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 99.231.248.190 (talk) at 15:16, 14 August 2011. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

learning wikipedia

here is the group for ISS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanjuan2708 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Primary source templates discussions

I'm disappointed, but not surprised, by the hair-splitting that resulted in a strange change to {{primary sources}}, which no longer asks for independent/third-party sources. I have asked that this recent change be reverted. Also, the original recommendation of that template has now been duplicated to the {{third-party}} template, another bewildering achievement of WP:BURO. I've asked that this one be deleted. Whatever tweaks in wording are needed on the original template can surely be done without this fork. FuFoFuEd (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. There are 2 issues with the original text. It was being used to get people to not use primary sources and instead use third-party sources. Problem is, it also was used for secondary sources close to the subject and for people to use sources that are independent of the subject and reliable. Thus its trying to do a lot because sources close to the subject are not primary and sources removed from the subject are not always reliable for that subject. That requires complex wording or 2 templates.陣内Jinnai 23:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The main discussion is at the template. Suggest we not scatter it. North8000 (talk) 23:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: let's have those conversations elsewhere. Ideally, most of the participants will even know a bit about the subject matter, like the fact that WP:Secondary does not mean independent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability regarding article creation or regarding article content

Notability is misused frequently to delete content from articles. My understanding is that Notability is used to decide if a topic gets an WP-article or not. If a topic gets an article because it is notable, then the use of Notability policy ends with that. Notability policy cannot be applied to article content and thus article content should not be deleted with the reason that it violates Notability. --POVbrigand (talk) 13:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Of course the wp:notability criteria do not apply to content. I think that there are two common cases where it is brought up for content, the first of them legit:
  1. To say that something is too trivial to even be in even as content. Referring to RW notability rather than wp:notability. For example, in the article on the USA, for me to put in that my Uncle George is a citizen of the USA.
  2. The usual use of wiki-lawyering (including mis-paraphrasing policies) that is used to knock out the other person's content when there is a battle. I've seen people bluff people all of the time, pretending that wp:notability applies to content. North8000 (talk) 13:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that there be a change made to WP:N or are you just making a statement? The WP:NNC section of WP:N mentions this so if there's something you want to change, this would be the place to discuss it. Otherwise, it's unclear what you're trying to accomplish. If you're having an issue regarding this issue at an article, inviting others to the conversation might be useful. OlYellerTalktome 13:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I completely missed that, sorry. My edits have been targeted by wiki-lawyering quite a lot recently and I just started reading up on the policies. Thanks for highlighting. --POVbrigand (talk) 14:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Glad I could help. OlYellerTalktome 14:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the the line drawn with one event?

If a dog is notable for only one event, does that really show zero notability automatically if he won the animal equivalent of the George Cross, received a bravery medal from the New Zealand Society for the Protection of Animals, a statue, a ceremony and speech by Governor-General Anand Satyanand, and the only dog outside of the United Kingdom to receive the PDSA Gold Medal? Where is the line drawn for people or animals that are only notable for one event? Joe Chill (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to ask for more opinions at WP:Notability/Noticeboard, but if someone or something is notable only for one event, it's usually best to talk about that as part of the bigger subject. So, for example, the recipients should be described in the article about the medal, rather than being split off into separate articles (unless they're notable for some other reason as well). The descriptions need not be limited to a single sentence; you could have a whole section on each, if the sources support it. The names of the dogs should redirect to the bigger article to make it easier for readers to find it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NRVE contridicts all subject-specific guidelines. Suggest changing it.

