Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Notability

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jarlsburg Franklin (talk | contribs) at 18:52, 8 December 2009 (→‎Jarlsburg Franklin: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

RFC: Self promotion and indiscriminate publicity

Should the the following section be inserted into WP:N to explain better to both article writers and inexperienced AFD participants that it's not a matter of "getting boxes checked", but that the reliability and independence of the sources cited in an article are important? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Self promotion and indiscriminate publicity In some instances, publication in a reliable source is not actual good evidence of notability:

Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. The barometer of notability is whether third parties in the wider world have independently considered the topic significant. Paid material, self-promotion, solicitation, and product placement are not evidence of notability as they do not measure the attention a subject has received by the world at large.

Credible writers who have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter – are good evidence, but the nature of the material must be examined to consider if it shows genuine independent interest, or is more likely to result from indiscriminate coverage or promotion.

In particular:

  • If an interested party could readily obtain similar coverage by promotional activity; or
  • The publisher would grant similar coverage to many or all venues, groups, products, people or entities in the field, without evidence of much discrimination; or
  • The publisher seems unlikely to have carefully verified the published article's factual accuracy

then the resulting text is unlikely to be good evidence.

Discussion

Please give your thoughts. Remember that this is a discussion.

That would be the text that says "Should the the following section be inserted into WP:N" --Jaymax (talk) 11:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyhow, I very strongly support this because there is a definite link between notability and promotion. Most everybody agrees that Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a promotional medium, and the notability guidelines are one of the strongest tools we have for preventing Wikipedia from being abused for the sake of promotion. The issue of promotion needs to be addressed here in order to give proper attribution for why we have these guidelines and what harm may be caused by not having them. This single issue is why I support the guidelines as strongly as I do. If a product, or company, or website actively seeks out Wikipedia in order to become notable, chances are they aren't worth talking about. If a product or a company or person doesn't need its Wikipedia article in order to be famous than likely they already have recieved the coverage about them necessary to write an article. Removing this relationship would be a great disservice to the notability guidelines and the idea that Wikipedia is not a medium of advertising. ThemFromSpace 07:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (also involved in the prior discussion of this). There are too many cases of commercial promotion, where product placement in media is "just another checkbox to get a Wikipedia article". This section would expand on wording that's always been in the guideline, but poorly explained in a footnote. We want to assess whether the world has taken notice, not just whether there has been better (or indiscriminate) promotional activity. This section focuses the issue of notability very clearly, by asking editors to consider the cites as evidence (not proof) of notability. It's worth explaining the most usual situations where publication may not actually be good evidence. FT2 (Talk | email) 10:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm going to support this. If there are other discussions elsewhere, that's fine too - but I think the RfC is a good idea here. We have "mywikibiz.com" and "business.wikia.com" for these type of things. While I strongly support the WP:PRESERVE concept and building/adding to our encyclopedia project; the key word here is "encyclopedia". There are tons of "yellow pages" out there to use - and I think if we allow ourselves to be diluted into a "list your business here" type of project, it will degrade the quality and believability of our efforts. While there are certainly many business that are notable, we shouldn't be a "listas" project for any start-up group that comes along. Notability needs to be viewed in a historic context, not a "Johnny-come-lately" or "flash-in-the-pan" threshold. — Ched :  ?  10:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose because this belongs at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources, not here. I might go along with a para here that references text there, but this proposal is about what should be considered a reliable source in the context of the information. Once something passes WP:RS it is and should remain considered appropriate to WP:N. Good motive, and perhaps required, but wrong guideline. --Jaymax (talk) 11:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree Jaymax - I think what we're talking about here is what is and is not notable. Granted, references do support notability, but I think the issue at hand is WP:N, not WP:RS. At least that's what I'm commenting on. — Ched :  ?  11:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Was also going to disagree. The issue is relevant to notability in its own right. It's important within the notability guideline to clarify what kind of coverage is unsuitable or poor quality as evidence of notability, not just what would be a reliable source. The concern here is to draw attention to the fact that not everything in a reliable source, is good evidence of notability. Users should consider whether the coverage shows the world taking note, which is different from whether the source is reliable; reliable sources can often contain material that is poor evidence of notability. That needs explaining as part of notability. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How come something be a reliable secondary source for content, but not for notability. Please provide some examples to test against. What might accomodate, is to say that primary sources (which is effectively what this discusses) can never be used to establish notability. What I can't fathom is why these rules, which would fit extremely well in WP:RS (if not, why not?) should need to be duplicated in both places. (ie: if they are eliminated as WP:RS then they are automatically eliminated from WP:N --Jaymax (talk) 11:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A simple (though not germane) example would be a directory. A listing showing the subject attended school XYZ or performed in play ABC could support material in the article but obviously isn't detailed, independent coverage. Protonk (talk) 11:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) It's very common to have exactly that situation. A number of users look at the source and go "that's in a reliable source", and don't realize the issue is whether it is good evidence of the world taking notice. Think about this section as clarifying the need for users assessing notability of a topic, to critically consider the material's value as evidence of the world taking notice, even if it does appear in a reliable source. FT2 (Talk | email) 12:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK - thanks both - I get that. I see the point. I need to come back to this in the morning. I'm not sure such a directory should qualify as a secondary source however - if it currently does, I think there's a solid argument to change that. And WP:RS relates to the information in context - I still think there is a better way to handle this, perhaps by explicitly defining such sources as primary sources, and explicitly excluding primary sources from WP:N - that helps in both places. This also ties in to Gavin's comment below on WP:NTEMP - it needs expansion (I suspect) but any secondary source should contain genuine "commentary, criticism, ___?, or analysis" and not originate from a party connected to the subject (ie: no rehashed press releases, directory listings, etc) - sort of thing. --Jaymax (talk) 12:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - we have inclusionist who would actually argue against applying such guidance. They would view any self-contributed google hit as a secondary source sufficient to warrant notability. So, this guidance is both appropriate and very needed. Maybe it would discourage self-promoters from submitting articles about themselves and/or their businesses or books. Wikipedia is becoming one more product placement checkbox. Racepacket (talk) 11:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Plenty of RS repeat press releases verbatim without fact checking, but that absolutely cannot be classed as prima facia evidence of self-promotion and non-notability. Depending on the standing and independence of the RS, their decision to publish the material can absolutely be cited as evidence of sources taking notice in and of itself. MickMacNee (talk) 14:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military Service and Decorations

