gavin Collins (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Digression moved to the talk page. Protonk (talk) 01:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Obvious support I've never seen a serious proposal for radical intervention that wouldn't make Wikipedia be something completely different than an encyclopedia. GRBerry 23:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. It's one thing to say "All we need is WP:V", but that particular policy is aspirational at best and ignored at worst. To mangle a Madison quote, if all articles were angels, no Notability would be necessary. Nifboy (talk) 06:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support per Eluchil404. The fact that we can have much broader standards for notability than a paper encyclopedia does not mean we should abandon having any standards. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support notability is necessary to ensure two things: that all articles have enough verifiable information available to write a decent article, and to filter out unencyclopedic content. If we were allowed to have articles on anything where verifiable information exists all sorts of blatantly inappropriate articles could not be deleted - children who got a sentence in the local paper for example. I am sure that if traditional encyclopedias had anywhere near Wikipedia's breadth of coverage they would also have some sort of notability rule. Hut 8.5 07:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support existence While we shouldn't rely on them solely, they are an easy test to see if something should be included. The GNG is often abused. Yes, multiple topic-specific references in reliable sources make something notable, but even trivial mentions can make something notable depending on what is being claimed. Notability criteria are merely a list of things that are generally considered encyclopedic in their field. - Mgm|(talk) 09:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support This is one of Wikipedia's key guidelines for a good reason; without it this couldn't attempt to be an encyclopedia as it would be swiftly over-run with spam, things people have made up, editor's obscure relations, etc. I don't think that this even needs to be discussed. Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. It would be utterly insane to remove this. Stifle (talk) 10:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Complete madness - Wikipedia would disappear under a cloud of shite. NO NO NO. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support existence, agree with davidwr that "If it's not notable, it's not encyclopedic", but don't think it is easy to decide.... - Pointillist (talk) 12:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support existence: I think that notability is important, although how it is used and the exact content of the guideline should be changed, as I discuss below. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC) Revision: I support the overall existance of notability, although I'm unsure as to whether it should be a guideline or an essay. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - The main reason I'm inclined to support WP:N instead of relying on WP:V alone is because I think that secondary sources are critical to any article, and the overuse of primary sources is a cause of systemic bias in Wikipedia. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support as a logical extension of other policies. WP:N is a helpful restatement of WP:OR and WP:V, which both say that we shouldn't have articles without reliable third-party sources. Articles that fail WP:N almost always fail these policies, and others like WP:NOT by turning Wikipedia into an indiscriminate collection of information or a directory. Randomran (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support as necessary until some other means to apply "indiscriminate information" can be put into its place. I'm not thrilled with its current method of use and have ways to move past that, but we need something in place during transition. --MASEM 18:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Not the very best stuff but still light years better than Chaos, Anarchy, Scams, Hoaxes and Bullshits. KrebMarkt 18:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. An indispensable filter against unverifiable content, original research and indiscriminate information.  Sandstein  18:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. per Sandstein, Risker, and many others above Bastique demandez
  27. Support per Sandstein, Explodicle, and others. WP:V and WP:RS aren't enforced nearly well enough. It could certainly be improved, but removing it with no suitable replacement is a recipe for disaster with regards to spam, hoaxes, and BLP problems. Mr.Z-man 19:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support If you want to argue you don't like the name, that's one thing. If you want to argue that notability is too strict, I'll listen. If you want to give every character that's ever been in a published book, magazine, or game an article, I'll disagree but I'll have that debate. But I can't accept the idea that we should have absolutely no standard of notability. Pagrashtak 19:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support per davidwr. "If it's not notable, it's not encylcopedic." Ben MacDui 08:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Otherwise the encyclopedia will collapse into a mire of spam, junk, hoaxes, scams, the C.V.'s of every real or fictitious person in the world etc. Any genuinely useful article would be totally lost amongst all of this stuff. e.g. Want to find out about Charles Dickens? There would be a thousand different ones to choose from. Further, it would be impossible to enforce WP:V and WP:RS in the face of this mega-tsunami especially as it is not done particularly well at the moment. Jll (talk) 09:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - didn't we just go over this, not long before Christmas? Sceptre (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support, obviously...there MUST be some guidelines if this is actually to be an encyclopedia, and not a big giant web host for anything and everything people might feel inclined to mess with. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support (with possible inclination toward recognition as a policy) - User:sgeureka hit it: WP:GNG works hand-in-hand and is a bulwark that reinforces WP:NOT, WP:RS, etc. --EEMIV (talk) 15:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Not broken, don't fix. No matter what, if there is any standard of inclusion, there will always be close calls. Townlake (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. If not a guideline, I'd support this being policy. Absolutely would not support demoting it. Karanacs (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose existence as guideline