We had this discussion on notability(people) but I'm thinking it belongs here too. Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Relationship_between_GNG_and_SNG The secondary guidelines would have no meaning whatsoever if WP:NRVE is left in its current state. They exist to show there doesn't need to be coverage to prove something is notable, that notability can be established by other means. This includes winning a Nobel prize, or various other reasons listed there. Not all notable people do interviews or get any significant coverage in the media. How does everyone feel about changing NRVE to mention the secondary guidelines? Dream Focus 12:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability has nothing to do with the 'significant coverage' discussed in GNG. If we can't verify information via reliable sources, how can we have an article? Any criterion mentioned in subject-specific guidelines is required to be verifiable via reliable sources. To contine the Nobel Prize example, we wouldn't have an article one someone simply because it stated they won a Nobel Prize, unless we could verify that it was actually true.--Michig (talk) 12:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That said, the section as it stands is too geared to GNG rather than notability as a whole. I think it should be rewritten to state that it must be verifiable via reliable sources that the subjects meets the notability criteria, rather than covering the same ground as the GNG section.--Michig (talk) 12:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You can verify the information on their official website showing who won an award. You wouldn't need other sources telling you. Primary sources are fine if there is no possible doubt to their accuracy. Wikipedia:Notability (academics) list reasons why someone would be notable in academics. If someone is listed in every textbook about a subject because of their many discoveries, then they are a notable scientist, even if they never did detailed interviews, or were interesting enough to write a biography about. Scientific accomplishments make someone notable enough to have a Wikipedia article about them, not being talked about in the media everywhere like celebrities are. Many places to verify information, other than newspapers and magazines. Dream Focus 13:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When the criteria smells like, though not necessarily is a opinion statement, such as "the academic has made a significant contribution to their field" (as opposed to winning the Nobel prize, which is a statement of fact), evidence is required per WP:OR. For example, if the person is cited in numerous textbooks, the academics page says that In this case it is necessary to explicitly demonstrate, by a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question. In other words, for some SNG criteria which are anything but a statement of fact, sources must be provided as a requirement of WP:NOR. --MASEM (t) 13:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't original research. The guideline currently list "The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions." It also explains clearly "Criterion 4 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has authored several books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education." Dream Focus 13:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about Critieria 1, The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. You cannot create a stub article that says "Prof. Smith's work is significant and cited in many textbooks." as your statement for SNG notability, and not include any list of example of sources somewhere on the article or talk page, because that first statement is otherwise a potentially challengable statement. On the other other hand "Prof. Smith has written twenty college textbooks in his field." is a statement of fact and not original research, and thus can remain uncited as long as those books actually do exist.
Basically, the issue is that there are SNG criteria that are statements of fact - either it is or isn't met with no subjective middle point - or they are statements of general opinion. The former can be satisfied without mentioning a single source as long as its true; the latter type need to have some type of sourcing to assure that there is a basis for this opinion, as I would would take it by default that the concept of a person being notable is de facto a statement that will always be challenged. You could argue that if everyone in a specific field knows this person and is notable because of being highly cited (Criteria 1), there's no need to cite it, but always be aware: there are editors looking for any reason to take articles to AFD because of a unbacked OR-looking statement. That's why it is best practice that on the subjective SNG criteria that having identified references inserted somewhere will prevent an unnecessary trip to AFD. --MASEM (t) 13:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I see a conflict here... I agree that winning the Nobel prize would make someone notable, but we do need to verify that they did in fact win the prize. Surely, if someone won the Nobel prize there will be reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject that can be used to establish this fact. So where is the contradiction? Blueboar (talk) 12:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine as it is; the question of the verification likely is based on the specific criteria from the SNG. Someone winning the Nobel prize is going to be a data point that is really really easy to satisfy by a simple google search, so even if you forget the sources, it likely won't be challenged. Someone who is claimed to have made a significant contribution to their field, on the other hand, will benefit with mention of the sources somewhere (Article, talk page) so that this can be confirmed and added in later, as otherwise it does appear to be an OR claim. --MASEM (t) 13:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the section currently repeats several times the 'significant independent coverage' part of GNG. Would we really require 'significant' coverage of a Nobel Prize Winner simply to have an article stating who they were and the prize that they were awarded, or would we be satisfied with simple Verifiability? --Michig (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Nobel Prize winners are a bad example (The winners of Nobel prizes are announced in most major newspapers around the world... those newspaper announcements constitute significant coverage). Can we come up with an example of someone who is (arguably) notable without significant coverage? Blueboar (talk) 13:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the example of a highly-cited academic being discussed above is a prime example. It's not a bad criteria in terms of notability, but its demonstration almost necessitates that the sources where they are cited be shown. --MASEM (t) 14:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're missing the point - we need verifiability, which means sources, but verifiability does not require 'significant' coverage in those sources.