There has been a rather long and convoluted argument regarding the notability of our men and women in uniform and the decorations they receive. I entered the argument when an article I had written regarding my father, who was twice awarded the Silver Star and three times the Bronze Star with the valor award as a Special Forces Army Ranger (LRRP) in Vietnam, only to have it deleted because the Silver Star is not considered to be notable in of itself, as per WP:BIO. I can certainly understand that everyone in the military is noteworthy enough to merit an article in Wikipedia. I think that there is very little understanding of what exactly is required to qualify for something like the Silver Star, and while I admit that much of my reasoning is based on my disagreement regarding consensus regarding the article on my father, I'll freely admit that as it stood it was not up to snuff. It needed editing, but the reason for deletion was that the Silver Star is not in of itself notable. When discussing notability, there doesn't seem to be any doubt that any winner of the Medal of Honor is notable enough to merit an article. I argue that both the Distinguished Service Cross and the Silver Star, as the second and third highest honors a member of the military can earn for valor & heroism in combat are sufficiently notable in of themselves that they establish notability for the purpose of writing an article about the person. To those that want to apply a "Professor Test", I direct you to the stated criteria already established for automatic notability as per WP:BIO. Using the current criteria, there are two female soldiers that have been awarded the Silver Star whose only other claim to being notable is that they are female. I have nominated these articles for deletion under the logic that being a woman nominated for a non-notable award does not make one notable. However, I have a problem with the fact that according to the current Wikipedia policy, had either of these women stripped for Playboy, rather than serve heroically in the military, they would be notible for for nudity, but not for heroism. Make the Silver Star and Distinguished Service Cross grounds for automatic notability. Rapier1 (talk) 03:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the sheer number of awardees in WWI and WWII, I don't think the DSC will ever be a "free pass" for notability. The Silver Star certainly won't. The female awardees are notable because the off-wiki press considers it notable that a woman earned these awards. I will look at the AFDs but I fully expect to mark them as "keep" after a news archive search. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as an automatic notability, for there needs to be significant coverage from a reliable secondary sources in order to write an encyclopedic article. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is, however, de facto or presumed notability, where lack of notability has to be established for deletion to occur. If I say "John Doe was the President of North Elbonia in 1972-1974" and I cite the official, primary-source copy of his inauguration, I meet WP:V but not WP:N. However, even without third-party sources to indicate nobility, nobody will delete it without a discussion that starts along the lines of "I never heard of this guy. I did some research. Yes, he was President but the country was pretty much lawless at the time and the Presidency existed in name only. Could not find any coverage from independent, non-trivial sources. Trivial mention in some tables in the CIA Factbook and similar sources. Delete as not notable or merge with North Elbonia." There are many other topics besides leaders of sovereign states which have "presumed" notability.
By historical wiki-practice, diploma-granting American high schools tend to fit into this category, even though just about every small town has at least one. A high school is presumed to be notable unless its established through discussion that its not. Very few go down in AFD. The reason is that the vast majority of high schools do meet WP:N, due to significant third-party non-trivial coverage in the media.
I think what Rapier1 wants is for awardees to be granted this presumption of notability. That's not his call, that's the call of the media and publishing industries. When it comes to WP:N, Wikipedia takes its cues from them. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see where you are coming from, but article inclusion and article deletion are seperate processes, and have different rules and rationales. A topic that is notable in accordance with WP:GNG can be included in Wikipedia as a standalone article; topics that have not been the subject of reliable, third party sources tend to get merged or deleted in the long run. I disagree with the example in which you suggest that high schools are presumed to be notable, because nowhere in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines does it say that is the case; last time I looked, Wikipedia:Notability (schools) was designated a failed guideline proposal.
Rapier1 wants is for awardees to be granted this presumption of notability, but in the absence of significant coverage from a reliable secondary source, that would not make sense and, in any case, is prohibited by the fact that Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others.
I would encourage Rapier1 not to think in terms of which rules should be met just to qualify for creating stubs, but concern himself with writing good articles. Articles without significant coverage from reliable seconadary sources offer very little to the reader. A good article will always be fully compliant with WP:GNG in both form and spirit. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I picked schools as an example in spite of, or possibly because of, the failed proposal. Without a guideline, I had to rely on past practices and consensus-gathering discussions to establish that there is a de facto consensus that high schools which grant diplomas are notable, except when they aren't. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such consensus regarding the notability of schools in terms of article inclusion, otherwise it would be in the guidelines. Whether a school is kept, mergered or deleted at WP:AFD is a different ball game, as often these choices are made for subjective reasons, rather than strict adherence to accepted policy or guidelines. The bottom line is, there is no such thing as a "free pass" to article inclusion, although some editors with pet topics would like to think otherwise. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The outcomes of AFD form a sort of "case law" in Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you david, it was my intention to spark debate and bring this issue to the fore. Just to clarify however: 1. I never presumed to state that it was "my call" that these people should or should not be presumed to be notible. I'm bringing up the topic for discussion, as suggested per wikipedia policy, and I'm stating my opinion. If the consensus is against me, that won't change my opinion, but I'll abide by that consensus. 2. These are not "service awards", as you mentioned on Sgt. Brown's talk page. In the United States military, a "Service Award" is given to all members of the mlitary who participate in a particular action. For example, there is a Sea Service Ribbon service award for any member of the military while stationed on a vessel at sea. There are "Campaign Ribbons" that are awarded to all personnal who serve during times of National Emergency. There are "Commendation Medals" and the Bronze Star which are for "sustained acts of heroism or meritorious service" and "bravery, acts of merit, or meritorious service". The Silver Star is awarded for "extraordinary heroism", is only ever awarded for combat duty, and is the third highest award the United States hands out for combat service. While many of these awards have been issued, it doesn't take away from the fact that they are only earned under the most extreme situations and are rare when compared to the overall military composition. There is a good deal of press each time one of these awards is earned by a soldier by their regional press. Just because CBS, ABC, and NBC choose not to cover the valor of our troops, that does not make the incident any less notable. Gavin, you presume too much without first communicating. I fail to see the logic behind the argument that a person who risks their life and performs an act of "extraordinary heroism" doesn't meet an equivalent standard for notability as Mike Milchin, Paivi Meriluoto, Rudy Svorinich, and Susie Scott - who all rate a page. However, I have no intention, nor would I support, using this criterion of notability to foster the creation of a number of stubs. All articles written would still have to conform to wikipedia standards for quality and accuracy. Many of those I mentioned are stubs themselves, and when I have time I'll be happy to clean them up, but we need to have a uniform set of standards. I got pushback when I attempted to apply a standard that I had been involved in setting (although I was on the losing side of the argument) to the article Silver