  1. Common sense strong oppose existence as it serves no useful or relevant purpose whatsoever, but by contrast goes against the whole concept of a paperless encyclopedia that anybody can edit. Other inclusion criteria are more than sufficient, but I am persuaded by the arguments presented at User:Ziggurat/Notability, Wikipedia:Notability/Arguments#Arguments_against_deleting_articles_for_non-notability, User:Thanos6, and Wikipedia:Notability/Historical/Non-notability/Essay among many others. The fact that 189 editors feel strong enough against notability to have userboxes indicating as much indicates further that it lacks community support and those at best should be marked as disputed. Indeed, even if 100 editors say "support" above, nearly twice that number have declared their opposition to notability on their userpages. Propose maybe even marking it as "humorous" as it cannot possibly be intended as a serious guideline. Wikipedia is per its first pillar not just a general encyclopedia, but also a sepcialized encyclopedia, almanac, and gazetteer. "Notability" thus goes against our first pillar, which is why the community in practice edits counter to it. No one should ever respect or feel bound by a guideline based on a subjective criteria such as "notability." Anything based on "notability" can and should be effectively ignored.--A NobodyMy talk 21:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong oppose The notability policy should be demoted to an essay "Rules for exclusion", as it not only excludes contributions, but it excludes editors also. Lack of "notability", even after meeting the criteria of The Five Pillars, is the number one reason articles get deleted.[3] The majority of articles put up for deletion are created by new editors.[4] Unofficial data since October 2007 suggests that users' activity on Wikipedia has been dropping, and the Economist magazine blames, "self-appointed deletionist guardians" and a proliferation of rules.[5] In fact, media's focus on Wikipedia's deletion policy, and notability, has been universally negative:
    See: Journalist's views on notability and deletion have been universally negative
    In the past, editors have mocked these journalist who universally condemn Wikipedia. The same way they mock websites which are harshly critical of Wikipedia. In response, I quote The Guardian:
    The combination of feuds and relentless focus on negatives associated with Wikipedia creates an obsession by some devoted Wikipedians about the evils visited upon them...[a] toxic mix of paranoia, fear of infiltrators and a social system where status can be acquired by fighting off threats (real or imagined)...looking beyond the rosy marketing picture reveals little but bureaucracy implemented poorly…[6]
    Instead of seeing these outsiders views as warnings, many veteran editors scoff and see these views as baseless criticisms, ignoring the long term health of Wikipedia. Notablity is causing the loss of not only thousands of contributions, it is causing the loss of thousands of potential editors too. Wikipedia already has WP:V and WP:NOR, part of the Five pillars of this great site, notability is simply not needed. Ikip (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose on the grounds that for Wikipedia, less is indeed more. WP:N is yet one more obfuscation that limits the utility and user-friendliness of Wikipedia as already carefully and succintly defined and established in The Five Pillars. I will continue to argue for simplification of the encyclopedia intended as one anybody can edit, as increasingly complicated rules and regulations are more suitable for Govenment Tax Codes than for ease of use of Wikipedia. An encylclopedia "anyone can edit" must also be one where the ruiles are ones "anybody can understand", and not require a masters degree in lingusitics. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose We need to eliminate the nonsense rules that state that a best selling novel shouldn't have its own article, simply because it hasn't been reviewed. And what is the harm in having an article for every published manga series out there? If you don't like it, you probably wouldn't see it anyway, it only there if you go looking for it. Dream Focus (talk) 04:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Notability is generally used as an excuse for editors to delete articles on subjects they don't like. jenuk1985 (talk) 06:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose If an article passes WP:RS and WP:OR, then it should be included. --Falcorian (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Ultra Oppose Honestly, this guideline is awful and always has been. From any real-world point of view all it is is a hindrance to the website's potential maintained and supported by a small gaggle of internet elitists who no one wants to put the time or effort into disagreeing with. A Nobody's a bit radical for my tastes, but his comparisons between this policy and prohibition/slavery were dead on; just like those abolished pieces of history, this little deal Wikipedia has going here is both disruptive towards the free-flowing nature of the site on top of being blatantly wrong, yet kept around because of a minority of stubborn fools. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 02:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I must say, that's the highest level of opposition I've ever seen. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:10, 12 Feb 2009 (UTC)
    Why thank you, I do try. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed changes to WP:N