--Michig (talk) 14:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with removing "significant coverage"... After all, it is verifiable that some minor Simpson's character appeared in episode 10 of season 6, but that simple fact does not (and should not) make the character notable enough for a stand alone article. We can (and should ) be somewhat flexible in how we define "significant" (a lot depends on the topic area), but I think we do need some level of "significant" coverage... And we need to remember that the quality of sources that discuss our subject can be just as "significant" as the quantity of sources that do so. One source that discusses a subject in depth is "significant coverage", a bunch of sources that do nothing but make passing reference to the subject is not. Blueboar (talk) 15:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It currently reads: "received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability." The word "significant" is often up for debate in many AFDs. Do we need that at all? It already says its notable if it meets the general notability guidelines OR "meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right." Seems to contradict itself. If you read Notability(People) you can see examples of various people considered to be notable in various fields, different requirements for them, that don't require significant attention or coverage at all. Dream Focus 14:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted [2]... I just don't see the conflict between the GNG as the SNGs that you all do.
You focus on the "Additional criteria" section, but you seem to be forgetting that WP:Notability (People) starts off with some "Basic criteria" that have to be met. It reads: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject"... which is clarified by: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability". Does this not say essentially the same thing as NRVE? I think it does. I think it is essentially a restatement of the GNG. If so, it isn't a case of having to meet the GNG or the SNGs... its a case of having to meet the SNGs and the GNG. Blueboar (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere does it say you have to meet the BASIC criteria. It mentions those basic criteria which anything can meet and pass the test, then it mentions the alternatives for things of that type. If you click on any of the side articles connected to people, such as Academics, you'll see it doesn't mention any such requirement at all either. Additional criteria says "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards." "A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability". See? It clearly states you can be notable by one standard or the other, not that you have to meet both. Dream Focus 20:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, in the end, you do have to meet the BASIC criteria. A demonstrated failure to meet BASIC is the single most common reason why "conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included" is invoked. The guideline plainly indicates that a person who meets "Additional" but fails BASIC isn't notable in the section Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Failing_basic_criteria_but_meeting_additional_criteria, which is all about how to include people without giving them a stand-alone article (=the meaning of "notability").
Articles are supposed to be based primarily on third-party/independent sources, so that we don't run into problems with giving UNDUE weight to the subject's self-reported view. If so few sources exist, or if added all together they would only allow you to say, "Alice Expert was a researcher whose paper was cited ten thousand times"—and everything else is based on whatever Alice wants to tell you about herself—then you don't really have much of an encyclopedia article, do you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is ultimately desired that all articles develop into good encyclopedic articles that require a wealth of third-party and secondary sources to explain the concept beyond the basic facts. It takes time for many topics to achieve these. The purpose of SNGs are an allowance that in lieu of having GNG coverage, they are notable by meeting criteria that should assure that the article will grow to be a good encyclopedic article. It is a temporarily allowance, with "temporary" being a rather lengthy time (3-5 years) to allow such articles to develop and sources to be identified and incorporated into the article. Thus if you create an article on an SNG criteria, it will likely be kept for several years, but if you have no luck in expanding it further because sources simply do not exist for that, then merging or deletion will likely be brought up.
So importantly, a topic is notable by either meeting the GNG or one of the SNGs, upon its creation. Only after a long long period of no expansion do we start to question if the presumption of notability of the SNG is truly merited. --MASEM (t) 21:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the text of NRVE as given (not as applied) is that it does not account for the SNG criteria that only require certain facts to be met, not the depth of coverage that the GNG requires. A person notable for winning the Nobel prize only needs to have verified evidence that they won that prize to be presumed notable, not the depth of coverage from the GNG. The way NRVE is written is that it covers both GNG and SNG notable topics, but as DF noted, presented as if the GNG is the only one that matters. --MASEM (t) 21:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I propose "Special cases" be deleted. There is no way to determine what a "satisfying explanation" is, since different people will not agree on it no matter what. And it does contradict the other section, and also make the "Additional criteria" section, and all secondary guidelines, pointless. If you meet the GNG you are notable, and if not you must be destroyed? Ridiculous to have the rest of that there at all then. These pages get edited back and forth constantly, and no one notices every single change. My first years in Wikipedia people would laugh at anyone who mentioned the suggested guidelines, no one taking them seriously, consensus determined based on what everyone felt, not on those things. And at almost all AFD I've been in over the years, up until the last month or so, the additional criteria guidelines were fine, no one ever having a problem with just them being met. Consensus in the AFDs has long been that if they pass any of those guidelines, then its notable. Dream Focus 21:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The SNG are not substitutes for GNG... they are additions to it. All articles must pass GNG... some article topics have additional (not alternative) criteria. Blueboar (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, we've been here before. Read the lead: A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not. A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right. It is GNG or SNG, not GNG and SNG; we want to guide all SNG-meeting articles towards GNG compliance, but that is not a requirement from the start. --MASEM (t) 23:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Blueboar gets it for me. There is no contradiction. A nobel prize would make someone notable. But then there would certainly be a way to verify that they received the nobel prize. Where's the problem? Shooterwalker (talk) 00:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The GNG requires significant secondary coverage which is a highly subjective metric at AFD. While someone may win the Nobel prize, this will likely be sourced by a primary source (the Nobel web site, or a news report about the event). This is not secondary coverage, yet we consider that notable. That is because the SNGs have been selected (at least, in most cases) that meeting the SNG means there are likely sources to be found, or sources that will come about, to meet the GNG. (In the case of the Nobel winner, this is likely a result of the person's work already being documented by sources prior to the award, and further coverage after winning it) This is different from having known sources that provide verifiable evidence of notability. --MASEM (t) 00:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just weighing in here to point out that I object to this alteration to the language. It has now been reverted and I would be strongly opposed to reinstating it. Changing the phrasing in those terms opens up a huge can of worms and should not be done lightly or without significant discussion. Basically it could create a situation where we keep thousands of articles on subjects that have no coverage whatsoever in reliable secondary sources, but there is one link to a web site that says person X was in a movie one time, for example, and therefore all other questions about notability are moot. I don't not think that is remotely the general consensus among Wikipedians as to how we handle notability issues, i.e. that a weak secondary guideline that says nothing about a need for sources can trump all of our other guidelines, and that it can be standard practice to argue that articles should be kept which have no third party reliable sources whatsoever. It might well not have been the intention when making the change, but certain editors would push exactly that reading of the wording and I don't think that's acceptable. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is the accepted standard. Again, here's the lead, which hasn't been touched in a long time: A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not. A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right. It is GNG or SNG, has been this way for years. Otherwise, please feel free to start deleting the 10,000s of towns, villages, and athletes that only have one or two lines about them. --MASEM (t) 01:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The wording is "presumed" which is important. Presumed does not mean "automatically is." For a town or a village, the existence of an article which can't be sourced well is probably not, as a rule, all that controversial. For a biographical article on a living person, for example, this will likely not be the case, nor will it likely be the case for an article on a fictional character that appeared in one episode of a cartoon. There is, and should remain, a tension between the GNG and the SNGs. It is not necessarily an either/or proposition precisely because of the "presumed" aspect of the wording here, which I assume is intentional and reflects the fact that we are talking about a guideline, not some set in stone rule like WP:NPOV or WP:BLP. It also happens to be a guideline about which there is significant disagreement among editors, as played out in AfDs every day.
In an AfD discussion, it is perfectly acceptable for one side to be arguing "keep per this secondary notability guideline" and another side to be arguing "delete because it fails the GNG" and for those competing claims to be balanced based on the arguments. It is true that the GNG does not invalidate the SNGs, but the inverse is also true, and the proposed change that was reverted seemed to me to go too far in the latter direction, as does your argument here. By adding in that language, it is essentially saying that, when talking about a subject that relates to one of our secondary guidelines that doesn't emphasize finding multiple reliable sources, notability arguments which talk about a lack of sources--for example arguments made based on the GNG--are not valid and should be ignored. That is far too firm of a wording for my taste, and I think it's actually valuable to have ambiguity here.
The current wording could perhaps be tweaked in some way, but removing discussions about a given subject that might fall under one of the SNGs from any consideration of sourcing is not something that has consensus in my view, and I think that's what the change would have done. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that I understand better.
I think what the problem is across several recent discussions is the purpose that SNGs are to serve, which, as I always took them, was to be conditions where if a topic met a specific criteria, there would be strong assurance that secondary sources do already exist or will soon be available. In other words, you may make an article based on satisfying an SNG, but you cannot rely on the SNG to maintain that presumption if no sources can be found. This points to the fact that the SNGs should already be written with strong criteria to make this a near assurance for an topic it matches. I will point out that this is probably contrary to some that think the SNGs are a one-time only checkbox that will assure that the topic will always be considered notable, but that's why the word "presumed" is there - its only as good as consensus agrees to.
As to this issue, if we added the purpose the SNGs are meant to serve to WP:N - that they are a temporarily allowance towards meeting the GNG without meeting it at the onset - then I think the language added still works. We just need to be clear what the ultimate goal of the SNGs are to be. --MASEM (t) 01:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word presumed has always been wiki-linked to the article showing the legal definition of it at Rebuttable presumption. Assumed unless someone can come forward and prove otherwise, such as criminal cases where someone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. If they meet any of those guidelines they are presumed notable enough to have an article, unless someone can prove otherwise. That's why no consensus defaults to keep. Dream Focus 02:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The "presumed" is there because you can't prove a negative, that no sources exist. But it still means that an article based on a weak claim of notability can be challenged in the future. It has always been the case that meeting the GNG or SNG is not a guarantee of having an article; only by well surpassing the minimum requirements of the GNG will assure that you will never be challenged at AFD. --MASEM (t) 03:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice"."  Full stop.  Topics can pass GNG and an SNG and not be "worthy of notice".  They may fail GNG and all the SNGs and still be "worthy of notice".  As far a proving a negative, right, but you still have to gather evidence and induce from the available evidence that no sources exist.  Surpassing the minimum requirements of GNG is not an assurance that a topic is "worthy of notice", see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/33550336.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need the sources to be third party to be reliable. Suggest we remove that bit.

Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article.

That isn't always the case. The primary sources are sometimes all you need. The official website for the Nobel Prize or other notable awards for example. Another is for scientists or universities that publish information about new species they discovered. Not every new species is interesting enough for the media to cover, of course. But obviously an encyclopedia should cover them all to be complete.

Suggest it be changed to:

Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article.

Note that on Wikipedia:Verifiability it doesn't mention third party at all.

It says:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

It doesn't have to be third party to be reliable. Dream Focus 03:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Third party sources are mentioned plenty of times in WP:V, and it has been a long standing aspect that you cannot have an article only based on first-party sources. I have no idea why the specific line was removed, but the intent on third-party sources is still there. --MASEM (t) 03:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Also reflected in WP:RS.
And to connect to the above topic: the SNGs are meant to give facts that may be sourced to a primary/first-party work, but that have reasonably good assurance that third-party and secondary sources can be found. WP:V never meant that an article that lacked immediately third-party sources should be deleted, but that we always should strive to add them; again, why meeting an SNG should not be the end of any attempt to further justify the notability of an article. --MASEM (t) 03:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with Dream Focus's idea here... You absolutely need a third party to establish notability. After all, I could create the "Blueboar Prize" and hype it on an "official website"... does not make the Prize or the people I award it to notable. However, if I create the Blueboar Prize, and someone else (someone completely independent of me or the people I award the prize to... ie a third party) comments on the award... then the "Blueboar Prize" might well be considered notable. You need that third party to establish that someone beyond the award granter and the award receiver actually cares about the award. Blueboar (talk) 03:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After an award is deemed notable, then you can use its website to list who has it. Obviously making up your own award wouldn't matter. Dream Focus 03:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And how do we know an award is notable? By the fact that it is discussed by independent third parties. Blueboar (talk) 12:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to the criteria of SNGs, it is consensus opinion that says "winning this award is likely a strong sign that numerous secondary sources exist to build out an encyclopedic article", not the fact that the award itself is notable. And not all notable awards necessary generate the type of buzz that would assure that future winners would have sufficient sourcing for a good article. --MASEM (t) 13:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Notability has nothing to do with whether there are verifiable, truthful, good reasons why something should be notable and everything to do with whether other people who have no connection to the subject actually take note and that they do it in reliable sources. Accepting self-published sources as sufficient to establish notability turns that very notion on its head and will turn Wikipedia into yet another free hosting service for spam. We should not do this. Msnicki (talk) 04:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all this is an extremist proposal completely out of whack with the principles of the project. The proposal is also based on a misreading of what's going on at WP:V where there were some changes that removed the words "third party" but kept the basic idea. If you go to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Notability you read "Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline says that the subject's notability is established by the publication of independent, reliable sources, regardless of whether the names of any such sources have yet been typed into the article. If such sources can not be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Obviously independent is the key word there for our purposes and is essentially the same thing as saying "third party." This section seems to be a bit unstable as the change was made recently, with the previous version saying "If no reliable secondary source can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it," and with that version itself being a recent change (the version prior to that is the "third party" language we use here). Either way the principle is the same, namely that we need some sort of "independent" or "third party" or "secondary"--something other than a self-published web item or the like--sources. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • (small nit: it is rare but possible for a third-party source to not be independent if they have some financial or other interest in a topic. Key example is that most television networks are third-party but dependent sources relative to the television shows they pay for and broadcast but otherwise uninvolved in their creation. Doesn't change your argument but can be slightly important for notability) --MASEM (t) 11:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would call the TV network a "second party" for the TV shows it airs but did not produce. But I think you hit the nail on the head here when you talk about dependence... for something to be notable there must exist reliable independent sources that discuss it. Independence from the subject is in many ways just as (and, arguably, more) important than the primary/secondary or the first/second/third party nature of the source. Blueboar (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's silly. Self-published material may allow us to make reliable statements about what was published, but it will never allow us to write a neutral article on a topic. Imagine every article about a politician just summarized press releases from their website. You would think every politician saved their country, and everyone stands for values like "freedom" and "putting things back on track". Or imagine you could take any website and create a corresponding article for it, soured to the website. "Jenny's MySpace page is a website hosted on MySpace. Her best friend is listed as Julie. On October 8th, 2011, Jenny was sad that she didn't get to meet Justin Bieber, but she still thinks he's 'supercute'." All reliable information... but only if you ignore that primary sources are solely meant to be used to fill in the gaps, not to form the foundations of an article. For the foundations of an article, you still need third-party sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously it doesn't apply to everything, just what is agreed upon in the additional criteria notability guidelines. They are confirmed notable by meeting the requirements consensus has formed, be it making a significant scientific discovery, winning a notable award, participating in a major sporting event, having the lead role in a notable series, or whatever. The information to confirm they have done this can come from primary sources if not in doubt. Currently articles for albums exist because they were gold records, even with nowhere at all reviewing them. Meeting the listed requirements makes something notable enough for an article, even if there is no third party source. Otherwise the notability guidelines other than the general one, become meaningless. Dream Focus 15:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who has participated in a major sporting event, made a "significant" (whatever that means) scientific discovery, or won a notable award would probably be covered by independent sources. Masem is right: the specific notability guidelines explain situations where we're likely to find independent sources. And a poorly defined specific notability guideline will lead to low quality articles with horrible sourcing, which is why we don't see too many poorly defined specific notability guidelines anymore. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(well, there's NSPORT, but...) --MASEM (t) 16:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I personally would like to see the phrase Third Party expunged from our guidelines. As said above, notability is about having reliable sources (most desirable--secondary sources) that are Independent of the subject of the article. The terms Primary, Secondary, and Teritary when used with sources is abundantly clear and useful when dealing with notability and content issues. However, Third Party is only used as a Euphemism for Independent of the Subject. We don't talk about 1st party or second party sources and we shouldn't be using the phrase Third Party as well. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely use it only as a short-hand myself. Third party = reliable, independent, secondary sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, third party has a well-defined meaning in terms of sourcing, and specifically relates to whom wrote the work relative to the topic itself; it is a separate "axis" from primary/secondary/tertiary and dependent/independent sources. The only constraint is that it impossible for a source to be an "independent first-party" source, as that's a contradictory term. There are dependent third party sources (again, the television network that broadcasts a show it has paid for, is the prime example).
Each axis relates to a specific facet of the sourcing:
First/second/third party describes the likelihood that the source will not misrepresent the facts due to the way they observe the facts. Third-party is always most desirable as it requires some research to understand the facts and present them, as opposed to what those involved and immediate eyewitnesses may recollect (considering unintentional bias)
Primary/secondary/tertiary describes to what degree the material is covered. We prefer secondary over other types because this provides more than just facts but anaylsis and conclusions that help place the topic in a larger context appropriate for an encyclopedia. Remember that primary sources can come from third-parties (eg recaps of television episodes) so these are still very separate axes.
Dependent/independent describe any possible connection or conflict of interest the source may have with the topic, and thus reflect on intentional bias towards the topic. Independent sources are going to have the most unbiased viewpoints and why they are preferred, but we can use dependent sources as long as its clear to establish their opinion of a topic than an unbiased view.
Understanding how all three axes interact and their influence on sources is very important. WP:V really only worries about the reliability and the third-party-ness of the source, WP:OR about the independence of the source, and WP:N on the secondary nature of the source. --MASEM (t) 16:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Any one can create artciels about themsleves and publish them. We need some wording to ensure that some bloke down the pub does not vanity press works saying what a sex god he is and then creating an articel (based on verfiable sources) titles Bob down the pub, sex god.Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My experience is that secondary sources are routinely used to support articles for people whose notability arises by virtue of their status. A typical example is an Olympic athlete: someone who competes at the Olympic level but does not distinguish themselves and so attracts little coverage. We have thousands of articles like this and the sources are typically secondary in nature such as some official reporting of the games. Such articles are so routinely accepted that it would be improperly misleading to suggest otherwise in this guideline, which is supposed to be based upon what actually happens here, not what a handful of editors would like to happen. Warden (talk) 19:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reporting of the results of an athletic competition is not secondary coverage. It is a third-party, primary source, acceptable for sourcing facts but not for notability. Unless the results are transformed beyond the facts, it remains a primary source, insufficient to meet the GNG, but could be used as evidence for an SNG. --MASEM (t) 20:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, official reportage of sporting event results is either primary or secondary. It would be primary, if it's the event reporting as it happens and secondary if it's an official summary of the overall event. Anyway, the fact remains that we have thousands of articles like Vladimir Shemetov which make this discussion a farce - quite devoid of any connection to what is happening on the ground. Trying deleting all those articles about Olympic athletes and professional sportsmen and then get back to us. Warden (talk) 20:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Secondary sourcing requires transformation of information, not summarizing. That would, at beast, make it a tertiary source - still fine for WP:V but not contributing to the GNG. Now, as for the thousands of articles on athlets we have, this is not saying that we need to delete them. Presently they fail the GNG, but clearly meet the NSPORT SNG criteria, and the forementioned primary/tertiary sources that describe their Olympic win would be sufficient to assume notability. The SNG is based on the fact that Olympic winners are likely going to be profiled by, at minimum, their home country, if not other international coverage, gaining secondary sources to guide the article towards a good encyclopedic article meeting the GNG. --MASEM (t) 20:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a rule, anything called a "report" is not a secondary source. A summary of facts is not transformative of the facts. It is true that Vladimir Shemetov and its source is devoid of secondary source material. It conflicts with WP:N. But WP:N does not say "delete", it just refers to whether tere should be a stand-alone article. The facts of the article Vladimir Shemetov would do well to be merged. I have little doubt that in time, the article will either be merged or expanded. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Blueboar and others. I also would like to note that Colonel Warden is currently edit warring to keep the proposed change without any consensus as of now in the article. There is an active discussion here. Please allow it to conclude and please abide by whatever consensus it ends up having.Griswaldo (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Removal would allow the usage of self-published material, of customized articles (where the subject pays someone to write and publish an article about them), of books from vanity presses, etc. It would defeat the purpose of having an entry barrier against people and companies who want to self-promote. It would also open wide the gates for every crackpot and for every crackpot theory. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose- removing this very important criterion would harm the encyclopedia. As Enric Naval points out, it would open the door to all sorts of vanity and self-promotion. Wikipedia has always defended itself against that kind of stuff, and should continue to do so. The requirement that things be covered by reliable, independent sources has always served us well by locking out spam, cruft, and other nonsense. I oppose any attempts to water it down. Reyk YO! 22:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As explained by others, editors should not notice some source and decide that the topic is suitable for an article (that would change "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" to "the repository anyone can dump stuff into"). A third party satisfying WP:RS must have already noticed the subject and written in such a way as to indicate that the subject is notable. Johnuniq (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Time to centralize discussion