Star awardees and it's various links (starting with Jocko Abramovitch, which has since been deleted) and continuing with Sgts. Brown and Hester. Once that pushback started echoing my own opinion I brought the argument here. This is a discussion and an attempt to form a consensus, nothing more. Rapier1 (talk) 05:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I don't think Mike Milchin warrants a standalone article either. This sort of proves my point: in absence of any coverage, what is the point of creating an article if it provides no information other than that the subject exists? In my book, stubs such as these fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and inclusion criteria such as WP:ATHLETE just does not have a leg stand on if there a complete lack of decent coverage for a particular sportsperson. It is just not possible to write an article for an encyclopedia without providing the reader with context that comes from significant coverage in the form of commentary, criticism or analysis, which is why I oppose the presumption that notability can be "automatic". --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So your opinion is that the standards set out by WP:BIO are inadequate and should be modified. One can easily state that there is plenty of source material on Mr. Milchin in various sports journals and newspapers - after all, any professional athlete would have been a standout for some time and would have coverage in the sports sections of several newspapers. Keep in mind that sources need not be on the internet. Adding biographical information (early life, amateur career, life after baseball) would move it from stub catagory. That would easily satisfy the requirement of "providing the reader with context". Once the article is no longer a stub, WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE would be satisfied and there would be no issue. You can make the argument that they shouldn't be in, but my point is that according to our current standards, every major league baseball player over the course of the last 120 years is considered notable, along with every professional football player in the last 75 years - and all the other pro leagues. All I'm asking is that, provided similar detail is given and proper references cited, our military heroes be granted the same courtesy. Rapier1 (talk) 06:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, WP:ATHLETE and other "automatic" inclusion criteria are just too subjective to be a credible basis for inclusion. You can ignore my opinion if you wish, but there is a lot of evidence to support this. For instance, one can easily state that there is plenty of source material on Mr. Milchin, but that is a common agrument based on crystal ball gazing. Secondly, rountine news stories, such as barebone match reports don't automatically confer notability on their own - see WP:NTEMP for the reasons why.
At the time of writing, the stub Mike Milchin offers little information to the reader, which begs the question, why would you want a standalone article about a topic for which there is no or little coverage? Although Wikipedia contains elements of tertiary sources that specialise in such stubs, like sports almanacs and directories, I think it fair to say that they have lower inclusion criteria than Wikipedia. The inclusion criteria for any topic is notability in accordance with WP:GNG, simply becuase it is not possible to write a decent article about a professional athlete without significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia is about informing the reader with information, not a mere listing of barebone facts. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, and I agree that the article needs work. My point is much more simple. Wikipedia is not a mere listing of barebones facts, but it is also a work in progress. Not many articles go online perfect. If you ever find one, let me know. If I understand you properly, you are stating that the article itself should not exist. I am stating that according to our standards, the article stands, and should be expanded upon when possible to make it more encylopedic. Back to the main point, the same criterion should be used for war heroes Rapier1 (talk) 15:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you in the main, but be advised there is no "automatic" criteria for inclusion, whereas there is for deletion (see WP:CSD#A7). The only guaranteed defense against merger or deletion of an article is to provide evidence of notability for a topic.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To paraphrase Katherine Hepburn: "In a world where carpenters rise from the dead, there are no absolutes.", but while there is no case for "automatic" notability, WP:BIO clearly states that there are generally accepted standards. That is the point I am addressing with my request. Give war heroes the same consideration that the nearly 20,000 men that have played in Major League Baseball currently have. In the case of being awarded the Silver Star (and therefore, by definition, being a war hero), surely that is just as notaable, if not more so, than being a Bronze medalist in the Olympics or being Playmate of the Month. Rapier1 (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would not use WP:ATHLETE as a precedent; just because other stuff exists in Wikipedia without a valid rationale, that does not validate "automatic" inclusion on the basis of subjective importance. Sure, its a worthy proposal, but I think you will find it runs contrary to WP:MEMORIAL, which is quite a sensible prohibition. Notability is not everybody's favourite guideline, but like death and taxes, nobody has come up with an alternative. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) (17:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gavin, I'm using several issues that are listed as general guidelines on an official Wikipedia page designed for that purpose. My argument is that there is another criteria that belongs among those generally accepted guidelines. I believe that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS was intended to apply to WP:Pokémon Test-type issues, and not the rules of wikipedia itself. As to this being of subjective importance, we aren't exactly talking about a knitting circle either, so that argument is rather spurious, don't you think? Finally, since WP:MEMORIAL states "Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others.", that doesn't really apply to this argument either. The article I'd written regarding my father (for example) was deleted on those grounds (and in hindsight it should have been, or at least heavily edited), and I have no problem with that. My problem is with the argument that the notability of war heroes and their deeds is somehow lessened because it isn't on the 6:00 news. Rapier1 (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(od)I'll link this AfD which showed that a Silver Star alone did not confer notability as there were no WP: Reliable Sources for the soldier who had received it. The link also shows my viewpoint, but to summarise: I disagree that getting a Silver Star, DSO, or other such award should confer automatic notability; everything should depend on reliable sources. Skinny87 (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The argument here isn't sourcing, it's notability. If someone can provide the original award certificate, announcements of the award in newspapers or military journals, photos of the awarding ceremony, etc..., then sourcing isn't an issue. Sources need not be online, only in the public domain to be considered legitimate and confer verifiability. For the record, to dispell any WP:COI concerns, the article on my father was deleted because it was written too much like a memorial, and I'll agree that on those grounds alone it should have been deleted, or at least heavily edited by a third party. My issue here is not that article, it is the idea that our war heroes and their deeds are not notable because the mainstream media isn't writing stories for national publication. I'll state again: Acts of heroism in combat are (in my opinion) at least as notable, if not more so, than playing 26 games of Major League baseball 30 years ago, or taking off your clothes and posing for Playboy. (See: WP:BIO) I'm not arguing verifiability, I'm arguing notability. please don't attempt to sidetrack the issue. Rapier1 (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sean, there was a long discussion about precisely the notability of Silver Star or other second-order bravery decoration winners here. The consensus then, and it still seems to be now, is that second-order bravery decoration winners in of themselves are not notable. First-order; yes, but others, no. I agree personally with the opinions on Playboy models and one-season football players, but that is really a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument which doesn't carry much weight. Basically I believe the consensus is against your viewpoint. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Rapier, but those are all Primary Sources, the use of which is very restricted on wikipedia, for good reason; per wikipedia's very rules, ie WP:GNG and so forth, if we don't have reliable sources, usually secondary or tertiary, then they can't really be used, unless in some kind of supporting capacity. Whether we like it or not, servicemen who win such awards don't get written about in secondary reliable publications as much as sportspeople or Playboy models; it certainly isn't very fair, but that's life really. Besides, as was said very well in the AfD I linked, if these servicemen (to take Silver Stars as the example here) were given articles, we'd have more than 100,000 articles, 99% of which would never be more than stubs, as said servicemen would probably have done much more than win the medal and go home. Skinny87 (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Military History wikiproject has recently developed a notability guideline for military people which discusses the kind of medals whose awardees can be assumed to meet WP:BIO. It's available at WP:MILMOS#People. Nick-D (talk) 23:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, it's an essay, within the guideline WP:MILMOS, due to lack of consensus to elevate it to guideline level.