  • Notability as currently presented through the GNG and SNGs is trying to do two things: an inclusion guideline (what we include) and a content guideline (when do make an article). This is a major burden for a guideline under so much contention, and while it helps to correct from WP's unbridled growth from its early years, it is too much of a correction as it seems to be hard to use common sense against the major proponents of it. --MASEM 22:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought notability is specifically not a content guideline. Could you clarify that? Equazcion •✗/C • 23:50, 10 Feb 2009 (UTC)
      • It is not, but it used implicitly as such. See the previous RFC on WP:N where there is strong resistance against spinout articles and moderate support for lists of non-notables. While WP:N currently states If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article., it doesn't attempt (appropriately) to describe how to handle subpages of a topic created by summary style approaches. The problem is that many editors want WP:N to applied to "articles" unilaterally, when really it is the topic that should be of interest.
      • It is a work in progress, but User:Masem/i describes more on my thoughts. Basically, if WP were a printed volume with an infinite number of pages, the coverage of a "topic" may last for several pages, even if all aspects of a topic aren't notable but verifyable and are not indiscriminate; when that's translated to an electronic form and limited by size, we technically can recreate that (redirects are our friends) but philosophically we hit a brick wall in the policy area to support it, namely because of the weight WP:N carries. --MASEM 01:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the clarification. I agree N should cover topics rather than articles. I've actually proposed the use of subpages before (actual subpages, as in topic main page/topic subpage). As long as we continue to recommend the splitting of large articles, we need some way of preventing the deletion of those splitoffs. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:59, 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)
          • Yep; IMO, if a topic as a whole is notable most all parts/elements of it should be included also. For example, Dungeons & Dragons is notable, so shouldn't the things that make it up also be included (without becoming a WP:GAMEGUIDE, of course)? On the other hand, if a book or game was non-notable, then obviously there shouldn't be any spinoffs. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm concerned that the current N is causing some users to leave Wikipedia because the things that they want to contribute... be it music, fiction, or people, are constantly being removed becuase of non-notability. I think that this might be slightly alleviated if N was instead just an interpretation of WP:V, WP:5, and WP:NOT, rather than acting as a completely separate guideline as it currently is. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right to be concerned if people are putting in effort to create new articles which are promptly deleted, but we need to understand why that is happening. Wikipedia:Your first article is pretty clear: it says "Articles that do not meet notability by citing reliable published sources are likely to be deleted." Perhaps that warning should be emphasised, either on the Search Results page (see my mock-up warning here), or after the user clicks "Create the page". It is a little unfair, really: in the old days new users could just bang in text based on their personal interests with little or no supporting material. Now that Wikipedia is becoming more mature, most of the effort needed is to improve the content of existing articles and in particular find citations for them, and of course that might not appeal to some people. It's a shame, but it's no reason to abandon notability. - Pointillist (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposed Change: Change the GNG to be a direct interpretation of WP:V, WP:NOT, and WP:OR, rather than having it act as its own policy (and it does act like a policy, even though it isn't), in a similar way to how WP:SNOW is a direct interpretation of WP:IAR. This would probably relax the requirements a little, but would still mean that things had to be verfifiable and not indiscirminate or directory-like. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I understand. WP:IINFO (which is part of a policy page) begins "Further information: Wikipedia:Notability", but as this is a guideline it can't be embedded into the scope of WP:IINFO. Is that right? It's not exactly Kafkaesque (sorry Ikip) but neither is it very easy to absorb in a single reading.
  • Going back to your proposed change "Change the GNG to be a direct interpretation of WP:V, WP:NOT, and WP:OR". WP:V says "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." WP:N seems to be adding a "Significant coverage" test and clarifying sources as being "independent/objective", "not temporary" and ideally "multiple". Which parts of that does your proposed change aim to avoid? - Pointillist (talk) 00:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't aim to avoid that at all. N adds information which is not included in V or NOT by, in my opinion, further limiting what articles can be included. Additionally, I think that notability is used incorrectly a lot in AFDs; if it was modified and better clarified that it was just an interpretation of core policies, it would be used more in the way it is supposed to: As inclusion criteria, not exclusion or deletion criteria. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

break 1

I'm not sure I understand Masem's argument above. Notability is (already) an inclusion guideline. It says, broadly, what subjects are included. Content guidelines like NOT, NOR, V, BLP, SPAM, all say what content we can't have. We have an article on George Bush because he is notable (per the GNG, or BIO, or whatever). But we can't have an article on how George Bush is a spaceman from mars (NOR), a jerk (BLP/NPOV). We have an article on IBM because they are notable (per GNG or CORP) but we can't have an article on how IBM's new ultra-mega-super whatever is awesome and you should buy it (SPAM/NPOV). I don't see how this would or should change if we rename notability. Protonk (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Masem is just plain wrong. It is, and always has been, only a content guideline for when we have an article. We have an article when the topic of that article meets all of our policies, the most important combination of which is encapsulated in the GNG. He is wrong in asserting that notability is about the content within an article, that has never been what notability, the GNG, or the SNGs, are about. GRBerry 23:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability does not explicitly act as a content guideline, but once you start working with topics that cannot be sourced but are necessary in comprehensive coverage of a much larger topic (that is forced to split over several articles), the influence of notability in restricting content becomes apparent, as WP:N (as used by many editors) would not allows for supporting articles created per summary style of that larger topic. If WP were a printed book with an infinite number of pages, then likely coverage of clearly notable topics would have numerous subsections; an article on New York may have sections covering the major cities and towns, its transportation system, landmarks, economy, etc, that would last for several pages; an article on a sports team may have scores and team rosters throughout the teams history, an article on a television show would including all the recurring characters and episodes. When they are all grouped under one super-large article, these all seem to be ok, and the infinitely-large index would cross-reference all the sub-topics of these. Technically, we can recreate this electronically via multiple article pages, with navigation templates for maneuvering between related sections and redirects for searching, but notability blocks logical approaches here in that some articles that would be naturally created from the larger article would be blocked by certain uses of the notability guideline (most specifically lists of topics lacking notability). Thus, one is forced to figure out a different content approach if they wish to include that material. This "content" aspect of notability is not explicit, but it a result of how the guideline is used. --MASEM 15:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"once you start working with topics that cannot be sourced" then you are in the land of WP:OR and are also failing WP:V. I am not at all sure that I follow your logic in the relation of your argument to WP:N. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That should be read as "sourced only from primary sources". Clearly anything without sources cannot be included in the first place. --MASEM 18:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

