Wikipedia talk:Notability

Currently disputed sections

(oldid of current guideline)

By whom? Someguy1221 (talk) 13:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

oldid of current guideline. How's that? --Pixelface (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Nutshell

The nutshell needs to be changed. It currently says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article" but it should be changed to something like "Significant coverage in reliable secondary sources is widely considered to be strong evidence of notability for any topic." I think that would accurately describe current practice. --Pixelface (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from AFDs, the "standard practice" is for people emotionally or financially attached to a topic to argue for its inclusion and refuse or fail to comprehend all arguments for deletion. Once their favorite article is kept or deleted, they usually go away. So even if more editors than ever edited the notability guideline want to ignore it, I think it's tremendously skewed by users who don't actually have an interest in improving the encyclopedia, and their actions should not be considered "common practice" any more than vandalism should. This is not to say that all inclusionists should be ignored. There are certainly many who actually care about the project, but as far as meta-discussions and RFCs, I don't think there is any voiced consensus for such an intense watering down.
On the issue of the subjectivity of the guideline, by the way, I think it's actually OK. First of all, there is always room for argument that any line is not "objective." But the subjective terms in the nutshell do serve the purpose of focusing an argument and making an end to AFDs possible. Instead of just discussing the nebulous concept of notability, users can discuss the reliability of the sources (which itself is defined, so users can discuss the reputations of the sources). It makes it easier to identify and marginalize the stonewallers who will shout "IT'S NOTABLE" no matter what anyone tells them (also those who shout the opposite). "Substantial" or whatever word you put in it's place rules out trivial things like be mentioned in precisely one sentence in a reliable source. Someguy1221 (talk) 13:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I am happy with the original wording. I would refer Pixelface to an earlier discussion where the origins of the current "in a nutshell" section originated from. If he has an alternative he wishes to propose, please do so rather than winge and moan about the current version. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I already proposed an alternative above, Gavin. But your incivility is noted. It would also be fine to change "satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article" back to "be notable", like it was. --Pixelface (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This guideline is about notability. It is about the notability of topics (subjects, persons, places, things, etc). I think the statement "Significant coverage in reliable secondary sources is widely considered to be strong evidence of notability for any topic" accurately describes current practice. But if the nutshell cannot be changed to that, the nutshell used to say "be notable", instead of "satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." I think it should be changed back to "be notable." It appears that Kanodin changed that on October 8, 2008 based on the suggestion of Gavin.collins in this thread, which Randomran supported. It looks like padillaH started that thread over confusion between "article topics" and "article subjects", but both of those terms refer to things one would write an article about. It doesn't water down the guideline to change the nutshell back to "be notable." This guideline is about notability. When the nutshell says "the inclusion criteria", what is it referring to? The SNGs?

As for the rest of your comment, that's not assuming good faith about people who argue to keep articles. And I think you'll find that when someone's "favorite" article is deleted, oftentimes they'll make disruptive AFD nominations to level the playing field. People edited Wikipedia for 5 1/2 years without this as a guideline. I'm certain that the majority of those editors during that time were interested in improving the encyclopedia. Since this was made a guideline, most AFDs have been discussions about the "nebulous concept of notability." The "reputation" of sources is just as subjective. If someone thinks someting is notable, say, a country, what difference does it make if someone else says it isn't? Opinions cannot be "correct." And vandalism may be common practice, but it's also common practice to remove vandalism. --Pixelface (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Pixelface, the same arguments are made about death, government, taxes and the law which amount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If you are genuinely interested in the problems with any aspect of notability, then say so. But telling me that notability is wrong, or is does not work, or its unfair, then it won't wash. For a lot of editors in a lot of subject areas it works. If you can come up with a better concept that works better than notability, then congratulations! But if you can't, then just complaining about it is not going to improve matters. What is needed is a better alternative. Your proposal above is simply an attempt to water down WP:N, so I am not taking it seriously. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

What are you on about? I suggest that the nutshell be changed from "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." to "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." That's what the nutshell used to say, before you suggested it be changed in this thread. What does "the inclusion criteria" refer to? The SNGs? The word "criteria" is plural. Believe me Gavin, I stopped taking you seriously long ago. --Pixelface (talk) 05:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Pixelface, if you have stopped taking me seriously, then that is bad faith on your part, and nothing I can say will be accepted by you. Be warned that presumptions of bad faith are a double edged sword, and could be turned on you at any time by other editors.
For the record, the inclusion criteria which you refer to are the basis by which a topic may be included as a standalone article without contravening Wikipedia content policies. So if WP:NOT says you can't an article about random stuff, WP:N is the set of inclusion criteria that effectively says, it a topic is notable, then it is not random and won't fail WP:N. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Then these inclusion criteria must be properly linked - as soon as they are created. Exclusion criteria (WP:NOT) are something different. Right now the nutshell leads to nowhere and, indeed, should not be taken seriously. NVO (talk) 06:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, I've always tried to give you the benefit of the doubt. But that's getting increasingly difficult for me. This guideline has nothing to do with Wikipedia's content policies. If it does, then it's redundant and should not be a guideline. This guideline has nothing to do with WP:NOT. It has to do with editors voting delete and saying "non-notable" in VFDs (which were later renamed AFDs). --Pixelface (talk) 06:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

@Someguy1221 - I think users are just as likely to want to suggest the deletion of an article simply becuase it gives what they think is undue weight to a subject matter when compared to their own, favorite article. I.e. they don't want their favorite topic to be "outshined" by another. SharkD (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

@Pixelface - Could you describe exactly what your suggested rewording would solve? The only thing I can think of is that the existing wording could be interpreted as meaning that the criteria for inclusion for sub-topics within existing articles is less than what exists for new or stand-alone articles. I.e. passing statements within existing articles don't require the same level of scrutiny. SharkD (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I think "Significant coverage in reliable secondary sources is widely considered to be strong evidence of notability for any topic" is an accurate description of current practice. I also think that the phrase "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." would be better than the current nutshell, except that some people seem to interpret that as meaning "Only if a topic..." — but that is not the case. Also, who is doing the presuming? And many editors do not seem to not understand the word "presumed" in this guideline. Also, the word "criteria" is plural. Wikipedia has several notability guidelines. When the nutshell mentions "the inclusion criteria", I get a sense that the nutshell is not referring to the subject-specific notability guidelines, which this guideline was created to give an overview of. And sometimes articles are created because a "parent" article grows too large. Size is the factor there, not notability. Ultimately, the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia is not "notability", or this guideline, but whether editors come to a general agreement that Wikipedia should have an article about a particular topic. Or a lack of agreement that Wikipedia should not have an article about a particular topic. The current nutshell is written much too dogmatically. --Pixelface (talk) 00:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability requires objective evidence

First off, the heading does not make sense in the English language.

Secondly, it says "The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability" but that is not a common theme.

Thirdly, it says "Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence...", but there is nothing objective about that. It also uses the word "substantial" rather than "significant."

Also, it says "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability." This needs to be rewritten. Take the article Continental Connection Flight 3407 for example. How does that statement and that article interact? --Pixelface (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, well, no comment. Secondly, I'm actually not aware of a sub-criterion that can be "verified" without providing any verification, although perhaps I misunderstand you. Thirdly, I cover this in my comment above. On the subject of news, I think it could be narrowed to "a short burst of local news reports or wire service reprints." Someguy1221 (talk) 13:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The heading would make grammatical sense if it was "Claims of notability..." — but even then, claims of notability do not require "objective" evidence. Did you know that the evidence article currently only has one citation? Is evidence notable? Yes. Do I require "objective evidence" to say so? No.

Is there a difference between "evidence" and "objective evidence"? Whether something is "worthy of notice" is subjective. You can point to evidence that you feel is evidence of notability (for example, "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization" from WP:WEB), but that is not objective evidence of notability.

Perhaps the news part could be narrowed to local news, but the part about news in this guideline is a common source of confusion. --Pixelface (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It's "objective" vs "subjective" evidence, a statement of fact verses a statement of opinion. --MASEM 14:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there "subjective evidence"? Saying that a person wrote a newspaper article about a subject is a statement of fact. But whether that article is evidence that a subject is "worthy of notice" is a subjective opinion. --Pixelface (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure there is subjective evidence, statements of opinion are that (eg "Christopher Walken is in this show, and therefore it is awesome"). As to your second point, what happens on mainspace and what happens in how we determine policy/guidelines are two different things and the same rules on how we approach them don't apply to both. We want topics in mainspace to show objective evidence for notability. Why we chose that in this guideline was a subjective measure (based on some objectiveness but mostly on consensus), and that's why we're allowed to discuss it to determine conflicts or to improve it. --MASEM 15:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No, an opinion is an opinion. While an opinion is subjective, an opinion is not subjective evidence. Saying "Christopher Walken is in this show, therefore it is awesome" is an opinion. The show is evidence. Whether it's "awesome" is opinion. But that is much different than saying "Christopher Walken is a notable actor, well-known and recognized, so I think shows he appears in are notable as well." That people recognize Christopher Walken is evidence of notability, evidence that he's famous. Whether every show Christopher Walken appears in is notable or not is an opinion. One I tend to agree with.

Why would the Human skeleton article have to show "objective" evidence of notability? There is no "objective evidence" that the human skeleton is notable. Why? Because it's humans doing the evaluating. It's humans doing the noticing. The planet does not care if all humans go extinct. You're a human, so you think human skeletons are notable. Whether human skeletons are notable is completely subjective.

Taking an example from the current In the news section on the mainpage, one could say that UBS AG is notable because it's "the world's biggest manager of other people's money." The Economist is the source for that claim. Whether "the world's biggest manager of other people's money" is worthy of notice is an opinion.