That being said, one can argue that based on WP:ANYBIO someone who has been verified by a reliable source reference to have been awarded a "notable award", that they would have meet notability. However, as we have seen in past afds, which as has been set before, have set precedences, WP:ANYBIO is not as significant as WP:GNG or WP:BIO#Basic criteria and is often trumped by it. As stated in WP:BIO#Failing basic criteria but meeting additional criteria articles that do not meet WP:BIO#Basic criteria or WP:GNG will often be merged (if not deleted). --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why shold reciving a certain medal make you braver then some one from an organisation that does not award them, but still requirtes you to risk your life? But (almost in support of the petitioner) there is a poijnt for those who revice mutilple awards of a lower level. But there also has to be significant third party coverage.Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Automatic inclusion on the basis of awards is just too subjective, and we could argue for weeks about it. Even if a subject has won an award for bravery (such as a Purple Heart), there may be insufficient coverage to write an article about that person, which is why it won't work. The benchmark for inclusion is significant coverage from reliable secondary sources, but it is also what is needed to write decent articles. I think there has too be recognition that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, whose subject matter is determined by notability, rather than military honours, because articles are regulated by Wikipedia's policies and guidelins which are more or less geared towards content, not medals. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Gavin - automatic guarantees on broad categorizations alone i'd not support, which is why I think WP:ATHLETE needs to go.
However the issue above is not quite the same; its an award and we use awards as signifiers for presumption of notability in multiple SNGs. However the question is basically how likely there is to find press coverage on it that would be beyond WP:NOTNEWS.陣内Jinnai 23:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But we do not consiider all awards of equal value. So we will effectivly be saying that 1 VC is worth 2 GC (which is not true, its of equal value) or three DSO ect, which is very subjective indead (anbd what about someone who's won 1 GC and 1 DSO.)). How many purple hearts can someoone win, and why would cutting your self shaving in war signify bravery?Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ask that you kindly restrain the snark when you are discussing soldiers that are wounded in combat, which is the requirement for earning a Purple Heart. It is precisely that kind of disrespectful attitude that I find so insulting to the bravery of our men and women in uniform Rapier1 (talk) 06:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In general the consensus was that individuals who were awarded their nation's highest award for valor, there would be sufficient reliable source material out there to support notability. It was also consensus that the lower the award, the less material there would likely be to support notability. Therefore, although the rating of the award was taken into account, the essay clearly states that it is in addition to WP:BIO, and the criterea listed are not automatically garuntees of notability, as some guidelines do.
That being said, if an individual has had significant coverage, it wouldn't matter what their highest military medal was, as they'd be able to pass notability per WP:GNG.
Furthermore, there was a consensus that in regards to WP:ANYBIO, that a nation's highest award for valor would be the term notable award, or failing that two or more awardings of that nation's second highest award for valor. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The thing to remember for cases like this is that notability is designed to help meet the "WP is not an indiscriminate source of information" policy/mission statement. I'm not an expert of military awards, but as I read this discussion there seems to certainly be clear that some awards are (with no disrespect to those that did serve) relatively routine in their awarding because of meeting some established conditions (eg the Purple Heart). Unless it can be shown that being awarded those awards will be attached with significant coverage at some point in the future, then the use of that award to presume notability does not avoid indiscriminate inclusion. On the other hand, there are likely awards that are granted for very specific, unique actions and the like that are not normally awarded, or are awarded only to a select few. Now we're talking only a handful of people getting this award, and presumably the rarity of its being given out is an indication of the likeliness of further sources.
So while the WP:BIO allowance for any award still makes sense in general, it is rather smart of the MILHIST project to assert that only these highest awards of valor are likely strong signs of notability, as that helps to keep the information to discriminate levels. (Of course, this doesn't mean that someone awarded a Purple Heart can't be notable for other means). --MASEM (t) 14:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Copied from WT:MILHIST with some editing for erorrs and ommissions.) The George Cross is essentially equal in status to the VC, the Ministry of Defence refers to both as "Level One" awards. This all really boils down to the availability of relaiable sources. For the VC and GC, and I assume for other nation's "equivalent" award, we say, in shorthand, that recipients are automatically notable since many books etc have been devoted to writing about the recipients, the acts that won them the medal, and their wider biography. In general such detailed sources do not exist for recipients of lower level decorations, despite their heroism, there are simply too many of them. Some individual recipients may have sufficient sources, but these will often relate to some other aspect of thier life that makes them notable in Wikipedia terms. David Underdown (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of intertwined issues here. First is the question of proxies: are the silver star and DSC good indicators that reliable sources may exist covering the subject (even when a cursory search reveals none)? Second is a deeper question (posed implicitly) regarding the necessity of proxy: do we consider the awards as a sign of sufficient importance that the presence or absence of reliable sourcing becomes a non-issue? I'll offer my opinion (do with it what you will) that subject notability guidelines such as PROF and ATHLETE lead us astray as often as they provide accurate guidance because they have abandoned the notion of SNG as proxy. Being a full professor merits a wikipedia article, even if no independent sourcing is available. Likewise being a professional athlete or a sufficiently high ranking amateur. Both SNGs perpetuate the unhealthy and arbitrary notion of "notability" as some benchmark baseline for importance in encyclopedia subjects--a notion both foolish and counterproductive. Insofar as you propose a rule treating military awards in the same fashion, I would oppose it tooth and nail. As far as the less contentious question of "where are awards a good proxy for available sourcing?", my answer is that medal of honor recipients are almost all covered in multiple independent sources in great detail. It is less likely that DSC recipients would be the subject of such coverage, given both the relative status of the award and the number of recipients. Doubly so the silver star. One last point: if you make an article about yourself or those close to you, your feelings will be hurt. Decisions which are not personal for other editors (nominating your father's article for deletion) will feel personal to you. I'm sorry you found this out the hard way. Protonk (talk) 11:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sufficiency