break 2

This section was formerly a poll-style list of "supporters of change". However since there are no specific changes outlined to support or oppose yet, I've changed the heading. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:30, 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)
Note: The "oppose changing" section was moved to the talk page. Until editors know what exactly they would be supporting or opposing, poll-style lists of supports/opposers are impractical. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:30, 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)

  1. Based on trying to improve upon what has been seen as too much deletion in the last few years, it would seem to me that we would want to move to broad inclusion guidelines (but still adhering to WP:V and WP:IINFO), and then restructuring how we present articles to make sure that articles are comprehensively usable to make sure that articles are neither permastubs nor invite excess violation of NOR, NPOV, and other NOT. This means that while a topic should be included via inclusion guidelines, it may not have enough non-primary sources or information outside of one or two sources to present a completely comprehensive article, but still can be described in a parent topic or a list/table article, using redirects as needed. The present GNG still presents itself as an (but not the) inclusion guideline, since anything significantly sourced by secondary sources is something we'd want to include. --MASEM 22:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per my statement above. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. User: A Nobody supports changing the content of the policy. I'm posting this to encourage him to post his ideas. He should feel free to replace this comment. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:28, 10 Feb 2009 (UTC)
  4. Second choice. Equazcion, you do realize that wikipedia existed before notability? That in fact many journalists and editors nostalgically look back on that time? So your stunt invitation makes no sense. It is perfectly rational and logical to simply want to demote or get rid of Notability. Wikipedia already has enough Bureaucracy and Rule Creep. There are dozens of failed notability guidelines, and there are several content forks already off of notability.Ikip (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I'm a little confused -- to what stunt are you referring? Equazcion •✗/C • 01:57, 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)
    "I'm posting this to encourage him to post his ideas. He should feel free to replace this comment." Lets change my word to "invitation". It is a very unusually request, correct? Hold a place for an editor, in a section you oppose? Ikip (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I had an argument with that user in the "support" section (the bulk of which I removed since it was irrelevant to the main discussion), where he was responding to each of the support comments by saying that the supporters were wrong since the policy clearly needed to be changed. I asked that he not respond that way to each comment but rather post his ideas for change here instead, since that would be more constructive, and his continued responses seemed rather unhelpful and were irritating the users there. He refused, and I posted this comment here to encourage him further. If that's been taken as some sort of sarcastic remark, I didn't mean it that way, but if anyone feels that it's inappropriate they can feel free to remove it. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:13, 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)
    Thanks for the clarification, I will leave that up to other editors to remove, if they wish. Ikip (talk) 02:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weak support, in principle: I think this is obvious: virtually everyone supports making changes and improvements to our guidelines. I think even many oppose !votes would support change, except that they don't want to agree any and all changes. This isn't a very useful option, because the wide range of interpretations of "change" will prevent us from finding even a smidge of common ground to build upon. Randomran (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support in principle: something must be done to get a fresh consensus, ideally as part of a package that makes it easier for inexperienced editors to understand whether a new article will succeed. This means simplifying the relevant policy/guideline pages (to reduce TL;DR), making them easily accessible while editing, and taking extra care with deletion processes (so we don't look like "bullies", "vigilantes" and "wannabe tin-pot dictators"). I'd like feedback on a related suggestion:
  • The practice of creating an article in main space and looking for sources afterwards maximises conflict/frustration. To avoid this, the "create this article" link (on the search results page) should create the new article in user space by default, where it can be polished without time pressure. Can we all agree on that, at least? - Pointillist (talk) 09:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should WP:N be renamed?