Kubigula added "Notability requires objective evidence" in May 2007. Then Kubigula mentioned the change on this talkpage. It looks like Kubigula chose it. It looks like Dhaluza and Scientizzle agreed with it. But saying "Notability requires objective evidence" doesn't make any sense. Even "Notability requires evidence" doesn't make any sense. The phrase "Claims of notability require evidence" is wrong too, since whether something is worthy of notice is subjective. So I suggest the section heading be changed to "Evidence of notability" and be rewritten. I don't see the difference between "objective evidence" and "evidence." --Pixelface (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This section was part of the Spring compromise of '07. Two of the big issues then were whether notability is subjective or objective, and how to tie the GNG to the subject specific guidelines. This section was part of answering those questions. I actually had tried to tweak the languag a bit since then, as I think it can be improved. However, it has been hard to make changes after the compromise stuck.--Kubigula (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Whether something is "worthy of notice" is subjective. Other synonyms for "notable" that are also subjective: remarkable, distinguished, important, memorable, noticeable, prestiguous. Less subjective: prominent, unusual, famous, well-known. "Noted" is objective. But you can note something without writing about it. I'm confused when it says "Notability requires objective evidence" because the sentence makes no grammatical sense. The sentence "Claims of notability require evidence" makes sense to me. Does "Notability requires objective evidence" mean that there exists evidence that something is objectively worthy of notice? Or that the evidence must be objective? Coverage is evidence of notability. But coverage is not the only evidence of notability. --Pixelface (talk) 07:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sections are not "disputed" because you dispute them, but when there is significant (or substantial?) disagreement about them. Your premature tagging is not helpful. I'll focus on the "objective evidence" for now: I don't see how the heading makes no sense, it seems perfectly clear to me. However, you can always suggest improvements.

Second: WP:PROF nutshell: "as evidenced by being the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources." WP:ORG: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." WP:BIO: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." WP:WEB: "For material published on the web to have its own article in Wikipedia, it should be notable and of historical significance. Wikipedia articles about web content should use citations from reliable sources." [[WP:BOOK] and WP:MUSIC give a list of criteria, but both give the same "coverage in reliable independent sources" idea as the first criterion. Finally, WP:FILM states that,

"As with all subjects, a film should satisfy the general notability guideline.
The general guideline for notability shared by most of the subject-specific notability guidelines and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, is that:
A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

So, I don't see how your second objection is valid.

Third: what is not objective about it? Reliable sources are defined in WP:RS, so the only subjective element is when the coverage is substantial or insubstantial (trivial, in passing, ...) I don't mind changing substantial to significant or vice versa, whatever most people prefer: but it is incorrect to claim that this has "nothing objective": it is an objective element (being in reliable independent sources or not) with a subjective quantification (for those cases where there is some but insufficient info in reliable sources). The evidence is objective (not "I like the subject" or "I have heard of the subject" or "The subject is hugely popular", but "The subject is mentioned and discussed here, here and here"), and only the decision if the objective evidence is sufficient to meet the notability guideline(s) is subjective (otherwise we wouldn't need things like AfD and so on).

In conclusion, I don't think your complaints about the section have any merit and feel that the "disputed" tag should be removed again. Fram (talk) 13:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Fram, this is not a matter of dispute. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with you about disputing wording; but nevertheless, the sections are certainly under discussion now. You reverted me while I was writing this talk thread. If you just disagreed with one of the disputed tags, I don't think you should have removed all three of them. The heading is an incomplete sentence. If you take the definition of notability this guideline gives ("worthy of notice") and substitute that in the heading ("Worthy of notice requires objective evidence") it does not make grammatical sense. If the heading is a reference to the guideline page itself, that's also incorrect. Personally, I think the heading should be changed to "Evidence of notability."

Yes, those subject-specific notability guidelines say that. But they don't share a requirement for that. If that exists. Not only if that exists. In other words, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" — not "A topic is presumed to be notable only if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Big difference.

Third, perhaps I'm hung up on the word objective. There's nothing objective about the words "substantial" or "significant." "Trivial" is also subjective. So is "reliable." And to some extent, "independent." If a person writes a newspaper article about a topic, that obviously shows they took note of it. It's noted. But if someone notes something, does that mean it's "worthy of notice"? I'm interpreting "notice" as "paying attention" to or observing. It's easier to say that they probably felt it was worthy of their notice, rather than worthy of notice in some objective sense. Maybe I'm confused by the phrase "worthy of notice." Worth noticing? Worthy of someone's attention? I suppose you could say if someone notes something, they probably think it's noteworthy. But "notable" has several meanings. Worthy of note. Remarkable. Distinguished. Prominent. Noted. Worthy of notice. Important. Famous. Memorable. Noteworthy. Noticeable. Unusual. Well-known. Prestigious. I suppose "noted" is objective. "Famous" is not quite objective. "Well-known", less so. The other meanings are all subjective.

Being in "reliable independent sources" is not an objective element; a source is an objective element. If someone has heard of a subject, or if a subject is popular, that's evidence the subject is well-known — one of the meanings of "notable." It's fine to say that a subject is written about here here and here — to say that it was noted. But whether someone considers those sources evidence of notability is a subjective evaluation. Whether the coverage was "significant" is a subjective evaluation. Whether the sources are "reliable" is a subjective evaluation.

I did some looking, and it appears that the heading "Notability requires objective evidence" was added May 20, 2007 by Kubigula. But the section was much different then. For one thing, it acknowledged the subjective nature of notability. It also mentioned media coverage of local events, something Someguy1221 mentioned above. Then Kubigula mentioned the change on this talkpage and even said "I know it may be opening a can of worms..."

The wording of the current section is disputed. This is an active discussion, so the {{disputedtag}} template should not be removed from that section. --Pixelface (talk) 15:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Pixelface, if you are prosing a change, that is fine, but it the section not disputed per se. Despite your strong views, please think it possible you are mistaken. You are correct that reliable independent sources are not subjective in themselves. However, they are objective from the perspective of Wikipedia editors, who look to outside sources to resolve differences of opinion. These sources are objective in comparison to the differing but valid opinions of different editors.
  If you are in any doubt about the meaning or reasoning of this section, I recomend that you refer to the editors who created in the first place, or start an RFC, ideally with with alternative proposal in mind. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• I think a better headings than "Notability requires objective evidence" would be "Evidence of notability." I do dispute this section. It's wrong. The sentence "The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability." is a blatantly false statement. I do not think that is not a common theme in the notability guidelines. If it is, someone should be able to quote the sentences in the notability guidelines that support that statement.

• And the portion about news needs to be clarified. It's brought up again and again on this talkpage. "You are correct that reliable independent sources are not subjective in themselves." (I don't know what you are talking about there.) Independent sources are independent from Wikipedia editors. And we do look to outside sources to resolve differences of opinion about the content in articles. But all deletion debates are full of subjective opinions about whether Wikipedia should have an article about a topic or not. And we don't point to outside sources who think Wikipedia should have an article or not. Is objectivity notable? Yes. The article contains no citations — yet the topic is still notable. Even more important than whether the concept of objectivity is "worthy of notice" or not, the article contains no citations — yet Wikipedia should still have an article about that topic.

• I'll do some looking and find out who wrote what's currently in the "Notability requires objective evidence" section. --Pixelface (talk) 07:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, I've determined who wrote the section.

WP:N#OBJ[1]

WP:NOBJ[2]

WP:SBST[3]

Notability requires objective evidence[4]

The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability[5]. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines[6].

Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability[7]. The Wikimedia project Wikinews covers topics of present news coverage[8].

• --Pixelface (talk) 02:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No, one person disputing a guideline (or sections of it) is not enough to add a "disputed" tag to it, otherwise all our policies and guidelines would be tagged. There has to be significant disagreement leaning towards a lack of consensus before such tags are added. And I removed all three because I disagree with all your tagging (and the method it was done), but I commented on only one yet because it is more productive to tackle one problem at a time. Fram (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I doubt that all of Wikipedia's 300+ policies and guidelines would be tagged. But they should probably all be re-evaluated anyway. Do you know what they all say? It should be easy for you to show where on this talkpage there was consensus for everything in those sections, since sections of policy and guideline must reflect consensus. What if I add {{underdiscussion}} tags? --Pixelface (talk) 07:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines

The WP:FAILN redirect needs to be removed because articles cannot "fail" guidelines. This section could also use some cleanup. --Pixelface (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

What is you proposed change that you wish to make? --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles can fail to pass a guideline. I don't see why they couldn't. Chillum 15:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines are not tests that articles "pass" or "fail." --Pixelface (talk) 01:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

In practice they do. It is only in theory that this cannot happen. Chillum 01:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The entire section is based around the statement:

• "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject..."

So your issue is with the actual guideline, not the redirect. Randomran (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Well then my issue is with the redirect and the guideline. If an article does not cite any sources, that does not therefore mean that the subject of the article is not notable. --Pixelface (talk) 01:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Notability of article content

Once again, what does "undue weight" have to do with the notability guidelines? As the introduction says "These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles." Since notability guidelines refer to topics and not text within articles, this guideline should not mention text within articles, or which policies and guidelines apply to content. However, WP:BIO does say that people should be notable before including them in a list of people, and that should be mentioned in this section. --Pixelface (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You have been over this issue before - see Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_30#NNC_again for instance. I am not sure why you are raising this issue again. Are you trying to make some sort of protest about an issue on which you have strong views? --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

That's right, it has been discussed before. But it hasn't been resolved. The latest thread was archived before I could reply to Randomran. Shall I unarchive the thread or reply to Randomran here? I don't know why you link to WP:POINT. Randomran changed the heading of the WP:NNC section in November without any discussion. Those changes do not reflect consensus. This guideline already says in the introduction that notability guidelines don't limit article content. No less than 14 people have said the stuff about "undue weight" does not belong in this guideline. Shall I notify them all of this discussion? You're welcome to tell me what "due weight" or "undue weight" has to do with the notability of subjects for articles. --Pixelface (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You're pushing two falsehoods. First, there *was* a discussion for the changes in November, which had nothing to do with changing the substance of the guideline, and everything to do with improving clarity. Second, is that you're using consensus changes I made in November to justify a rollback to literally a year ago. Using a dispute over recent changes to justify a massive change tests the limits of assuming good faith. Are you here to roll back the November changes, or are you here to tear apart the whole section? Randomran (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Lots of people may have said that they don't like it, but it makes no sense. Notability is the criteria by which a topic presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article, but a topic is the inclusion criteria by which a sub-topic is presumed to be suitable for inclusion within an article. Its intuative, as an article should focus on its subject matter. If you have an objection to this section, or alternative wording, then set it before us now or forever hold your peace. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not "pushing two falsehoods." You and Phil Sandifer had a discussion in November. Fine. That's two editors. You changed "Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content" to "Notability of article content." That's a total reversal. That's a huge change. One I can't find any consensus for on this talk page. You did change the substance of this guideline. That's evident from Phil Sandifer's revert. Apparently article content has to be "notable" now, according to you. Information in an article does not have to be "notable", it has to be verifiable. It doesn't have to be "important" either.