Hold on... it seems that there is a debate here that is pointing to what the WP:Verifiability policy says about notability.... and a debate there that is pointing to what this guideline says. Both pages are being improperly edited in order to skew the debate at the other page. Please do not edit one policy or guideline in order to win a debate at some other policy or guideline page. Instead, create a centralized discussion so editors on both pages can reach a consensus as to what should be said on both pages. Given this confusion... I am going to revert both pages back to their last stable versions while we centralize the discussion and reach such a consensus... And I think that this is the appropriate venue for that. Once we figure out what this guideline should say, then we can go back and make any edits to that page that are needed. Blueboar (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith! First off, different people are editing these articles. The debates for each page should be on that article's talk page, not mixed together. Dream Focus 20:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK... it may not be deliberate, but there is still a common problem... The problem is that both discussions are centered on similar issues and both discussions are pointing to the exact language that is being used on the other page... we need some stability while we figure this out. I have asked that both pages be protected while we centralize and discuss. Blueboar (talk) 20:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Begin Centralized Discussion HERE:

We seem to have a debate at both WT:V and here over terminology. the issue is whether Notability requires the existence of "Secondary" sources, "Third-Party" sources, "Independent" sources... or some combination of the three (or a combination of two of the three). Since the underlining issue relates directly to Notability, and only marginally to Verifiability, I think we should hold a centralized discussion here. This may require some repetition of what has already been stated above, and if so I apologize for the repetition.