List of new names for consideration

Feel free to add suggestions below, but please sign your suggestions, to avoid overpopulating the list with trivial suggestions. Initial list posted by Equazcion •✗/C • 20:08, 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Arguments for renaming

  • I think that what the guideline really means is often misinterpreted because of its name. Notability is really a set of inclusion guidelines, and I think that it should be called as such. As it is, notability seems to be used as exclusion guidelines, which it really isn't supposed to be. Therefore, I suggest renaming to WP:Inclusion guidelines. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to suggest "WP:Criteria for inclusion" or "WP:Inclusion criteria", instead of "WP:Inclusion guidelines". It just fits better into statements (public and internal) and discussions. Ie. "I feel this article meets/doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion." As for whether or not it should be done, it would be nice, if only to avoid confusion. I often see newbies in deletion discussions when their articles, or articles they really care about, are nominated, saying things like "how can you say this topic isn't notable??", and then we have to explain that we're not talking about the word notable but the policy, describe the distinction between opinions on topic notability and meeting the notability guideline per se, etc etc. A rename would probably avoid most of that, if not all. PS I of course realize my suggested names are already redirects here, but I'm of course suggesting that one of those should be the policy's official name. Just to be clear. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:12, 10 Feb 2009 (UTC)
  • There are a few reasons for renaming:
    • "Notability" causes editors to ignore the third-party source requirements, and get into subjective measures of importance.
    • Deletionists sometimes use "notability" in order to just delete things that they believe are unimportant, regardless of sources. WP:IHATEIT.
    • Inclusionists sometimes use "notability" in order to keep things that they believe are important, despite a lack of sources. WP:ILIKEIT.
    • People (new editors) don't actually read the guideline and just rely upon the title, because "notability" usually just means "importance" to them. (Consult a thesaurus.)
    • To some extent, deleting an article because it's "not notable" (unimportant) hurts more feelings than deleting an article for "lack of sources". We shouldn't coddle editors, but we *can* find ways to take the sting of perceived subjectivity out of sourcing problems.
    • The point of notability isn't that we judge what is notable, but that reliable third-party sources do -- by noting up major phenomena.
  • There are counter arguments, but I think they're rebuttable:
    • Notability is the best name. To which I counter that it leads to many misunderstandings, which I mentioned above.
    • People are still too accustomed to using notability. To that, I counter that habits can change if we permit the slow transition. See Wikipedia:Vanity. We felt that "conflict of interest" sums up the issue much better.
    • People are acting in bad faith to change the scope and eventually dilute the content of the notability guideline. To that, I counter that we should pick a rename that improves the scope, and cements the requirement for third-party sources.
    • Some of the proposed renames are lousy. But a little cooperation would be nice, as it's hard to reach a consensus without brainstorming from both sides.
  • There it is. Randomran (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments against renaming

Support renaming

  1. To WP:Inclusion guidelines. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree with the above, i.e. that an objective "inclusion guideline" absent of subjectively interpreted words like "significant" and "notable" is the correct way to go. No compelling reason has ever been presented for this name. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per my reasoning above. WP:Criteria for inclusion or WP:Inclusion criteria.
    Per the discussion below, a straight rename to something like "inclusion criteria" would be inaccurate. I still feel a rename might be a good idea, if an appropriate and accurate name can be found. However as Protonk suggests below I think a new compilation guideline named "inclusion criteria" could (should?) be created to summarize all the different policies that could affect inclusion, which following my reasoning above would help curtail confusion, especially for new editors. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:39, 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)
  4. Either "Inclusion guidelines" or "Inclusion criteria" are fine. I never understood the "But then people will think that notability is the only content inclusion guideline" objection. If we rename N→Inclusion, no one is going to lose their mind and think that BLP, NOT or SPAM don't exist. I see no problem moving from "we only deal with important things" (both implied by the word notability and determined directly by some subject specific guidelines such as BIO, NB, FILMS), which obviously doesn't describe current practice to something more neutral. I disagree strongly that the more neutral place will somehow eliminate the need for significant coverage, as some proponents of the rename hope to do. But w/e. Protonk (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Renaming is a good idea. "inclusion" is much clearer. I think there could definitely be changes too, but renaming at the very least. Ddawkins73 (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Third choice. Ikip (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. To WP:third party sources or something of the like. I would oppose "inclusion criteria" because "inclusion" is just as vague as words like "importance", and slightly worse than "notability". The common refrain is "who are you to say what's notable/important?" That would merely change to "who are you to say what we should include?" But if we were to focus on third-party sources, we would realize that editors don't decide what is noteworthy, but reliable independent secondary sources do -- by making note of phenomena, which Wikipedians then summarize. Randomran (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ^I like that one. Directly says the point of the guideline, rather than focusing on the value judgment. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:08, 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)
    I agree with the principle, but you'll never manage to summarise the whole point of the guideline. WP:significant coverage over a period in reliable independent and not purely local secondary sources is too unwieldly. Anyway third party evidence of existence isn't the sole measure of notability—my house isn't notable, even if there are significant descriptions of it in public Land registration and Zoning archives. I think we'd be better off sticking trying to agree what "Notability" means before trying to change the label. And BTW I'm instinctively an inclusionist and article rescuer rather than a deletionist. - Pointillist (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Third-party sources might not be the only measure of notability, but neither is the notability guideline. The point of the rename is to state what the guideline adds to the general plethora of guidelines and policies. Reliability of sources is covered in a separate guideline. This one focuses on the need for sources from third parties. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:54, 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)
    I think your house would be excluded by WP:NOT. The guideline doesn't mean "everything that has third-party sources should be included", but "everything that is included should have third-party sources". Randomran (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support "Inclusion criteria". As long as this thing is going to stick around, it could at least get its name changed. The current name "notability" is simply unfitting because, well, it's bullshit. It goes almost entirely against the accepted notions of notability and instead uses its own little definition. It's insulting to the word "notability. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support "Inclusion criteria". I frequently delete CSD candidates, and there is a lot of confusion among new editors on what notability means. That said, I also wouldn't oppose the name remaining the same as it is now. Karanacs (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose renaming