In that thread started November 8, Phil Sandifer made a suggestion and you added it. That's when I noticed just how much the NNC section had changed over the past few months. In that thread, I objected to your changes, and I also object to the addition of all the stuff about "undue weight." I also started a thread on November 24. Colonel Warden started a thread in December. I also mentioned the NNC section in February. That thread was archived before I could reply to you. This is the reply I had typed up and hadn't saved here yet:

Do you want me to show you how many months the NNC section did not mention "undue weight"? Edits to policies and guidelines are supposed to reflect consensus. In this thread, it appears editors did come to a consensus about the "undue weight" stuff. But consensus can change. That stuff was removed by SmokeyJoe. I showed you that the stuff about undue weight does not have consensus to be in this guideline.

There hasn't been a discussion to remove the entire NNC section. That's just something I suggested. But 14 people told you the stuff about undue weight does not belong here.

You haven't shown where there was consensus to cite an arbitration case in this guideline. You haven't shown where there was consensus to change the heading on November 8. So why would I have to show you consensus to change it back? Content in an article does not have to be "notable" — otherwise there wouldn't have been a Gameplay of Final Fantasy section for you to split off. Despite Masem, Collectonian, and Sephiroth BCR edit-warring with you, "undue weight" has nothing to do with notability.

How about you tell me what you would consider consensus to remove it, and I'll go contact the editors who told you the stuff about undue weight does not belong here. Then we can determine if the current NNC section should stay the way it is.

How do you tell if something is given "due weight" Randomran?

You said the NNC section has mentioned "undue weight" for 8 months. If you want to count months, fine, let's count months. The NNC section was added on March 17, 2007. Black Falcon removed the hyphen in the heading on April 25, 2007. You changed "Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content" to "Notability of article content" on November 8, 2008. This guideline said notability guidelines do not directly limit article content for 20 months, until you changed it in November.

The point is, Notability guidelines do Not directly limit article Content — NNC. Information in an articles does not have to meet any notability guideline, except when it comes to lists of people. "Undue weight" has nothing to do with whether a subject is "worthy of notice." Since this guideline is about the notability of things one would write an article about, it should not be mentioning content policies or guidelines.

Assume what you want. But you made this guideline worse. I'm here to make it better. --Pixelface (talk) 05:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Pixelface, you still have not explained, using articles as examples, what would be the benefit of this change. Can you explain please? --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree. I am having trouble following along with what the intended changes are meant to improve. Your explanations are highly terse and subject to misinterpretation. SharkD (talk) 14:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I like the "...do not directly limit article content" version better. They're both basically saying the same thing, but this one is easier to understand. The other version says notability doesn't refer to content, but then, that it sometimes does, but in those cases we mean importance instead; that's just all trippy and confusing, a longer-winded explanation of "weight". It's much clearer when we hand off the concept of "content notability" directly to "weight" instead. No, it won't affect articles. It will affect a first-timer's ability to understand the guideline. Oh and Pixelface needs to calm down with all the "you made it worse and I made it better". It's childish. As adults we're supposed to think that stuff, not say it. :) Equazcion •?/C • 08:31, 22 Feb 2009 (UTC)

No, Equazcion. They didn't say the same thing. They said opposite things. "Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content" vs "Notability of article content." Wikipedia has no policy or guideline saying information has to be "important" — the word is totally subjective. "Due weight" is almost as bad.

I said "I'm here to make it better" (not "I made it better") and it was a response to when Randomran said "Are you here to roll back the November changes, or are you here to tear apart the whole section?" You didn't understand what I said. It's not childish to criticize changes to a guideline. And it's not childish to say I'm here to improve the guideline after someone asks if I'm here to "tear apart" a section. --Pixelface (talk) 02:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The headers might be opposite in a literal sense, but they aren't really. One refers to notability, as in the guideline, while the other refers to notability, the word. Since the page spends a good deal of time trying to impart to new users that notability on Wikipedia refers to the guideline and not the word, I do agree that we shouldn't introduce the complication of reverting back to the word when describing the effect on content -- as I said in my last response, it just makes for an easier read. As for the childishness thing, you said "But you made this guideline worse. I'm here to make it better." - Anyone in any argument could say that. They think their way is better and you think your way is better. It's a given and has no bearing on the discussion. That's what makes it childish to say out loud. Equazcion •?/C • 02:33, 25 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Both headings refer to notability, the concept. While the second heading may not be "Article content must be notable", the second heading still implies that the notability of article content is up for debate, or that this guideline addresses the notability of article content. It doesn't. The heading's been changed, so the issue is moot now anyway.

"Notability" on Wikipedia has always referred to the concept. And this page still does refer to the concept (even though you mangled the introduction): Article topics need to be notable, or "worthy of notice." You changed "should" to "need" — another poor change. I'll say more about that in the Wording thread. --Pixelface (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, get on that, we're all looking forward to more of your valuable insights. Equazcion •?/C • 08:42, 27 Feb 2009 (UTC)

• I've self-reverted because I no longer see the value in good faith efforts to clarify the section if they are being absorbed into a much larger dispute. Hopefully my self-revert will stop Pixelface from leveraging those changes in order to push for more drastic ones. If he continues to push for further changes after this point, I want it to be clear that he's not in fact trying to revert the changes from November, but that he wanted an excuse to make further changes. I'm going to assume good faith that he will either be satisfied that the changes from November are gone, or that he'll discuss and build consensus if he wants any further changes.
• If someone disagrees with my revert to early November, feel free to re-revert it to the version that has been here since November, because the early November version uses contradictory language. Randomran (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Randomram, I really appreciate that you changed the heading. But you still have not explained why the NNC section should cite an arbitration case. Arbcom does not make policy with their decisions.
• There is a difference between Barack Obama the person, Barack Obama the article, and what text that article contains. This guideline applies to Barack Obama the person, not the text within the article. Since this guideline applies to article topics and not to the text within an article, I still think that the second paragraph of the NNC section does not belong in this guideline. --Pixelface (talk) 01:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• A healthy amount of Wikilinking is good for policies and guidelines, the same as it is for articles. We want people to understand that everything is related. It prevents people from Wikilawyering one guideline in order to avoid another. For example, a lot of people try to Wikilawyer NNC by saying "notability guidelines don't limit content, therefore I can put whatever I want in here". You can't, and we should tell them why. But it's really not my place to tell you why we should keep something here. It's incumbent on you to convince a consensus of editors that we actually improve the guideline by removing it. Randomran (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia has nearly 250 guidelines. And when the arbitration committee agrees on principles, they do not create guidelines. While it's true that editors cannot put whatever they want into an article, this guideline has no bearing on that whatsoever. This guideline does not apply to whatever text appears in the Barack Obama article. This guideline refers to Barack Obama the person. If someone removes text from the Barack Obama article, saying "this is non-notable, removing per WP:N", responding "notability guidelines do not directly limit article content" would be the correct action to take. However, if someone adds the name of a non-notable person to a list of people, another editor would be well within their right to remove that name, saying "removing non-notable person", citing Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Lists of people (or not citing it). If someone says "notability guidelines don't limit content, therefore I can put whatever I want in here", they would be wrong.
• Besides the exception of WP:BIO and lists of people, notability guidelines do not directly limit article content. But that does not therefore mean that people can put whatever they want into an article. That statement means that notability guidelines do not apply to article content (with the excepting of WP:BIO) — however, other policies and guidelines do apply to article content. Wikipedia has several content policies and content guidelines. Wikipedia:Notability is not one of them. This guideline should not summarize all of those, but merely point out that content policies and content guidelines do exist, and those apply to content in articles, text within articles — but WP:N, WP:PROF, WP:BK, WP:NFF, WP:MUSIC, WP:NUMBER, WP:ORG, and WP:WEB do not.
• It appears to me that the general agreement among at least 14 editors is that the stuff about "undue weight" does not belong in this guideline. If you don't mind, I'll contact them about this discussion. --Pixelface (talk) 09:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• You are no longer operating in good faith. If you want to propose a change to this guideline, then propose a change to the guideline. Don't chip away at it with a thousand paper cuts, using a criticisms about the November additions, and then continuing to push for more after that criticism was addressed. If your end goal is to totally remove any reference to any other content guideline, then say so. Don't play Wikilawyer by focusing on an intermediate edit. And certainly don't start canvassing to get your point across. Propose a change, in a new talk page section, and await the response from your fellow editors. Or be bold and see if anyone reverts. But don't game the system. Randomran (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Canvassing may seem to be attractive, but is a double edged sword that could be used against Pixelface himself (who may have as many enemies than friends), and in any case it is blunt weapon at that, and is time consuming. I would have thought a better approach would be for Pixelface and Randomran to ask for a third opinion from an editor or editors with whom both of you agree are indpendent of this dispute; I myself recomend Vassyana, Slrubenstein or Metropolitan90; I think they would give you both a fair hearing. If nothing is resolved by asking for their opinions (or of some other editors), at the very least you will understand your own opinions on this matter much better than before.--Gavin Collins (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• The real problem is there's no consensus-building going on. Without a consensus, there's no change. I've been trying to build a consensus with Pixelface for some kind of change we can both support. I've been up front about my basic interest. But Pixelface hasn't, and seems to keep moving the goalposts. I've already explained that there's a legitimate problem where people mistakeningly believe that we include everything that's notable (let alone verifiable), and that's why we try to make it clear to editors that this isn't the case. Pixelface hasn't expressed disagreement with any of the principles displayed here, but he just doesn't want them displayed here. Is he okay with them being displayed elsewhere? I'm honestly not sure what his motives are at this point. It's hard to assume good faith when there is no underlying goal served by gutting this part of the guideline. Just a bunch of arguments about who added what when and who has suddenly shown up to disagree with it. If Pixelface wants to find a way to meet both our interests in good faith, I'm totally open to that. I'm even open to mediation if he needs someone to teach him how to work with others. But if all he wants to do is argue, well, no, I'm not going to agree to his proposed changes. Randomran (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• If he is serious about making progess about this dispute, then mediation is definately worth considering, particularly if neither of you feel you are making any progress. --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• "Without a consensus, there's no change" Exactly. But there is no consensus for this guideline to mention "undue weight." So that change should be undone. I'm not "moving the goalposts." I was upfront about my concerns clear back in November. The whole point of the NNC section is to point out that notability guidelines concern article topics, not article content. Notability guidelines refer to Barack Obama the person, they do not concern whatever information is within the article about Barack Obama. And I be believe I have disagreed that "undue weight" can apply to anything other than viewpoints, and whether Marskell's change to WP:V actually reflects consensus. The idea of "due weight" is prone to endless arguments.
• I have said who added what to this guideline when and who you have been almost singularly arguing with for months now to keep your changes to the NNC section intact. Those are facts. I know how to work with others Randomran, but I don't have to work with you. If 14 people tell you that this guideline should not mention "undue weight" and you keep saying it should, good luck with that. That's consensus against your edits. There's no consensus for the NNC section to mention "undue weight."
• Was there a specific article you had in mind when you edited the NNC section? --Pixelface (talk) 08:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Gavin, those 14 editors are not my friends. They are all people who have all told Randomran on this talkpage that his changes to this guideline do not belong in this guideline. There is no consensus for this guideline to mention "undue weight." I'd be happy to contact any other editor who has edited or commented on the NNC section in the past year. --Pixelface (talk) 07:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Wrong. I have proposed a change Randomran. Multiple times. You know that. I'm thankful you removed your heading change, but you didn't address the full problem with this section — namely that this guideline should contain no mention of "undue weight" since this guideline is about topics'. If you don't want me to contact those 14 editors, how about I contact everyone who's discussed or edited that section since last March? Then we can see if the section really does reflect consensus. I don't see where you proposed your changes in a new talkpage section Randomran. I'm not "gaming" the system. --Pixelface (talk) 07:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• How about you don't canvass at all and accept that there's no consensus for your change? At this point, unarchiving an old discussion to prove a point is verging on argument ad nauseum filibustering, and I'm going to join the numerous other editors who have lost their patience for repeating the same tired discussions with you. If you come up with an idea that will reach consensus, then be bold and add it, or propose it. Until then, there's no value to rehashing the same old discussion. I'm done here. Randomran (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Randomran, there is no consensus for your change and you've never shown where there was consensus for it. I didn't unarchive an old discussion to "prove a point." The discussion is not over. An archive time of 7 days is much too small. I've got much better things to do with my time than spend it all on Wikipedia these days. If you're done here, fine, I'm removing your bad edits. Please don't re-add them. And stop changing guidelines to win arguments over articles. --Pixelface (talk) 04:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• I think what is key to the dicussion it trying to understand what Pixelface is trying to achieve by objecting to reference to WP:UNDUE - but this is just not transparent why he is so opposed to this change. Skomorokh has made the following change, which should make the issue clear - namely we are trying to achieve balance:

Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content: The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. They do not regulate the content of articles, except for lists of people. Instead, various content policies govern article content, with the amount of coverage given to topics within articles decided by its appropriate weight.

I think this hits the spot: on the one hand, notability does not limit article content, but on the other, unde weight should not be be given to any particular aspect of the subject matter so that focus is not lost. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You're losing focus on this guideline. This guideline is about notability. This guideline refers to Gordon Brown the person, not whatever text may appear in the Gordon Brown article. I don't understand why some editors are so intent on mentioning "weight" in Wikipedia:Notability. Why does it belong here? It doesn't belong here. "Weight" has nothing to do with whether or not Gordon Brown is a notable person. Wikipedia has many content policies. But this is not the place to summarize any of them. It's like going to the Gordon Brown article and writing "Gordon Brown is not the Prime Minister of Canada" and then devoting the next paragraph to the Prime Minister of Canada. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand. --Pixelface (talk) 05:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

content

I reverted the reinsertion of material originally and in my opinion properly removed by pixelface, about how notability affect and is affected by article content. Though questions of undue weight t and the like are very real and very important, I think they just confuse the issue here. There should be a better place for this. This needs discussion. DGG (talk) 07:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to second this: it's dangerous business to link "notability", as a concept or otherwise, with content. I seem to remember we've been through this tussle before, over whether NNC should selectively reiterate content policies.--Father Goose (talk) 08:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. WP:N is already complicated. Keep it simple. If it doesn't have to be there, and it doesn't help, it shouldn't be there. Forking the rest of the project into a section "What this page is not about" is silly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I defer to the consensus on this one. But there are legitimate situations where people see passing WP:N as a free pass. If a topic is notable, it must be included, with any amount of content. I think it's helpful to clarify that Wikipedia isn't about everything, not even everything about a notable subject. Otherwise you do end up with situations where people are covering, say, a list of tour dates for an artist, or covering a fringe theory as mainstream thought. I'm not sure that's clear with the new wording, which cryptically eludes to "content policies". Randomran (talk) 06:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Your concern is valid, but this is the wrong forum. The concerns are supposedly covered by core policy, at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight. Have you raised the issue at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added a clause pointing to WP:WEIGHT; I think this tells the reader what they need to know without going into confusing detail. Skomorokh 09:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Though less than ideal, I can live with this shorter version. I don't think there's a consensus to just cut it out completely. Randomran (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

A pointer on where to go for questions about content is fair enough. People might come here looking for guidance on content. They should be told where to go.

It’s not OK when this guideline starts to paraphrase WP:NPOV. That opens the door to subverting WP:NPOV, out of sight of editors who keep that policy under watch. If you wanted to transclude a section, that might be OK, though I doubt it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggested recommendation for adjusting the philosophical approach of notability

With the RFC nearly closed with the general consensus that notability as a guideline is not going anywhere, I would like to suggest a way that we can rewrite this, not to change how notability is necessary used on WP, but only to make it clear what the goal of WP:N really is.

The starting point for this philosophical adjustment is recognizing that there are a large number of topics that are notable (standard english definition) to somebody somewhere. To my parents, I'm notable. To my neighbor's dog, the tree outside is notable, and so forth. In this manner, many things that are important, famous, or popular are also notable, but so are various topics that have limited interest to a small number of people as well.

However, while WP is not paper, we also are not an indiscriminate collection of information, and for that we need some bar to include topics that meet some threshold of notability (instead of saying if things are non-notable or otherwise). Mere evidence for existence is not enough, otherwise, all 6 billion humans on earth would qualify (via phone book and government listings). That's why the GNG is there; it establishes the threshold of notability as being significant coverage in secondary sources, so that more than just existence is shown. Mind you, the GNG is only one threshold that can be passed; the SNG serve to give other quick-pass (or fail) thresholds of notability for specific fields.

Now, again, this doesn't change how this guideline should be taken, but it is a bit more friendlier and gives better justification for newer editors that may be confused by it:

• Using "threshold of notability" now means that our definition of notability is the same as the definition in any english dictionary and removes that point of confusion; the guideline only spells out what the threshold is.
• Articles are not deleted for being "non-notable" (which is noted to be a problem with the english definition and can be confusing to newer editors); instead, they are deleted for failing to meet the threshold of notability required for topics. From a standpoint of a newer editor, while it still means articles may be deleted, I would think it gives them a better understanding that we're not dismissing the topic forever from WP, but that if that threshold can be passed, it can be readded. "Non-notable" gives a "now or never" approach which is less friendlier.
• In conjunction with the above, while "non-notable" is a black or white stance, the threshold of notability can be fuzzy, which allows for potentially better discussions at AFD or other places.

Again, I can't stress enough that I'm not suggesting we change the GNG; that's been confirmed to be a good guideline (neither too strong or too weak) by the RFC. All I'm suggesting is that we try to rewrite this to assert that topics must pass this threshold of notability only to remove confusion with the language and to make the guideline a bit more friendlier to newer editors. --MASEM (t) 15:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Masem, the general consensus from the RFC was that a rewrite for WP:N was opposed. You are confusing article inclusion criteria with article deletion criteria. The threshold of notability is clear, as it based on objective evidence which can be peer reviewed, not on what you think is the "consensus" at WP:AFD. When will you rest from trying to water down this guideline? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You completely misread what I was trying to do. WP:N will still mean "significant coverage in secondary sources". I am only stating that the intro and surrounding text can be improved to be a bit more friendly to make what we call notable match with a standard dictionary definition without changing any intent of the guideline and thus making the concept less bitey to newer editors. (Also, the RFC only excluded elevating N to policy or demoting it from a guideline, and major changes from the GNG, but did not exclude rewriting for language improvements). --MASEM (t) 16:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Masem. A lot of difficulty, especially for newcomers, comes from the fact that wikipedia-notability is quite different to a dictionary definition. People often think of notability as a yes/no thing, and combined with a dictionary definition, it makes for a very low threshold “It was “noted” at xxx, so by definition it is “notable”.” We acknowledge that there are degrees of notability. A subject can be borderline notable, slightly notable, very notable. We definitely talk around a “threshold of notability” and we’d like to have is an accepted way to determine, using objective evidence, whether a subject meets our threshold. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree that notability implicitly is used as a threshold (degrees of notability; very slightly or not at all notable = "non-notable"), and that rewriting it in the language of an explicit threshold would probably be better. However I suspect it's not happened to date because of the difficulty of agreeing on something more explicit. Vagueness here (even at the price of philosophical/linguistic problems) is maybe unavoidable in practice for WP, even if in theory it would be better to avoid it. Rd232 ^talk 21:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not suggesting to change the threshold - however vague that "significant coverage in secondary sources" remains, it will be the case now or if we adopt my suggestions. It's being more explicit that we are talking threshold of notability. --MASEM (t) 22:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I definitely sympathize with Masem's position. "Notability" can be related to other editorial decisions Wikipedians make about content. We report what reliable sources report and we balance that reporting according to the sources. This principle of deferring to the sources runs throughout our content principles. Notability is not really different. We decide something is notable when independent sources decide the topic is notable, as evidenced by substantive coverage, or it is almost certain such sources exist. Fulfilling the GNG is not really more than showing that real world reliable sources consider the topic noteworthy. If the coverage is substantive, then the sources obviously consider the topic noteworthy. We require reliable sources generally, and the GNG is no exception. If a reference is independent, then there is proof that the outside world considers the topic notable. --Vassyana (talk) 05:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Sports notability