I've gone ahead and been bold, and I'll discuss my justification. The text I've added is this:

  • "Sufficient sources" means there must continue to be enough reliable sources from which a reasonably accurate article can be constructed.

My reasoning is simple: not only do we want Wikipedia to be complete, we want it to be accurate. Some things will appear to be notable, but not truly be. Something can be mentioned in a technology article as a rumored product that never materializes. A blogger says something witty about a subject, but is never quoted again. I am not suggest we constantly need fresh sources, but we do need enough sources to continue to have a reasonably accurate picture. Until such sources can be found, what may have appeared to have been notable may not be, and we certainly have no business writing about it. I believe what I am saying here is not particularly revolutionary, and in fact reflects common sense.--Tznkai (talk) 04:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and boldly reverted. The other items in that list refer to components of the statement of the GNG, and this one does not. If there is consensus to reword the GNG to include this concept, then the concept can be explicated in some manner such as this. Bongomatic 04:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Assuming you do, what do you disagree with about what I've written above?--Tznkai (talk) 04:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will assume you mean, "what would I disagree with in (a) changing the text of the GNG to include the concept of 'sufficiency' and then adding an explication of that concept?", because otherwise the question doesn't make sense as I already explained why this addition to the explication of the existing statement of the GNG is not correct. Given that, then:
  • It is a concept related to verifiability, which is covered in a separate policy, not notability;
  • No rationale has been presented for its necessity (e.g., examples of topics that satisfy the current wording but fail on this criterion); and
  • It lacks consensus, which is necessary for a change to such a fundamental component of Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
Hope that helps. Bongomatic 05:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying, disregarding the procedural opposition, what, if anything, about the substance do you disagree with?--Tznkai (talk) 05:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you consider the first two bullet points to be wholly procedural, then you will have to be satisfied solely with procedural objections from me. Feel free to try to develop a consensus on the merits if you feel it's important and appropriately addressed here. I certainly would be interested to know what gap you seek to bridge. Bongomatic 05:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I in fact do see them as procedural, since you havn't actually told me if you agree or disagree with the statement "there must continue to be enough reliable sources from which a reasonably accurate article can be constructed." The gap is that if there is large interest in something right now (say, a video game) it appears to be notable. And three years later we look back and find out it didn't matter much at all, and no one is writing anything about it, and we can't say a single accurate thing about it.--Tznkai (talk) 05:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you using "continue" to mean that there would have to be new, contemporaneous sources about a topic at all times subsequent to the creation of an article? If that's the case, then of course I disagree. Most historical biographical entries fail this standard. There is no conceivable way that the members of the Wikipedia community—even those who think there is too much fancruft here—would agree to such a standard. Bongomatic 06:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean adequate to write accurately, not constantly updated. Historical biographies are nice because their subjects are dead, and they're not going to be doing anything significant that would threaten the accuracy of the article. If however, lets say we had an article on John Doe, the up and coming Boxer, who is getting all sorts of notable coverage in 2004. Five years later, no one has said a peep about him, but its not like he hasn't done any boxing in the intervening period, he's just no longer interesting to reliable sources. In response, we should axe the article.--Tznkai (talk) 06:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That proposal is not reasonable. There are many people who go out of coverage after their period of notable activity (either until they receive an obituary, or forever). To be accurate an article doesn't have to cover all periods of a person's life. Bongomatic 06:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be implied by WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE, among other things. But lets not make it about people. Lets make it about television shows, or products. What I'm saying is, if coverage slips to the point where we have a hole in reliable sourcing over a relevant part of a subject, it is impossible to write accurately about that subject. That means, generally that the subject isn't actually notable, it merely appeared to be so.--Tznkai (talk) 06:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your views on notability are far outside the norm. Despite not being recently covered, The Eveready Hour is notable. In every field there are examples (probably the rule, not the exception) of topics that are reported widely for a period of time, and then less, and then not at all save in encyclopedia entries. Bongomatic 06:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but, they have adequate coverage, I can tell because there is a whole article on it. I'm talking about the articles where all the sources are from three, four years ago and can only support a stub, or an article speculating on an already passsed future. It is not the absence of recent coverage in general, but the absence of recent coverage that conveys accuracy that I am worried about.--Tznkai (talk) 06:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think your hypotheticals are changing too much to make this a useful discussion. Before, your example about John Doe was that he was " getting all sorts of notable coverage". That implies enough to go beyond a stub. Then, with respect to a TV show, you said it was only lacking "reliable sourcing over a relevant part of a subject". I think most editors would say that the part lacking sources is by definition not relevant. Again, the implication is that during the period of coverage, it was getting coverage in quantities that would permit an article longer than a stub. There's no need for an article to speculate about an already passed future—it can simply observe that coverage dried up, or whatever happens to be known. Bongomatic 06:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The hypos aren't changing, I believe you're not understanding them. The continuing emphasis is on the was. I'm trying to describe situations where reliable sources can support an accurate article on a subject in that subject's early stages of probable notability, but as time passes, it becomes clear that there are not enough sources to maintain that article with sufficient accuracy. Transient fame, if you will. (I'm also not sure if we can even make the claim that sources have dried up without a reliable source supporting the assertion of an absence of coverage).--Tznkai (talk) 07:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a better way to explain what I am saying is that an article can only exist so long as we have enough sources to keep it reasonably accurate, complete and up to date.--Tznkai (talk) 07:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly support the idea to make it clear that a subject is not notable if there are not sufficient reliable sources to write it accurately. A lot of editors get it wrong and press for keeping articles on barely notable topics which will never consist of more than unsourced information. But the proposed implementation (defining of the term "sufficient sources", which does not even appear in the sentence to which the list refers) is defective. Hans Adler 07:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What scenarios are you trying to cover?
  1. Detailed information available to make a non-stub article at one point in time. Insufficient coverage commencing at some point in time making it impossible to document subsequent developments for the topic.
  2. Sufficient information to verify the one-time notability of a topic, but insufficient for anything beyond a stub. No further coverage contemporaneous with the coverage establishing the one-time notability, preventing the further development of the article to more than a stub. Insufficient coverage commencing at some point in time making it seem implausible that the article will ever be able to be expanded beyond a stub.
  3. Other scenarios that I may not be correctly comprehending.
Case (1) is the poster child for "notability is not temporary"—such articles should be kept. Case (2) is the poster child for a more strict interpretation of "significant coverage" (preferably resulting in immediate deletion, rather than waiting to demonstrate that the limited coverage ceased), or failing which, a different fix (not necessarily in the manner you describe). However, much as I agree that many examples of Case (2) should not be included in an encyclopedia, I do not believe that view reflects the consensus around here. Bongomatic 08:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess in your framework I am thinking of cases (2) and (3). Here is what (3) can look like in practice:
  • A single event is somewhat notable, but for some reason a crucial part of the coverage, although available, cannot be used in the article. An article based only on the usable coverage would be a tiny stub or severely POV. Some possible reasons:
    • BLP concerns.
    • There is a consensus among editors that the information is false or misleading, but due to a lack of formally reliable sources we cannot present the truth. (See WP:Articles for deletion/Sam Blacketer controversy for discussion of a concrete example. Wikipedia's internal processes clearly established that what the media wrote about the Wikipedia events was totally wrong. This was also a BLP matter.)
    • Legal reasons. (See Wolfgang Werlé and Manfred Lauber#Privacy dispute for an example that happened to the German Wikipedia. For us it's less likely but still possible.)
Hans Adler 20:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(3) is rare, but tends to cause a lot of drama when it occurs. (2) is caused by defective notability guidelines (such as the one for books, see examples in the next section) or just by deletion discussions being overrun by inclusionists.
The situation has changed a lot since the GNG and the deletion process were originally conceived. We may have reached the point where it makes sense to have a prod-like deletion process for topics for which there are insufficient sources for a proper article. E.g., if I see such a stub or unsourced article I look for sources and add them to it. If this fails, I add a template that makes the article deleteable without prejudice after 6 months. We would also have to make sure that creator, significant contributors and relevant WikiProjects are informed. The template may only be removed once the problem is solved, e.g. by adding adequate sources (not necessarily using them) or by merging. In some cases ("I will be in Katmandu next summer. I am sure Katmandu University Library has a book that will help us here." / "It's not clear whether to merge A+B+C and 1+2+3 or A+1, B+2, C+3. The RfC is scheduled to end in 3 years' time.") the deletion can be delayed. Hans Adler 20:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PROPOSAL: Changing relationship of GNG to specific notability guidelines