  1. Oppose I think the potential for confusion with other "inclusion criteria" outways any benefit of a rename. People already "vote" "Keep-notable" at AfD's where other concerns, such as WP:OR or WP:BLP#1E have been raised and changing the name to "Inclusion" would only make this problem worse. It is true the "notability" is a term of art on Wikipedia whose contours do not exactly match that of its "real world" usage but that is true to a greater or lesser extent of all terms defined by policies/guidlines. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose as I pray that WP:NOTABILITY will never become WP:Article inclusion, WP:Article Exclusion, or worst of all WP:Article Selektion.--Gavin Collins (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As its only 1 inclusion criterion. Mr.Z-man 00:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As a general response to the "there are other inclusion criteria" concerns: There are other content inclusion policies, but isn't N the only article inclusion policy? And doesn't inclusion usually denote whole topics, not individual facts? I could be off on that, I haven't gone researching. It just seems to me that it's generally understood that inclusion refers to whole topics, and that no other policy deals with the issue of which topics to include. Just tossing that out there. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:00, 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)
    It may be the most cited, but renaming it to "article inclusion guideline" suggests its the only possible one. Mr.Z-man 03:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, and again, in terms of the inclusion of entire articles, isn't it the only one? Equazcion •✗/C • 03:35, 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)
    Well, Mr. Z-man has a point. I didn't get to flesh it out at the last renaming RfC, but my view would be this. We have these content policies, some core, some not. We have (assuming that WP:N makes it through this RfC unscathed) inclusion guidelines based on those policies. I have no problem With us changing N itself to be a broader "Inc" with pointers to NOT/SPAM/NOR, or even transclusions of those sections (noting where policy begins and ends). Wikipedia:Civility works in a similar fashion. Portions of it are policy all by themselves, but the basic idea of "don't be a dick" stems from other behavioral policies and guidelines which are summarized at CIV. I think it would be inartful to just change the name alone. We would want to make sure that we were appropriately describing our inclusion policies/guidelines in general. Protonk (talk) 04:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) No, it isn't the only one. WP:NOT, for instance, specifies a number of types of articles that shouldn't be included, such as Tourist's guide to Paris or Gallery of Poussin paintings or Directory of automobile-repair shops in Chicago. Deor (talk) 04:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Protonk, I'm not sure what you're saying. You mean that since N stems from, or follows logically from, other policies, that it can't be called the exclusive inclusion policy? Why not? If it's the only policy dictating which topics the encyclopedia can cover, then what's wrong with calling it (for instance) the "article inclusion policy"? We call a television a television despite the fact that it's made up of parts that aren't televisions. The sum becomes something different from the parts. What's wrong with naming it accordingly? Equazcion •✗/C • 04:21, 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)
    Well, I agree that the things excluded by NOT as subjects which are not otherwise excluded by N are very narrow. I think the point Z-man is making (and the point made at the last renaming attempt) was that calling N the "inclusion criteria" might cause people to ignore some of the other inclusion criteria. I don't think it is very persuasive or hard to overcome, but it is a point which has to be addressed. Protonk (talk) 05:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If we give people an opportunity to wikilawer something, they will use it to wikilawyer. I can see it now: "But WP:Inclusion guidelines doesn't say this isn't a valid article, so it must be." and interestingly enough, WP:Inclusion criteria has redirected to WP:NOT since 2006 Mr.Z-man 05:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that's what I was asking, if there were other policies that determined inclusion. I see now that there are, but was frustrated by the lack of a straight answer. Deor provided that nicely, and I've amended my stance above. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:41, 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)
    Deor: NOT is a content policy, though yeah, there are certain article titles that would impede them from ever containing anything other than content prohibited by NOT, which in turn gets them deleted. Thinking out loud. Articles can be deleted for content, which is something I hadn't thought of. So I guess I abdicate. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:34, 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)
  4. Oppose renaming. It is what it is. Calling it something else does not address current concerns over its application. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose whilst notability is an inclusion guideline it is not the inclusion guideline. Articles can and are frequently excluded for other reasons such as WP:NOT, WP:BLP and so on. If we wanted to make a page on "inclusion guidelines" we would have to merge parts of all these pages into it, which would be impractical. Hut 8.5 07:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. It might make people feel good, but it won't actually achieve anything. - Mgm|(talk) 09:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - just an attempt to dilute notability from another angle. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose - even if you rename it, english-as-a-first-language speakers will still talk about "notability". - Pointillist (talk) 14:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC) If we need to make it clear that wikipedia has a specific definition for the concept, I wouldn't object to calling it "Encyclopedic Notability". - Pointillist (talk) 09:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose — I, for one, am not for calling it in "intrenching tool" or an "manual geomorphological modification implement"—it's a freakin' shovel! Same applies here. MuZemike 17:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. "Notability" is a fine name—one that trips pleasingly off the tongue. Deor (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose I don't see anything wrong withe the current name, especially as it sums up what the guideline is about in one word Nick-D (talk) 07:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose renaming. It is concise and a good description of the guideline. If it isn't broken, don't fix it. Jll (talk) 10:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose, no valid reason to rename given at all. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose - Clear, specific name describes the content. No compelling reason to rename it. --EEMIV (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should WP:N be made Policy?