Are there any guidelines for sports-related notability? Things like Aldershot Town F.C. season 2008–09 are quite common and seem to me to be WP:INDISCRIMINATE. To stay on this topic, obviously the club Aldershot Town F.C. should be included (though what about non-league clubs, say? WP:N may cover it, but more specific guidelines might help), but spinning off articles from that for each season just seem an invitation for a football directory-like barrage of statistics. Now maybe the unwritten consensus is that this is just fine and dandy (or maybe just "let sleeping dogs lie"), but something written would presumably be helpful. Yes, no? Is it already covered somewhere? Rd232 ^talk 21:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Its not a notable topic and the article will eventually be mergered or deleted. My analogy is that Wikipedia is like a long beach, on which articles that have no evidence of notability are like stones that are gradually washed away, leaving only reliably sourced articles that are like rocks that can weather any storm. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Well that's a nice philosophy, and if it were just the one article I'd have chalked it up to something similar, and wouldn't have posted here. But there are 123 such articles for the current football (soccer) season alone: Category:Football (soccer) clubs 2008-09 season. Rd232 ^talk 22:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Because WP includes elements of an almanac in addition to encyclopedic information, there's generally nothing wrong with season pages of major sports and teams which generally get significant coverage of some nature; mind you, they need to be more than mindless dumping of stats; language needs to be added that summarizes aspects of the season, analysts' consideration of the overall season performance, and any other lasting aspects. Nearly all major sports (pro and collegiate) can support these - they just at the present may not have these filled out. --MASEM (t) 23:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with that actually happening in a significant % of these articles... Rd232 ^talk 00:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

By the by, the proposal Wikipedia:Notability (sports) ground to a halt in 2007. But that goes into a lot of detail, I had in mind something more generic than that (but more specific than WP:N). Anyway with a number of specific WP:N subparts now, maybe it's worth trying to revive it, or start something new inspired by it. Rd232 ^talk 00:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know where Masem gets his ideas: WP is not an almanac, as it does not contain lists of train departures, high tides or full moons, any more than it contains lists of soccer fixtures. These articles are clearly content forks, since the source of these articles demonstrate notability for their respective clubs. Eventually all such forks will be merged with their primary subject matter. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• First Pillar: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." --MASEM (t) 13:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
• Would that be in the same way that articles about elements of fictional universes or non-notable episodes of TV programmes should be merged with their parent article, or is that a different concept of notability? Black Kite 20:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Voting time. Any television series that has at least a million viewers, may have an article for every episode

Lets just have everyone vote here, without any 5 page discussions, and see what the majority of people want.

Suggested Policy Change: Any television series that has at least a million viewers, may have an article for every single episode of it. Support or Deny?

• Wikipedia is not a democracy. See WP:NOT. Randomran (talk) 06:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Its a straw poll, and its the most effective way to form a consensus, which will then be acted upon. Dream Focus 06:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Consensus is strength of arguments, not numbers. And you have very little in regards to the former. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Its the ability to convince others, which makes no sense in this case. People have already made up their mind whether they want something to exist or not. So it comes down to, the number of people that want it and are willing to post here, against those who are against it. When over 2000 people have contributed to the South Park episodes, and all policies seem decided by a far fewer number of people that just hang out here all the time and post the same thing, I think we have a chance of changing things this time around. Dream Focus 10:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"X number of people have edited this article so they must be in favor of <insert inclusionist philosophy here>" is a spectacularly poor argument because you're putting words in other peoples' mouths. You can't regard the mere fact that someone's edited an article as an endorsement of your opinions. I myself have edited articles that I think are irredeemable crap. And how many of those 2,000 editors are newbies who, if they hung out at Wikipedia longer and got to know how this place operates, would shift to the other side of the fence? Reyk _YO! 11:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

See the essay WP:What is consensus. There's a lot of reasons to believe that a vote actually interferes with reaching an agreement, rather than encouraging one. Randomran (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• We will NOT be able to see what the majority of people want in such a discussion as this as the majority of editors and readers do not comment in these kinds of threads. If went by an actual majority, i.e. based on edits to articles and page views, it would be resoundingly in favor of having articles for episodes even without a million viewers. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • There is no evidence to support such a statement. I work on episode articles. My edits appear in articles that fail notability, doing meaningless stuff like correcting grammar. I don't tag it because I don't have the time to deal with the extended discussion. Do my edits automatically mean that I support the article's existence? If I was shown multiple versions of how episodes could be covered, how can you tell exactly what I would prefer based solely on my edits? A lot of editors (IPs and Registered) do exactly what you said, they don't participate in these discussions. They don't participate because all they want to do is edit, and provide their contribution to Wikipedia. You cannot make accurate assumptions about what they believe, want, or would "vote for" based solely on the fact that they edit articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
    • It is obvious that in practice a majority of editors and readers come here for articles on episodes than the handful of the same accounts who voted below and in AfDs against them; most people approach Wikipedia for reading and/or article building and are not interested in these discussions for whatever reason, but is the obvious reality given that for any given noteworthy episode there are probably more who edited it and come here searching for information on it than will comment in this one snapshot in time discussion or any similar discussion past or present. I wish more of these editors would comment, but it really does feel like a vocal minority focused on these discussions trying to decide for everyone else and in opposition to what the majority actually thinks in practice, which I guess is why at lerast we can "ignore all rules" in such scenarios anyway. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Again, you cannot make assumptions on what other people want without empirical evidence to support that. You don't know what what people come here for, what they like, what they want, or anything other than where they have edited. Remember, WP:IAR only applies IF you can show that it impedes Wikipedia to follow the rules. A bold accusation that people come here for episode articles, and removing any that do not meet WP:NOTE/WP:V is going to harm Wikipedia is not supported by any evidence whatsoever. If people are coming here to read a plot summary, then we don't need a separate page for that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
        • I can make common sense assumptions and looking at userboxes and page views as well as number of additions of content and references by accounts versus the deletes in AfDs or comments in these discussions overwhelmingly suggests that thousands of editors and millions of readers identify Wikipedia as a place to learn about television episodes and fictional characters whether some people like that or not. Anyway, there are different kinds of reasoning. Notability, which is subjectively interpreted, impedes Wikipedia. Verifiability, however, is something I absolutely adhere to and have and probably will in the future argued to delete based on verifiability concerns. So long as we are capable of verifying the episode's content and have some reviews floating around for a reception section and maybe an interview or DVD commentary for a development or production section, the episode artice should stay. I don't think articles should be all plot, but I think many more can and should be improved than it appears some others do. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right, you can make whatever assumptions you like, but without actual evidence they aren't worth a blade of grass. Notability impedes Wikipedia? Works, for me, I always thought I was important enough to have an article about myself. I'm a little confused right now. You just said, "So long as we are capable of verifying the episode's content and have some reviews floating around for a reception section and maybe an interview or DVD commentary for a development or production section, the episode article should stay." -- This leads me to believe that should these things not exist then you'd actually agree to merging an article to a broader topic, but that doesn't appear to be your arguments over at the South Park page or this page. You've been arguing here that we should keep the articles simply because "people" like them, but then you follow it up with "I'd argue to deleted based on verifiability concerns". This is one of those, "can't have your cake an eat it to" things. If an article had all of that, it probably wouldn't be challenged in the first place, but I know you've seen the South Park articles. I just spent several days going through every single one of them for that "List of episodes" page that I restructured in my sandbox, and you already can imagine how many just plot pages I went through (if you really can't, I'd suggest starting on the first episode and just cycling through them all). I have no doubt there are a lot of notable South Park articles, but I have every doubt that ALL of them are notable. When I can go half a season without hearing about something South Park did, I know there hasn't been a lot of stand out episodes. The Tom Cruise/Isaac Hayes stuff was in the news for weeks (the notability of that episode can never be questioned, nor should it).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Under the current rules, it doesn't matter how many millions of people watch a show, its episode articles can be deleted, like everything else, unless it has received mention in a newspaper or other major third party media source. So if a couple of writers like something enough to comment on it, its notable, no matter how few their audience are, which of course leads to elitism. I want to change this to a more fair system. If you get in the newspaper, sure, you keep your notable article. But you can also be declared notable without news coverage, if you have at least a million viewers. Dream Focus 03:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Can we stop this nonsense already? It is clear that there is no plurality of support for this idea, let alone consensus. Bongomatic 04:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No. Most of the people that stated their opinions are just the regulars you see hanging out here all the time. We need time to build a proper consensus of the community. Dream Focus 04:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