I believe that the common practice on Wikipedia is that for articles that fall under the umbrella of a specific notability guideline, such as WP:ATHLETE or WP:MUSIC, the article must conform to that instead of the GNG. As evidence of this, a few of the specific ones are more strict than the GNG, such as WP:FILM and WP:EVENT.

With that in mind, I would like to propose the following change in the lede of this page:

A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets must also meet the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines, if applicable: Academics, Books, Criminal acts, Events, Films, Music, Numbers, Organizations & companies, People, and Web content.

If there is some measure of support for this here, i'll open an official RFC on it to attract a wider consensus. The WordsmithCommunicate 17:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand your proposal correctly, you are wanting to properly word it so that the specific notability guidelines cannot be used to declare something is notable if it does not also meet the GNG? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My intention is to clarify how the guidelines are used in common practice. In essence, when an article falls under a specific guideline, then it must meet that guideline to merit inclusion. For example, a film that meets GNG but fails WP:FILM would not merit an article. The rationale behind this is that the GNG is very blunt and far-reaching, and more precise guidelines are better for certain types of articles. The WordsmithCommunicate 17:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The specific problem with applying WP:GNG to articles about events is that WP:NOTNEWS, a policy, overrides it. That's why we need WP:EVENT, to explain the intersection of the various policies and guidelines as they apply to events. In the same way, WP:BLP1E is policy and so overrides WP:GNG for articles about people in the news, which is why WP:Notability (people) is useful. WP:N needs to reflect that there are other policies that may override keeping an article despite the existence of extensive press coverage of the topic. Fences&Windows 17:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS is probably one of the most misunderstood and misapplied policies we have, which is partially why I wanted to create WP:EVENT. I think GNG should be the default, except when an article falls under the umbrella of one of the more specific ones. A crowbar is a great, versatile tool. It'll do a lot of things, including (awkwardly) remove screws. However, when you have a screw that needs to be removed, a screwdriver is a better tool. The WordsmithCommunicate 17:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in common practice, people presume that if something meets the subject specific, WP:GNG can be ignored, particular with stuff like MUSIC which allows songs to be declared notable for an article without any significant coverage if it made 99 on any top 100 chart. And people have repeatedly tried to declare books to be notable because they are "best sellers" even if no one has written a single review or word about them. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just for my edification, can you provide an example of a 'best seller' that has never had a single review or word written about it? Dlabtot (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Salad Days (manga)[1] only one reliable source found, but declared notable based on presumption of notability. Dragon Quest Retsuden: Roto no Monshō[2] best seller declared notable because it was a best seller, despite lacking significant coverage beyond its being a best seller. Dragons of Summer Flame[3], another best seller kept purely because it was a New York Times bestseller for a single week, despite there being no reviews or other coverage of it. As of that AfD, the only "sources" for it are still only its own publicity and notes that it was a best seller. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Odd. One of the articles you cite as being about a topic that has no reviews written about it[4], includes a 'Reception' section that references a review. Frankly, I find the assertion that many 'best-sellers' have no reviews or other coverage to be far-fetched. Dlabtot (talk) 18:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you follow the links? The first is an audio book seller's description, not a review. The second doesn't exist anymore but was an interview with the author. There are, in fact, many best sellers without reviews in reliable sources. Go down through the USA Today and NY Times lists sometimes. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is simply incorrect, like most such arguments about notable materials lacking sources. If something is a bestseller, it assuredly has plenty of reviews out there. Even books published by mid-range publishers with a minimal marketing budget will usually get multiple reviews. They may not be easily available online, but that is a world apart from having "many best sellers without reviews". It may require a library visit or a database subscription charge, but the sources are more than plentiful. Not being able to find sources online is not the same as not being able to find sources. Vassyana (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is, in fact, correct. Paying for reviews is not the same a legitimate reviews and coverage. And plenty of folks have access to university journal databases, go to libraries, etc, including me. What isn't there, isn't there. Being a "best seller" does not mean instant reviews, particularly on the subject specific lists. I've found reviews for books from 1919 that were not best sellers than finding even one for some of today's modern ones. The market is heavily saturated these days. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, the correct criterion, which everyone here is shorthanding to "has reviews" is "has reviews in reliable sources". This is (like any review at all) not guaranteed by being a bestseller. Bongomatic 05:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this to be a fairly uncontroversial change to reflect what is already common practice. At AFD, if an athlete meets GNG but fails ATHLETE, it is likely to be deleted on the basis of failing ATHLETE. The WordsmithCommunicate 18:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this depends on the guideline. I don't have chapter-and-verse handy but in the past I've seen guidelines that said they are subservient to the GNG, and other guidelines say that they in effect overrule GNG. Leaving it like this and modifying any guidelines that aren't specific is probably the best approach. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If individual guidelines say that they are subservient to GNG (and there is no consensus to change that), then that's fine. However, a few of them are more strict, and that should be allowed. Is there a way to compromise here, and allow both options? Some of the specific guidelines were written because GNG is too permissive for that type of article. The WordsmithCommunicate 18:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c)I would disagree, and ask for examples of this. Here, here, here, here and here are direct examples. This closing comment reflects actual practice where the closing admin states "the subject-specific notability guidelines do not trump the general notability guideline". The current practice and consensus is that specific guidelines cannot override the GNG. They merely provde guidance as to when supporting sources can be presumed to exist. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 18:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason we have the lede worded this way is simple: The special sub-guidelines were not made to replace the GNG, they were created to supplement it. If a subject does not meet them but meets the GNG then it's notable enough for inclusion. Not every subject of a certain kind meets the requirements of the sub-guidelines but they can still meet GNG. Regards SoWhy 19:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That conflicts with the specific guidelines themselves, some of which are intended to be more restrictive than the GNG. Since we have two guidelines that contradict one another, and neither one can overrule the other (since they're all guidelines), we need to hash it out here and resolve the conflict. The WordsmithCommunicate 19:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the current wording suggests that a topic may be notable if it fulfills WP:GNG OR it may be notable if it fulfills one of the SNGs. In other words, the specific notability guidelines are more permissive than the general notability guideline. If anything, I think the SNGs should be more restrictive. Location (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the change that Wordsmith has suggested. The specific notability guidelines may be more restrictive than the general notability guideline, however, they may not be more permissive than the general notability guideline. Location (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
x4(edit conflict) I agree in principle, I will entirely agree that GNG is the best point of attack as an umbrella. As editors, we're better suited to assist on troubles on V than GNG since we're not going to be as familiar with a subject than the author. Worries though... a lot of articles hop back at GNG based on a pretty straightforward requirement met off a list, but they still need another hook on top? How is anything under A7 (in particular) going to meet GNG in any other way than its met WP:N child topic/project/consensus notability guidelines? Especially in areas of BLP or specific contention like WP:PROF has been it'd make things all the more complicated sometimes. Why am I worried this would just result in even more anger on deletion of things people take most personally-- things they're related in.
What about certain places where project standards are far higher than normal GNG? Kicked to the curb? Deleted for some reason regardless? What about something that's a foolproof consensus duck test but we just can't find any resources for? Stubs? Stubs under projects? Ug. Too tired for this. Relaxing GNG could help, but then more "random" articles not affiliated to anything could sneak in.
I think it's worth blanketing reminders of GNG on creation pages and project notability pages, and perhaps repeated in new sections on WP:N child articles as a polite reminder to users to not just look at the article in a more narrowed scope, but we seriously need some wiggle room. This change would seem to override massive amounts of consensus within a lot of general subjects. Sad thing is, I agree with the change 100%, but how much total harm does it do the community and encyclopedia in general? This might need a bigger forum to discuss on. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 19:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, this proposal will allow specific guidelines to be more restrictive than GNG. Some of them are already, but this conflicts with this page, which says they're not. Since all of them are guidelines, none can overrule the other, so we need to clarify the relationship between them and correct the contradiction.
Also, I do intend to hold a wider discussion on this. This thread is more of a pre-RFC, to see if there is any degree of support for this idea, or if i'm out of my mind. If it turns out that there is a significant group of editors that support a change, then i'll open an RFC. The WordsmithCommunicate 19:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
daTheisen, If there is a consensus that the SNGs do not trump the GNG, I would like to see a reminder on each notability page that states that their guidelines are not more permissive than the GNG. Location (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My take is simple, N is the principle guideline and the sub-guidelines are subservient to N - so anything that meets the GNG is a keeper. Below that, the sub-guidelines may well have a view on other automatic notability inclusion standards that will assist AFD and editors in reaching the conclusion that an article is bound to be notable. Sitting above all this is V and BLP so material retained in the 'pedia must be verifiable and can be deleted if its not. BLP1E or fleeting mentions in the press like political candidates in other words can overrule N. We should not, and cannot, have a high inclusion threshold outside the need for material to be verifiably true and not meaninglessly harmful to a living person. Easy! Spartaz Humbug! 20:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This, I think, is one of the best statements thus far, IMHO. Notability, needs to be verifiable, and non-harmful to the subject of the article. If there is insufficient "significant coverage", or multiple notable mentions (which is not always a guarantee of notability), of the subject then they fail notability due to lack of verifiability.
Notability is notability, other SNGs may attempt to be more strict, but SNGs fall under NN and thus must hold lower precedence then NN when decisions regarding notability take place. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "Anything that meets the GNG is a keeper". Unfortunately, GNG by itself does not address verifiable items that receive "significant coverage" but are not appropriate for the inclusion. Some of the SNGs attempt to resolve those issues. Location (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I made it clear that V and BLP over-ride GNG as they are policies so the comment on being a keeper is modified by that but otherwise I think its consistent. I suspect NOT also applies as its a policy too. My view is that the subordinate guidelines are there to deal with specific types of article but cannot set a harder inclusion threshold then the overarching ones set by V. BLP & NOT. Spartaz Humbug! 03:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at what the SNGs say about the relations between them and the GNG:

  • academics: [...] meant to reflect consensus about the notability of academics as measured by their academic achievements. [...] This guideline is independent from the other subject specific notability guidelines [...]
  • books: [...] a specialized version of Wikipedia:Notability, applied to books [...]
  • criminal acts: [...] intended to explicate the notability guideline with regard to criminal acts.
  • events: [...] intended to explicate the primary notability guideline with regards to current and past real events, as well as breaking news.
  • films: [...] a specialized version of Wikipedia:Notability, applied to films [...]
  • music: [...] a guideline of how the concept of notability applies to topics related to music, including artists and bands, albums, and songs.
  • numbers: These guidelines on the notability of numbers address notability of individual numbers, kinds of numbers and lists of numbers.
  • organizations and companies: [citation from WP:N] This page is to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services, is a valid subject for a Wikipedia article. The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose, although people gathered for more specific purposes may be governed by more specific guidelines. For example, people gathered together for the purpose of making music are covered by WP:MUSIC.
  • people: ???
  • web: This page gives some rough guidelines which most Wikipedia editors use to decide if any form of web-specific content, being either the content of a website or the specific website itself should have an article on Wikipedia.

Hans Adler 20:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

conditional support - change must to should also - that fits much better with terms like 'explication' and 'guideline' --Jaymax (talk) 23:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would oppose this change. One of the strongest elements in creating a reliable encyclopedia is to have a universal set of policies and guidelines. This is why I'm usually reluctant about citing SNGs in deletion discussions and usually only do so as an additional point on top of the GNG. Some SNG's (ATHLETE comes to mind) are in due need of repair and they shouldn't be treated as being clear-cut in their fields. Also per Spartaz, my view exactly. ThemFromSpace 23:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The acid test is what happens when you appeal a deletion and DRV is very clear that meeting the GNG is sufficient to have an article irrespective of what the individual sub-guidelines say. Whatever the language on these the reality is that DRV does not allow them to overrule N. I would support editing all sub-guidelines to reflect that they are subordinate to GNG. Spartaz Humbug! 03:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Re: "I would support editing all sub-guidelines to reflect that they are subordinate to GNG." Hear, hear! It would also be nice if the "subordination statement" used on them was consistent from page to page. Does anyone oppose this idea? Location (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - there are people who argue that articles about athletes do not have to meet WP:ATHLETE if they can meet GNG. I think that should be a mistaken view, and this change would fix that problem. Racepacket (talk) 11:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - some SNG's contain arguements that certain topics, like professional athletes, roads, inhabited places, politicans and TV schedules are inherently notable without having to provide any verifiable evidence to support this view. This is a highly subjective standpoint, as it cannot be substantiated in every case, for example when there is no coverage at all, or where coverage is insubstantial or is taken from other tertiary sources. In my view, if a topic has not been "noted" in accordance with WP:GNG, then it ain't notable. The only guranteed defense against deletion is to provide evidence that the topic is notable. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a reason for supporting, not for opposing. The point of this proposal is to ensure that those SNGs who are stricter than the GNG are allowed to be so. If you think other ones should be stricter as well, then that is something that should be brought up at the talk pages of those guidelines (I would certainly support eliminating the idea of inherent notability, as would many other editors). The WordsmithCommunicate 17:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This suggestion is not what it seems. Look a the lede in WP:ORG and the "Basic criteria" in WP:BIO. Theses are recapitulations of the GNG. So, for these two (major) areas, the proposal would have no effect at all. The concept is also highly ironic, as the genesis (so I gather) for some or all of the topic-specific guidelines was to come up with criteria that were good predictors of whether the GNG was likely to be satisfied with existing (though as-yet unidentified) sources. Bongomatic 17:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible alternative approach - Tweak the GNG