Wikipedia has developed a body of policies and guidelines to further our goal of creating a free encyclopedia. Policies are considered a standard that all editors should follow, whereas guidelines are more advisory in nature.

Amazingly, Wikipeida policies do not define what topics are suitable for inclusion as a standalone article. Instead, WP:What Wikipedia is not makes it clear that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and just because a topic may exist or is useful does not automatically make it suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia.

To differentiate between what is indiscriminate, and what is not, Wikipedia employs the concept of '"Notability", an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article. The principal underlying notability is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability.

Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence. By chance or by design, it is the same reliable sources that generations past have used to expand our knowledge of the world around us by understanding the research and works created by notable thinkers of the past, described by the metaphor "Standing on the Shoulders of Giants".

Since WP:What Wikipedia is not and WP:Notability are closely linked, such that they can be described different sides of same coin, I propose that the guideline Wikipedia:Notability should be promoted to a Policy in order to strengthen the First of the Five Pillars that define the character of Wikipedia.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supporters of the Proposal

  1. Support Only because judging from current practice, it seems to be policy already. Hell it seems to be gospel. Might as well fess up to that. In answer to Drilnoth's point below, that N is a guideline because exceptions need to be made where appropriate, that applies to any rule, and is not the difference between a guideline and a policy. "Policies are considered a standard that all editors should follow, whereas guidelines are more advisory in nature." I think we can all agree that, in practice, Notability has fallen under the first category. Look over any particular day's worth of deletion discussion. Editors in those discussions who suggest Notability to merely be "advisory" are asking for a horse-whippin'. Every article is expected to satisfy Notability. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:27, 12 Feb 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I've seen it used as a gospel by deletionist, and by people disliking the article in question. I haven't seen it that often used by "followers" on articles they like. Not just WP:N, but also WP:V and WP:RS. People use all the tools they can get to achieve their goals, and when tools are not there, they use the special tool WP:IAR. Why I dislike WP:N is because in practice it is mainly supported by google search based sources, and although huge, google index is far from comprehensive. Also consider that most major news sites don't keep their archives! Many old news stories disappear, so go figure how to cite those, unless if you have microfilmed newspapers in your local library, and can remember the date of the news!! 212.200.240.232 (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Support. This is often treated as a policy anyway. Karanacs (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Objectors to the Proposal

  1. WP:NOT supports the first pillar of Wikipedia, as does WP:V, but not WP:N.
    (Copied from talk page:) WP:N is a guideline because exceptions need to be made to it when appropriate. Policies like WP:NOT, WP:V, and WP:OR serve a similar purpose... the GNG is made to be an interpretation of them (although it does add in a few more inclusion criteria). The GNG's use is much more subjective, more so than any of those policies, so I think that it should be kept as a guideline. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Note that I would think that if the community does want it like this with WP:N as policy and that logically leads to some "end" of the inc. vs. del. war, great. Personally, this is very wrong, because WP:N in its current form has several conflicts with other policies and guidelines, and also that by enforcing it in this way, we create a type of encyclopedia that may absolutely meet all of the mission goals buy may become less useful, and may see WP losing editors, readers, and the like to other projects. There is also the issue of how the SNGs play out if only WP:N is brought to policy, since the RFC on WP:N last showed that a topic meets the GNG or an SNG, not the GNG and the SNG. --MASEM 14:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Drilnoth. Sceptre (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. WP:N is better than nothing But it does mean that WP:N was great before hand. In some aspect WP:N is a kind of Tyrant and only fool give more power to one. KrebMarkt 17:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment A change from to guideline to policy can also be viewed as an indirect & back-handed way to alter the outcome of WP:FICT. Yes i'm an unbeliever of good faith. --KrebMarkt 19:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I am so glad that Masem, Sceptre, and I can agree on something. Ikip (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Absolutely not. It would be one of the dumbest things ever done in Wikipedia history. Suggest withdrawing this section as either pointed or not serious. I do not respect or feel bound by it as guideline or nor would I or should anyone else if it were a policy per "ignore all rules". Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Not yet. Based on what I've seen at AfD, there just isn't a strong enough community consensus for it to be policy. --Explodicle (T/C) 21:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Not commented elsewhere on here (yet) but I strongly disagree with making notability a policy. There are too many areas where the community does not insist on meeting the GNG for an article to be allowed such as towns and villages, possibly WP:FICT and some areas where a SNG is met such as a professional sportsperson (despite what the SNG actually says). We do make exceptions to WP:N and we should not have to ignore all rules every time we do. Davewild (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. WP:N already has so many forks, and making it a policy would kind of bring new mess into WP, as GNG seems to be insufficient by itself when it needs all its 'children'. Policies should be self sufficient. ps. go to WP:N Academics which aims to be independent of GNG, and you'll see the beginning of the mess. 212.200.240.232 (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Not yet, maybe never. It's just not sound enough or temperate enough as it stands. Eventualism is a keystone to the success the project has shown. An article mentions a term. Someone tries linking it and it comes up red. Someone follows the redlink to search for related concepts and, seeing lots of hits, starts a stub. Seconds later, somebody else speedies it and we lose an opportunity to improve the encyclopedia. This happens over and over again. LeadSongDog (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Replace Notability with two guidelines: Inclusion and Article Quality