How will they ever find out about this discussion? I checked your edit history and I don't see that you've notified people of this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Television episodes#South Park episodes (where you have unsuccessfully tried to get this same discussion going). Unless you've been canvassing people off-Wiki, it seems unlikely that anyone other than the regulars will show up here. Bongomatic 04:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah good point. Not really well thought out on my part. I thought people over there at the South Park episode discussion, instead of just arguing on how to save their episode list, would come on over and vote. That's the only place I mentioned it at. Dream Focus 04:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• oppose the notion that we give any validity to this as a way to discover/come to consensus -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Notability is not popularity. Focus should be on coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the series. Bongomatic 06:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Per Bongomatic, notability does not equal popularity in any circumstance. Moreover, we are not an indiscriminate collection of information. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Bongomatic and Sephiroth BCR. If something's verifiably popular, but has nothing else really written about it, all you're going to have for an episode article is a plot summary and Nielsen Ratings (or an equivalent). That's not much of an article. — TKD::{talk} 07:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose as notability is not inherited. In terms of notability, every episode has to be the subject of reliable secondary sources, otherwise it will not contain any encyclopedic content. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Oppose There is no point in allowing stand-alone articles for episodes without sufficient notability, i.e. that can't be improved beyond its plot (WP:NOT#PLOT), unsourced trivia (WP:OR, WP:TRIVIA), and information already present in an episode list (writer, director, air date,...). – sgeureka ^t•c 09:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Oppose, it would simply allow for a slew of articles that exist only to supply a plot summary, these would otherwise be better catered for in an episode list. Alastairward (talk) 10:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose- Wikipedia is not a popularity contest. Cruft is a big problem, and I don't like the idea of legitimising it with a number arbitrarily picked out of the air. The requirement is substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Reyk _YO! 11:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Oppose I'm do not see how the General Notability Criteria is failing for episodes. We also have to be aware of WP:NOT#PLOT since most episode articles will end up being mere plot summaries. Having the episodes fall under the GNC at least combats that problem. --Farix (Talk) 11:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Oppose, no good reason for this proposal. The GNG is sufficient. Fram (talk) 12:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Oppose - First read WP:DEMOCRACY, it says "Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an ATTEMPT TO TEST for consensus." - That does no say that straw polls determine consensus. It means it gives you a better idea of where people stand. But, if 1000 people said "I like this", but never actually gave a reasoning supported by anything beyond personal preference then that does not mean there is valid support for change. Now, on to WP:NOTE. Oppose any change. If you think a subject is notable, then prove it. The fact that millions of people viewed a show means nothing. Birds of Prey (TV series) had 7 million viewers for its pilot, and millions of viewers for the episodes that followed, yet it was canceled before it even finished its first season. A show is not notable because of any single episode, it is notable because of everything it has done as a whole. Episode X might have helped gain a show notability, while Episode D might have contributed absolutely nothing. Wikipedia was not created to support the whims of fans who just want a forum where they can talk about their favorite shows. The expansion of human knowledge does not include providing a substitute for watching a show, or providing your own personal thoughts and observations. This is an encyclopedia. WP:PAPER is not a free pass to include whatever the hell you want, however you like it. Maybe one day some of you will stop trying to twist every policy and guideline into something it is not. (P.S. Dream, if/when this straw poll does not prove your point, are you going to concede over at Talk:List of South Park episodes#Merger proposal, or try something else?)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Oppose, even as a outright test, because 1 million viewers is not a consistent measurement for all possible televisions shows; in the US alone, the difference between over-the-air and cable is significant, and this doesn't account for international shows. If the show is watched by a non-trivial amount of people there will likely be one or more critics on the show that can be pulled from instead. --MASEM (t) 13:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
12. Oppose -- Completely unworkable and unnecessary. DreamGuy (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose - ridiculous substitute for notability. pablo_hablo. 14:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
14. Oppose: no articles without some kind of independent sourcing, so that we can avoid bias, undue weight, vanity, etc. Randomran (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
15. Oppose per Bongomatic, Bignole, and really everyone else. Wikipedia is not a popularity contest, # of viewers is meaningless without actual coverage in reliable, third-party sources, and goes against WP:NOT. Sales were rejected as a notability criteria for books for the same reasons (along with being easy to manipulate), and viewership is no better a criteria. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
16. Oppose Ridiculous. Eusebeus (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
17. Oppose. Firstly, you cannot just put an arbitrary figure on notability. And secondly, even if you could, 1 million viewers would mean something very different for an American show compared to the same number of viewers watching a Jamaican show. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 16:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
18. Oppose. Mmm, arbitrariness. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
19. Oppose. Too arbitrary and again notability is not inherited. If a show is notable then it only means that some episodes are notable, not all. --Maitch (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
20. Oppose. Ludicrously arbitrary - the most famous show in a small country with <1m viewers may be far more notable than hundreds of shows in larger countries. Let's stick with the notability guidelines, shall we? Black Kite 20:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
21. Oppose Are we planning to make articles for every of the thousands of episodes a number of soap series have?--Sloane (talk) 04:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
22. Oppose — per above; silly poll. Jack Merridew 09:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
23. Oppose - it is long-established WP practice not to cite specific numeric thresholds for notability. There are good reasons for this in general, and specific reasons for this issue have been cited above. Rd232 ^talk 13:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
24. Oppose Notability is based on which reliable sources have noted you and in which fashion, not staying power. Chillum 13:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
25. Oppose Notability should be based on the GNG, which is based on sources, and says nothing about "automatic" notability. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
26. Oppose inasmuch as it is a moronic bright line test that sets an arbitrary threshold up as law, and is contrary to good sense as a result. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
27. Oppose and by all means not voting. We would not automatically write separate articles for each chapter of a book, though there are a few that might meet GNG (e.g. "My mother is a fish.") and be justifiable as articles. Wikia is a great place for these articles, Wikipedia is not. SDY (talk) 03:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I think this is a poor analogy - the issues of serialization at play in most novels - or more to the point not in play - do not make for a good analogy to serialized works of fiction. A TV series is meant to be taken episode by episode, with each episode serving as a distinct object. Book chapters, by and large, are not. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

      Going back to literary analogies, many television shows are analogous to a collection of short stories. Are all of the works published in a magazine such as Analog Science Fiction and Fact notable because some of the stories in the magazine are? (for the record, Sturgeon's revelation) If an individual episode is notable, so be it. If a show is notable, so be it. The other episodes have to live and die on their own. SDY (talk) 03:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

28. Oppose The notion of inherited notability is quintessentially indiscriminate. A guideline making no reference to the nature of available information would mean including articles (subject to V and NOR) consisting entirely of superficial observations. Increased superficial coverage of the parts does not equate to in-depth coverage of the whole. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
29. Oppose at this point. I'm all in favor of more inclusion, but I'm afraid that establishing a guideline such as "1 Million viewers" would simply create more problems than it solves. The point would be argued Ad nauseam in XfD debates, and on article talk pages. I think this type of instruction creep would create loopholes that would cause more disruption than resolution to the already (seemingly) endless debates that already exist. The fiction notability proposal that's been going on ... since I don't know when is a good example of how difficult something like this could be. Is it a minimum of 1 million for every show? .. an average of 1 million? .. What if there are only 999,999 viewers? (ok the last one is pointy .. maybe). I just see this as a logistical nightmare, and source of disruption - at least at this point. Set up a proposal, lay out the details on the proposal page, and discuss it on the talk page - if (and that's a big if), you can get a general consensus for something like "viewers per show" .. well, we can cross that doubtful bridge when we come to it. No offense intended here - it's a noble idea, it may even look good on paper, but I just think in practice ... total SNAFU. — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 05:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
30. Oppose - Notability should be determined on a case-by-case basis. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 05:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
31. Oppose. The notability guidelines are already over-complex and unwieldy, and this proposal adds yet more complexity. Unfortunately, thois item of instruction creep adds that complexity not to clarify anything, but as an attempt to circumvent the basic principle of notability, which is based on wikipedia's core policies of verifiability, neutrality and no original research. If there has been no substantive coverage of something in reliable sources, then wikipedia should not have an article on it, regardless of whether it was watched by one person or ten million; but if it does have that substantial coverage, then this proposal would be irrelevant.
    In any case, the idea of a numeric threshold is daft. 1 million viewers for a program broadcast on the TV network of a small country may be hugely significant, but 1 million viewers in the United States or China may be relatively trivial. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Dream Focus 06:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Support The entire "notability" argument for television episodes is ridiculous. When any person can simply watch with their own eyes, and see that these episodes meet verifiability and are not original research. Many of these articles bring in thousands of page views and new editors to wikipedia. For example, the first season of one series has 2030 IP and user addresses, probably around 1000 editors who have edit them. Dream Focus, this is the worst place to post a straw poll. The above editors are the whose who of merging and deleting articles. Notability tends to attrack these kind of editors. Ikip (talk)

   Ikip is back and dives straight in with a comment on editors who he disagrees with... Anyway, let's see who are in this "who's who of merging and deleting"; Bongomatic has more than 10 DYK's in February and March 2009: TKD has helped promoto two articles to FA; Sgeureka did the same for three articles; Bignole for a whole bunch; Masem likewise; Randomran at least one (perhaps more, I haven't checked that thoroughly), ... Most of these editors are active members of one or more fiction related projects as well. Could you please stop attacking everyone who disagrees with you or at least use attacks which are a bit closer to the truth? It is your choice to prefer many editors making one or two edits to less editors making thousands of edits, but that does not mean that you have to dismiss "these kind of editors". Fram (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

3. I think having a million viewers is evidence of notability. People say "notability is not popularity." All that means is that something does not have to be popular. One of the synonyms of "notable" is "well-known." "Well-known" is also one of the synonyms of "popular." How can you say that one person watching an episode and writing a newspaper article about it is evidence that the episode is worthy of notice, yet a million people taking the time to notice an episode and watch it is not evidence that the episode is worthy of notice? People who think that are putting way too much importance on the written word. Nielsen Ratings are an indicator of notability, indeed, the reason they exist is so advertisers can determine which shows people are noticing more than others. The phrase "notability is not inherited" is also misleading. Notability is frequently "inherited." Is Barack Obama a US President? Then Barack Obama is notable. Is Barack Obama notable for being written about? No, he's notable for being the current President of the United States.
   