The GNG states: "Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not.

The key first part of the project-page body, defining the GNG, might be a better place than the article lead to think about how the explicating policies could or should be interact with the GNG, rather than treating them as isolated alternates. I suggest that SNG's should inform the presumption of notability in the GNG definition by altering the para quoted above accordingly. Or that the GNG should somehow otherwise directly reference the SNGs--Jaymax (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Substantive or Significant?

Side note - the 'Presumed' GNG para talks of substantive coverage, but clearly(?) is supposed to be reflecting the phrase significant coverage that appears twice elsewhere in the GNG. It should be consistent - Is substantive or significant better? --Jaymax (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does substantive mean anything different to significant? That kinda means non-trivial or in-depth and that's a matter of judgement looking at the specific sources. Spartaz Humbug! 03:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think they do, but subtly - via dictionary.com (best defs) substantive "of considerable amount or quantity"; significant "important; of consequence" - I'm not picking a preference wrt this - just arguing for consistency.
Actually, also, substantive "possessing substance; having practical importance, value, or effect" which is very similar to significant --Jaymax (talk) 05:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Substantive applies to stuff that has substance, but coverage is an abstraction in this context. Significant coverage works fine in my view, and should be used consistently.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary - interpretation

The phrase "notability is not temporary" needs some interpretation.

When there is a "flash in the pan" event which causes an article to be created and someone quickly puts it up for AFD, it usually boils down to "notable" or not.

If the AFD results in a consensus that the item is notable, that is a consensus opinion, not necessarily an objective fact.

If, 3 years later, the same article goes to AFD, it find itself deleted by a chorus of "NOTNEWS" "ONEEVENT" and other cries of non-notability.

It's sort of like the difference between asking a Southern Baptist and others with similar "once a Christian, always a Christian" viewpoints, "are you saved/are you a Christian" then 5 years later you say you are not: Either you have been for the last 5 years, or you never were, but nobody really knows which for sure. Likewise, in the hypothetical article above, we may not know objectively of the article is notable or not, or even of "notability" can be defined objectively for non-clear-cut cases, all we know is that at the time the article was created it looked notable, and 3 years later, it did not. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, consensus can change, it can be wrong about objective reality, that doesn't mean that there is no objective reality. Dlabtot (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is tightly connected to all the goings-on around the Events SNG. I have two key concerns with WP:NTEMP.
Firstly that it has dual, complimentary, but distinct meanings. The section starts off talking about how something that wasn't notable at the time, might become notable later - ie: a notability 'score' is cumulative. Perhaps an event, trivial at the time, unexpectedly has a subsequent effect years later, and only then is the original event realised to be notable. This is the 'notability increases but does not diminish' argument. As davidwr points out above, the community consensus assessment of notability can change over time (in either direction), but this is not the same as objective-reality-notability. Then the section switches to the other (trickier) meaning - that fleeting perceived importance is not to be confused with notability.
Second, the very concept of notability not being temporary, clearly stated in this section, is nowhere in the GNG definition. My personal feeling on this is that by referencing the SNGs into the GNG definition, the Events SNG can usefully and comprehensively replace the second meaning, and WP:NTEMP can focus on properly considering the additive nature of objective-reality-notability.
I hope that made some sort of sense - I'm not optimistic...
—Jaymax (talk)
Following on from recent discussions (here and here) in the archive, the idea that notability is not temporary is effectively an extension of the requirement in WP:GNG for "significant coverage", i.e. routine news reports on their own do not confer notability because they are a matter of record only, and do not contain significant coverage in the form of commentary, criticism or analysis that does confer notability. Perhaps it would be clearer if soemthing along these lines was actually stated in the section WP:NTEMP, and then it would more clearly understood and accepted. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why only in WP:NTEMP - I'd say put something like that straight into the GNG def'n of significant coverage --Jaymax (talk) 11:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because WP is not just an encyclopedia but also incorporates elements of a gazetteer and an almanac, there is no requirement that sources must provide "commentary, criticism, or analysis" of article topics; the policy level for inclusion is "not indiscriminate". This still precludes much routine coverage, but I would suspect there are topics out there where the only type of coverage will by factual in nature yet the events are sufficiently rare that inclusion is generally automatic with or without the commentary (hurricanes, for one) --MASEM (t) 11:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(apols for comment re-edits) I disagree. If a hurricane is to have it's own article, it should WP:RS WP:N WP:NOT have secondary sources talking about it. Nothing stops 'non-notable' hurricanes appearing in their respective season list articles (almanac style). But to get it's own article, a hurricane MUST be notable - and it doesn't get to be so just by existing. --Jaymax (talk) 12:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with Masem as well. Whilst Wikipedia incorporates elements of a gazetteers and almanacs, it only contains standalone articles for those elements that are notable. There is indeed a requirement that sources must provide "commentary, criticism, or analysis" of article, or otherwise we would simply have articles on every News agency report recorded as a matter of routine ("dog bites man" and vice-versa). Notability cannot be established by barebones record of events - there has to be some form of commentary, otherwise it has not been truely "noted". This is what WP:NTEMP is effectively saying: if a rountine news report does not contain significant coverage, then its not notable. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jarlsburg Franklin

Jarlsburg Franklin was born in the era of Lost Men, when the twelve tribes of Fantastic Fallacies wandered aimlessly in search of the Arc of Renowned Gonzosity. He was the son of traveling carnival performers, his mother The Darin' Darlin, a motorcycle stunt woman and his father Colossus, an old time strongman who once hoisted fifteen little people overhead while balancing precariously atop the circus tent main pole. Jarlsburgs parents ended their years with the Farmer Bros. Traveling Circus and Source of Exotic and Erotic Charms soon after his birth. His early years were spent in Hells Half Acre where it is said several life alter experiences took place.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability&oldid=330507873"