WP:N is attempting to function as an inclusion guideline and as a content guideline (in terms of how we deal with articles). The problem is that this creates issues between dealing with topics and with articles. We still need to adhere to WP:V and WP:IINFO, but the high-level requirement of secondary sources means that coverage of areas outside of academics and mainstream information will be less than what it could be if the requirement was lowered to just verifiability and avoiding indiscriminate information. While discussing topics that are non-notable in a larger parent article is generally preferred, there is still resistance in having supporting articles of a notable topic which themselves may not be notable - a matter of significant difference between our summary style approach and the fact that notability is not inherited; it is because it is strongly asserted that secondary sources must be present for any article, even though notability is meant to be applied to a topic.

Thus, I propose that WP:N (in addition to whatever other policies and guidelines need to reflect this) to be split into two separate guidelines:

  • Inclusion: WP can be broad in coverage of topics. Inclusion guidelines would include subject specific ones with well-defined whitelists and blacklists for what WP should and should not cover, respectively. Inclusion guidelines can also include topics that meet general standards for inclusion, such as what the current GNG states. The key part that must be asserted here is that inclusion is not equivalent of having its own article. What constitutes a good article is the other guideline, but when a topic has minimal sources or can't be expand beyond what is already present, it should be described in an article that places that topic with other topics to provide a more comprehensive picture. In this fashion, redirects are our friends, because any topic that is included should be a valid search result, just maybe not its own page.
  • Article Quality: There is a certain quality that we expect across all articles, but we realize that no article is ever perfect; things like language, layout, and the like are impossible to judge at earlier states of an article's development. However, there are other aspects, such as comprehensiveness, sourcing, and adherence to content guidelines, that can be judged after the article is initially created. We discourage the generation of short articles that likely will remain permastubs, articles that excessively duplicate the content of other articles, or ones that can encourage speculation and original research if left unwatched. Thus in such cases, when it is clear that a topic on an article cannot move beyond these minimal quality guidelines, redirection is strongly encouraged to cover the topic in a larger context that will likely remedy these basics.

From the standpoint of how things are done now, replacing the GNG with these will change little for articles that currently meet the GNG or likely any of the SNGs; when in terms of inclusion, an article meeting the "significant coverage in secondary sources" requirement of the GNG would be worthy of inclusion regardless of field-specific blacklists, and would easily meet the Article Quality aspect due to sourcing (though there's still the possibility of editorially merging content if comprehension can be improved). The SNGs themselves form the initial basis for field-specific inclusion guidelines. It would be necessary to make sure our inclusion whitelists cover everything we believe WP should cover in a broad sense, while the blacklists specifically exclude what we consider to be indiscriminate information. A net result from this is likely very little to the lay reader, but will help to smooth things out for all the editors behind the scenes: it basically becomes a matter of how we sort all the little topic nuts and bolts into bins to make it easier to find and understand a topic. It is also a more positive approach and friendlier to newer editors, as the "inclusion" approach is a much more positive term than how the current GNG is written.

There would be a lot more work to fundamentally put this approach in place as to align the language with other policy and guidelines as well as the generation of inclusion white and blacklists, and a good definitive guideline for the low-level article quality. But it is a workable replacement for WP:N that would help us progress beyond the existing inclusionists-deletionists battles. --MASEM 16:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. You still have to have inclusion criteria for topics on the "Whitelists" and the "Blacklists". Sounds like like we will need another guideline for that, i.e a guideline within a guideline. I think it would be better to address the issue of topic inclusion directly though WP:N, rather than indirectly through lists. Perhaps I have misunderstood the mechanics of the proposal? --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I believe that WP:N currently refers to articles, not topics. Lists may have to be handled separately, but I reject the basic premise behind this proposal that spinouts etc need to have a topic that meets the inclusion criteria but that each article might not have to. Karanacs (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Reevaluation&oldid=270318042"