   How can you say that a television show is notable, yet the episodes that make up the show are not notable? You cannot begin with the idea that the episodes are not notable, and then come to the conclusion that the show is notable. There is no policy against "cruft" and the word is virtually meaningless. WP:NOT#PLOT is disputed, and has been contentious ever since it was added to WP:NOT, and many of the editors who have re-added it to that policy have commented above. The oppose section is a cavalcade of anti-episode article editors, who are very vocal on policy and guideline talkpages. And I'm sure that all of the editors who have created and edited Wikipedia's 8,000+ episodes articles don't even know this discussion is happening. They're probably busy editing articles, like they should be, instead of inventing new rules for other people to follow.
   
   The number of viewers is not meaningless. Why do a few newspaper articles about an episode mean everything, yet a million viewers mean nothing? DVD sales are also indicators of notability. I'm willing to bet that many television series with over a million viewers already have articles for every episode. A particular television episodes may be written about, but that is not what the episode is notable for. Pick a random episode article. Now pick a random BLP. I'm willing to bet that more people are familiar with the episode in question than are familiar with the person in question. Wikipedia has over 37 times more BLPs than episode articles. Anti-episode editors would be better served by focusing their efforts there, where serious damage can be done to a real person's reputation, as well as Wikipedia's, instead of trying to carve into Wikipedia's coverage of notable television shows. --Pixelface (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
   • How can you say that a television show is notable, yet the episodes that make up the show are not notable? You already know the answer, which is that they are elements or segments in a continous series, like chapters in a book. In order to provide the commentary, context, criticism and analyis need to write an encyclopedic article, you have to look at the series as a whole. Sure, some episodes are notable on their own (e.g. Who shot J.R.?), but like the series itself, you have to provide objective evidence that they are notable. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
     • You can liken television episodes to chapters in a book all you want, but television episodes are ultimately not chapters in a book, they are television episodes. Often produced by hundreds. Often involving notable directors or producers or writers or actors or voice actors, which often change from episode to episode. Often bringing in millions of dollars to the city of production. Released one at a time. Purchased by independent television networks. Sometimes bought by other independent television networks. Utilized by advertisers. Often watched by millions. Often syndicated for years and years and years. Often aired in scores of countries. Your analogy to chapters breaks down under examination. And yet in your opinion, such a cultural artifact is "not notable"? Perhaps I could understand you better Gavin if you could tell me what you think the word "notable" means. We may be using different definitions of the word.
       
       If a television show was produced by one person and released all at once on DVD and the episodes were never aired separately, your comparison to chapters in a book may be appropriate. To then have articles about episodes would be splitting up a whole entity into parts in a way the creator did not intend. But that's not how episodes are released, and the analogy to chapters is not appropriate. Many television episodes are not parts of a continuous series — and by that I mean that many episodes are able to be viewed as standalone items. In the UK, people use the word "series." In the US, people use the word "season." I think those different terms may be related somewhat to our differing viewpoints. I won't begrudge your view of seeing a television series as a whole, but I hope you will not begrudge my view of of seeing a series as individual parts.
       
       Maybe the "Who shot J.R.?" episode of Dallas is the only notable episode of Dallas in the UK. That does not therefore mean that that episode is the only notable episode of Dallas everywhere, ever. Dallas was on the air in the US for 14 seasons, and according to the article, every season averaged over 3 million viewers. According to the article, Dallas was dubbed into 67 languages in over 90 countries. Presumably people in those countries watched the show. "Who Shot J.R.?" is probably the most famous episode of Dallas, with over 90 million viewers in the US. But something does not have to be famous in order to be notable. Now, Dallas was a soap opera, and like most every other article related to soap operas on Wikipedia, editors typically make character articles and storyline articles rather than episode articles.
       
       Where does it say that encyclopedia articles need "commentary, context, criticism and analysis"? And I'm not talking about any Wikipedia policy or guideline, I'm talking about encyclopedias in general. Just like any person can scribble in any Wikipedia article, they too can scribble in any policy or guideline. When someone scribbles in an article, what they add needs to be verifiable. But when someone scribbles in a policy or guideline, it seems to me that all they need is a few people to team up in order to keep the text in place. And being the first to get there doesn't seem to hurt either. I think including "commentary, context, criticism and analysis" in an article is certainly more informative for the reader, but if that material is not present, and the reader would like the article to have it, they can always click "edit this page."
       
       How do six newspaper articles about an episode constitute objective evidence of notability, yet one million people watching an episode, tracked and reported by audience measurement systems, do not constitute objective evidence of notability? --Pixelface (talk) 05:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
       • Here's the thing about television viewership compared to, say, a record going gold or platinum. Television viewership is pretty much passive - that it, it only requires a viewer's time to turn on the TV and watch. Compared to sales and the like, where money has to be specifically spent on the product, and that's an active participation. The action of a million people turning on the TV at a certain time is far far less significant than a million people buying a CD or a book. That said, there are significant viewership numbers that can occur but these are usually given from a secondary standpoint; if a show had, say, 50 million viewers in the US market, the largest recorded viewership, it's not the fact that it's 50 million that is truly notable, but that it is the largest viewership ever seen that makes it such (the 50 mill being a good fact for that). And while the active participation measurement would be DVD sales or sales through iTunes of TV shows or the like, individual episodes are averaged out in these, so they can't be used. Of course, as noted by others, "one million" is very arbitrary and is US-centric (and even in the US, it's over-the-air centric), and while one could define it instead as a %-age of total citizens in that country, there's a heck of a lot of gaming to be played with those numbers.
       • But to turn this back around, if a show has a large number of viewers, there is bound to be some type of critical coverage of it somewhere in some RS to back that up. It's going to be larger than 1 million (assuming a US market), and probably closer to 10 or so. With some work, it is probably likely possible to figure a correlation between the viewership size of episodes and when the episode is critically approached across a range of region and broadcast markets. That could then possibly be used to set the equivalent for tv episodes as there is for albums and books in the SNGs. But we'd need some decent study to make that presumption. --MASEM (t) 05:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
         • I appreciate your reply Masem, but I would still like Gavin to answer my last question above. I didn't compare television viewership to a record going gold or platinum above, but we could make an analogy to that too. Say a single is heard by a million people. I consider that evidence of notability. Say an album composed of nothing but those singles is heard by a million people. All of those people recognizing those songs and that album is evidence of notability.
           
           I think whether an activity is active or passive is irrelevant. And many people pay for television anyway — be it cable, satellite, donations to public television, a television license, or by subscribing to a premium television channel like HBO. "The action of a million people turning on the TV at a certain time is far far less significant than a million people buying a CD or a book." I totally disagree. Either way, there are a million people familiar with the material. If someone is familiar with a book, I don't care if they bought it or read it in school or borrowed it from a library. In many countries, advertisers, third-parties, buy airtime during television shows. They're spending money in order to reach a large audience or target demographic.
           
           If an episode has 50 million viewers in the US, the episode is definitely notable. Period. But an episode does not have to set a viewership record in order to be well-known. I don't know how iTunes measures downloads, but if they have statistics for individual episodes, I think those can also be cited as evidence of notability.
           
           1,000,000 is an arbitrary number. But I don't think it's US-centric. I consider one million viewers evidence of notability — that does not therefore mean that every episode with less than one million viewers is not notable. To say that, this proposal would have to be "Every episode with less than one million viewers is not notable", but that's not what was proposed, and I wouldn't support that at all. In addition to the number of viewers, I would also consider arguments about the percentage of households tuned in at the time ("rating") and the percentage of all televisions in use tuned in at the time ("share"). If a show has a large number of viewers, it does not follow that there is "bound to be some type of critical coverage" of each and every episode. Episode reviews don't sell newspapers or magazines. And many newspapers are going out of business. Lack of reviews doesn't stop people from going to see movies not screened in advance for critics.
           
           I think there's a very high probability that more people are familiar with an episode itself rather than some newspaper article about the episode. Again, how can you say that five or six people writing a newspaper article about an episode is evidence of notability, yet a million people watching an episode and writing nothing is not evidence of notability? A newspaper article about an episode is evidence that one person took notice. That is why coverage is considered evidence of notability. An audience measurement system saying that a million people took notice is evidence that a million people took notice. That is evidence that an episode is notable. And that's 999,999 more people. --Pixelface (talk) 16:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
           • Well, the US-centric can hurt shows to. Canada roughly has about 1/5th the US population. Now while most Canada gets US television and adds to those numbers, unique Canadan programming (say, The Red Green Show (which I do realize had a US outlet too, but just as an example of a show originating in Canada) will not get that. Thus, we'd be expecting a Canada-only show to have to have 5 times our "boundary" for viewership to meet notability as an equivalent US show. That's bias we can't introduce.
           • Another factor to consider is that to some extent, first-time viewership falls under WP:NOT#NEWS - it is a temporary burst of importance, but does not necessarily have lasting effects. Again, if there are records broke or secondary analysis of the viewership numbers, that's one thing, but the straight up first-run viewership is a point in time, and doesn't consider reruns, rentals, and the like. I'm all over a standard based on the follow-up sales of TV shows by any means (iTunes per episode, or DVD sales per season), because that's a permanent effect (money has changed hands).
           • The "five or six person in newspapers" being more important than viewers is because they are reliable sources - their profession is to either accurately collect and analyze information on these shows, or to critique them as part of their job. On the other hand, anyone can write their own review in their blog, but they are not reliable, simply because there's no expertise or professional confirmation behind that blog (some may be experts/professionals writing on their own, but per WP:RS we're also looking for editorial oversight too).
           • I'm not ruling out popularity via viewership numbers, but for a US TV show, "1 million" is way too low, and the US-centricness of that number needs to be worked out. --MASEM (t) 03:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Support as we are a paperless encyclopedia with broad appeal to our readers. Not having articles on episodes with a million plus viewers makes no logical sense. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

   Good luck with writing articles about every episode of most TV programmes in China, then :) Black Kite 20:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

   Why do you say that? If you're talking about the People's Republic of China, I would let people who live there or people familiar with television in the People's Republic of China do it. Someone could also find an article on zh.wikipedia.org and request a translation at Wikipedia:Translation. Wikipedia has several Chinese to English translators. If there's an article on the English Wikipedia about a Chinese television show and the article is written in Chinese, one can file a request at WP:PNT where the editors who speak Chinese (or some other language of China) could help out. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. --Pixelface (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

2. Support I'd prefer a higher bound (say 5 million) but the idea is sound. Hobit (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Support An audience of a million is a good commonsense threshold for determining that, ipso facto, a topic has been noticed. We already record this rule-of-thumb in WP:MUSIC and, as a matter of practise, it seems appropriate for TV too. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

   There's a difference between spending time to watch a show, and spending money to purchase music, the latter being more representative of popularity (art people willing to spend money for something they enjoy). (mind you, I'm aware of cable rates, tv taxes, etc. but those aren't aimed at specific programs). The correct comparison is # of DVD sales, though as I'm aware, there's no "platinum"-labeling like with music, and while I'm sure there's sales figures out there, this doesn't seem a regular aspect. --MASEM (t) 12:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

   Oh, and what about people spending money to watch a show, say, The Sopranos? --Pixelface (talk) 01:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

   Cable/satelite feeds are show-neutral, the money being used to watch the Sopranos may actually be being used to watch reruns of Wings on USA. However, with cable networks with on-demand, and with tracking of cable subscriptions with upcoming episodes (say (I don't know if it's true) Comcast saw a 20% increase to premium channel subscriptions prior to the last episode of the Sopranoes, as long as someone else noted this "coincidence" that makes the cable subscriptions notable), we potentially have more sources to say who paid money for specific episodes. --MASEM (t) 03:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

4. Support inasmuch as it seems to me a statement of probable fact - such a show can, via a determined search for sources, probably sustain individual episode articles. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

   Just checking, Phil, was it your intention is to both support and oppose? Interesting. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 18:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

   That was my intention, yes. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

5. Support, in a limited way--usually it would be much better to compromise on combination articles, if the material is written fully enough and not a mere list. But in general, popularity is one form of notability. Time we said so. We should cover everything popular that we can write a verifiable article on. The level of popularity will depend on the type of article. many other things, though not yet popular will be notable also, but to say that popularity alone is not enough reason to cover in an encyclopedia is a misunderstanding of what a comprehensive encyclopedia should be trying to do. We use various surrogates for it, such as discussions in particular types of sources, but what we are really trying to measure is popularity. (Importance within a field is one main other type of notability. Again, we need a standard of how important in the various fields, but we should be measuring it directly. Historical importance, actual or presumed, is the third.)DGG (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I added some clarification in italics above. The principle of popularity = notability is important. The level of establishing it for a particular topic is subject to discussion. I agree that in most cases we wouldn't want to do a full article on all episodes of all but the most popular and important series. DGG (talk) 04:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

What happens when the only thing you can show verifiably is the amount of viewers a show has, and nothing else? You're saying that a page with a plot summary and a single line of "This episode had 2 million viewers" (depending the station will depend on whether that's actually a lot or not) is the type of article that Wikipedia needs? To make sure this doesn't string out into something else, I'm saying "that's all there is, nothing else". Explain, as succinctly as possible, why that needs more than a place in a table with a column for the amount of viewers that watched it?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

NOT DIRECTORY. It can be a part of a combination article, but we need to give information about what takes place in the episode. DGG (talk) 04:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure where WP:DIRECTORY plays in, as "Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted." - When you say, "Give information about what takes place" are you saying the page needs plot summaries of the episode that reside on that page? Regardless, supporting this above statement means you are saying that if an article has 1 million viewers (not a lot by any standard, and likely to a show canceled real quick depending on the channel) then it doesn't matter if there is any other information, because that single criteria means it warrants a whole page to itself. That makes absolutely no sense, given that we require every other article (fiction or non-fiction) to provide "significant coverage", and a source announcing the Nielsen ratings for the week is hardly significant coverage.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not require every article to provide "significant coverage" Bignole. You're incorrect — yet again, unfortunately. --Pixelface (talk) 00:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Bignole is right. According to the verifiability policy, if there are no reliable, third party sources to support a topic then Wikipedia should not have an article on it. And according to the notability guideline, articles are expected to have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Reyk _YO! 01:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no, he's not. WP:V does not require "significant coverage." And that line about third-party sources in WP:V is disputed anyway, and has no business being in a content policy since it's about topics. That line was added to WP:V because an editor wanted to win an editwar over the UGOPlayer article, which they had nominated for deletion. And according to WP:N, topics should be notable. Significant coverage is not a requirement for something to be considered notable. --Pixelface (talk) 01:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am certainly saying that a sufficiently detailed but concise plot summary of every individual episode is necessary, whether in combination or individual articles . That;'s what fiction is about. The rule for this is NOT PLOT, that the coverage of fiction includes but is not limited to plot summaries. I repeat that my support for the statement is limited, and I do not think the 1 million criterion sufficiently high. I remind you that the source for the plot can be and usually ought to be the episode itself. DGG (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I've never argued that plots (of aired programs) needed sourcing beyond the episode itself (but that does not establish notability). Even if a show had 10 million viewers, IF there is nothing else to say then there is no reason to have an independent article on the episode. This rule is not saying, "One criteria that could assist is..." - it's saying, "The only criteria necessary is if the episode has 1 million viewers".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

If that many people watch it, then some of them will come and edit and add more. Have you seen a popular television show article, ever, that didn't have a large amount of information on it? Not really a problem we are ever likely to have to deal with. Dream Focus 21:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You clearly ignored what I said. I say, "that's all there is". You cannot make assumptions that "it's not likely to happen". That was not my question. My question was, "what if there was nothing else". Without side-stepping the question, someone explain why having an article with just a plot and single line identifying the number of viewers is supposedly better than that same plot appearing in a table with a column designated for viewership numbers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

If popularity is one form of notability, why do we need specific thresholds (long discouraged for good reasons, not least because to be at all valid they need to be very context-specific)? At the very least, the proposal should be framed as, say, "all series considered notable enough for inclusion may have an article per episode if there is content to justify it", which would at least be honestly (if extremely) inclusionist without obfuscation with arbitrary numbers. (Coming next week: all newspapers with more than 769,217 readers may have an article for each edition...) Rd232 ^talk 23:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it virtually says that already, because "content to justify it" would have to be sourced by reliable sources, and would essentially mean that the article meets the GNG.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I wasn't clear. I meant "each day's edition". eg The Guardian 20 March 2009, The Guardian 21 March 2009, etc. ... basically a conversion of WP into Wikinews, same as the blanket inclusion of TV episodes regardless of encyclopedic value of the article content amounts to a conversion of WP into TV Guide. Rd232 ^talk 05:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I understood the news analogy, I was merely referring to the episode "content to justify it" comment.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Something can be notable but not popular. But can something be popular but not notable? I don't think there is any reason why Wikipedia could not have an article for every episode of every notable television show. That wouldn't "convert" Wikipedia into TV Guide any more than having articles about Charlemagne and World War II "converts" Wikipedia into Encyclopedia Brittanica. And I would never support articles for every daily edition of a newspaper. --Pixelface (talk) 01:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see [#Suggested_recommendation_for_adjusting_the_philosophical_approach_of_notability this section above] that I've suggested rewriting. Your point is completely valid; there are a heck of a lot of things that are notable to at least one person; we need to be identifying the level of threshold for notability that is needed to be included to avoid indiscriminate topics per our pillars. Now, that's not immediately going to change how WP:N is used but this lends possible credence to measures based on popularity. (But see my comments above) --MASEM (t) 03:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Question: P vs. G

I tried searching the talk archives, I tried a google search .. I'm spending more time achieving nothing. Could one of the regulars here point me to the most recent and relevant discussion that says WP:N should be a guideline rather than a policy. It's not that I have a strong opinion one way or the other - I'm just looking to get a feel for how the community feels, and why it feels that way. Thanks. — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 06:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

See this section from the RFC last month. Basically, common sense needs to play a factor in here, so it basically isn't hard-set. --MASEM (t) 06:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Masem, that's exactly what I was looking for. I never thought of looking through RfC. ;) — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 06:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Reviews?

I'm in a debate with another user. Isn't it the case that reviews for things like books, movies and bands in RSes tend to be good (perhaps ideal) for showing notability of said book, movie or band? I've always felt so and seen in applied in AFDs that way, but I wanted some other thoughts. (and arguments on either side) Thanks! Hobit (talk) 02:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

For books, yes, as long as they are from reliable sources and full reviews as opposed to short/brief ones (see WP:BK). Movies, also yes, again as long as they from reliable sources (see WP:NF). Bands, also again yes so long as they are not just from local sources (see WP:BAND). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. 141.212.111.116 (talk) 11:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Notable for not being notable

Eesti Ekspress has in late 2008 published a list of "most unnotable celebrities" of Estonia: [9]. All of these people are subject to repeated media exposure; often, their family events and other personal happenings are reported in press, and sometimes, journalists ask their opinions on various news events. However, all of these people are known mostly for being known, not anything more traditional. Unlike Paris Hilton, none of those in the list are inheritors of significant properties. Some have crimes to their name but these are usually petty; the largest crime is that of Alex Lepajõe who robbed a jewel store in Finland in the 1980s and has fulfilled his sentence by now. Several are reality show participants with no notable history before that. Some are girlfriends of other celebrities; two are male strip-tease artists.

Should these people be considered notable for Wikipedia purposes? Furthermore, does the fact that they're so unnotable they're listed in top 20 of unnotable celebrities add to their notability? Eesti Ekspress is a reputable daily newspaper, and although this list cites mostly yellow press, EE is not generally considered yellow. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 10:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)