Personally, I think we need some combination of all three, but the most important to my mind is independence. We need sources that are in no way connected to the topic to show that someone other than those connected with the topic have taken note of it. Blueboar (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its very simple: the GNG requires independent secondary sources; the SNGs, to show notability via the respective criteria, need reliable sources, ideally third-party, the bare minimum that WP:V requires. Note that "requires" here means such source exists, but may not be stated in the article, but editors should be prepared to add them if the facts are challenged. --MASEM (t) 21:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why do topics that fall under SNGs not require independent sources, and why do they instead require third-party sources? Or do you see these terms as being the same? Blueboar (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They're different terms, and the reason is that the SNGs are stating a specific criteria to be shown to be true - eg, it can be verified. Such as a person winning a Nobel prize, a band having a certified gold record, etc. Again, I stress that the SNGs job is to be criteria that have reasonably strong assurance that secondary sources can be found with time and effort; they only need to be shown to have met that criteria at the onset. --MASEM (t) 21:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand (and essentially agree with) the idea behind the assumption that sources exist for topics that pass the SNGs... I am asking about the type of sources we assume exist. You say that the topics that fall under the SNGs don't need independent sources (while other topics do). OK... Why? You say that SNG topics need third-party sources (while other topics don't). OK... Why?
SNG-meeting articles simply need verification that the criteria is met (at their onset). Per WP:V, this is allowable by dependent and/or first-party sources. That's it.
GNG-meeting articles need articles that are independent of the topic (and by necessary, this immediately discludes first-party sources, they can never be independent), and those that provide a transformation of the facts into higher meaning for the purposes of an encyclopedia, ergo why we need secondary ones as well. --MASEM (t) 22:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What we assume are sources good enough to show notability, which is not something that can be easily defined, as the 30,000 AfD debates a year demonstrate. "independent" and "third party" are I think often treated as synonyms here--they both mean not deriving from the subject themselves, which would seem obvious for a criterion that other people must have noticed it. It has been suggested that independent also means independent from each other, and this could sometimes apply--if 2 newspapers have copied an AP story, that doesn't make it two separate stories, but on the other hand it does mean that 3 people, the reporter and the 2 editors, thought it worthy of putting in a newspaper. In a sense, sometimes a primary source isn't independent either, if it means the work being discussed, but if the primary source is a court record that established the elements of notability, then I think it would count. There's so much confusion about primary and secondary sources (as the archives of the RS noticeboard demonstrate) that this term should probably be not used here. The usual reason we have SNGs is to avoid discussing the specific requirements of the GNG is because doing so would be inordinately difficult and generally unnecessary for that subject. The meaning of "presumed" is that it stands unless one can actually show that the presumption is false, by extensive searching of all reasonably possible online and offline sources thoroughly enough that one can say with confidence, that if there were any, I would surely have found it. This is generally quite difficult, and requires knowledge of the appropriate specialized sources for that area, and the ability to get to all of them. There would only be certain limited fields where I would even attempt to do this {not including the field for this subject). Except when we suspect a hoax, normally nobody here attempts it. We are trying only to have a reasonably accurate encyclopedia , not an authoritative one, and that kind of research would only be appropriate if we were trying for true authoritativeness. Recall the rule , Verifiability, not Truth. inclusion in Wikipedia does not aim to prove true notability in any sense outside Wikipedia, and notability in Wikipedia only has the meaning of being recognized enough to justify an article here. DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability serves the purpose of supporting the pillar of not being an indiscriminate collection of information. I would argue that of the 7 billion people living in the world, we certainly could including more than 25% of them within the bounds here simply based on verifiability - we can prove a person exists, where they live, all that basic detail. But that would not make WP effective. Instead, notability helps to maintain a discriminate collection of information that has been noted to more depth than just the basic facts, which drastically cuts down the numbers for inclusion. This is shown by either demonstration that these sources really exist (the GNG) or that the topic has met a certain milestone that we are reasonably certain these sources exist (the SNGs). --MASEM (t) 22:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


(edit conflict) We're sort of getting a little scrambled here, but that is inevitable. First, Blueboar, you made a pretty broad generalization ("topics that fall under SNGs not require independent sources, and why do they instead require third-party sources") which has sort of become the basis for the conversation.....could you clarify? Second, lets not mix/scramble the sourcing criteria for the article topic with the criteria (sourcing or otherwise) that supports meeting other non-sourcing-related sng criteria. Finally, we must realize that we are building on a slight vaguery when we talk about the sum total of the interaction between wp:notability and the SNG's. Structurally wp:notability says that meeting either is sufficient, but there is also a prevalent school of thought (often enforced) that the article must meet wp:notability provisions (ignoring the the "meet the SNG and you're in" clause), irrespective of SNG's, I.E. that the SNG's are merely interpreting wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The way to clarify the last point is that meeting the SNG is a reasonable assurance the GNG can be met in the future by existing or new sources that just aren't immediately at hand to include. If time passes and no additional sources emerge, then the assumption made by the SNG is likely wrong, but proper selection of SNG criteria should minimumize false positives. --MASEM (t) 22:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The idea that we can or should have sources which are "are in no way connected to the topic" is a logical absurdity. The more authoritative and reliable the source, the more likely it is that the author has a strong interest in it; both professionally, intellectually and economically. What we require of sources is not that they are independent but that there is sufficient oversight by means of peer review, fact-checking, publisher editorial staff and the like. Warden (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "No way connected to the topic" is not the right definition of "independent". It's better to consider that independent is an otherwise a non-dependent source, with a dependent source being one that has a direct benefit (whether professional, personal, financial, or the like) to the topic. A movie critic has a strong interest in a film but has no personal gain from discussing it, making them an appropriate independent source. On the other hand, the studio, the actors and production team involved, the investors, and the like all have interest, so they would all be dependent sources. Note that these don't make these bad sources, just ones that we cannot use for notability, as otherwise a topic backed only by dependent sources begs the question of NPOV and COI. --MASEM (t) 22:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes... this is what I meant. Blueboar (talk) 01:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The concept is still logically flawed. A professional movie critic will, by definition, get paid for writing review and so has a financial interest in the matter. Their ability to write previews and get exclusive interviews depends upon access which is controlled by the producers. The publications of professional reviewers often carry advertising for the product in question. If we want financial independence then we should prefer amateur, self-published sources because they will be free of such pressures, right? Warden (talk) 07:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you were right, we wouldn't be able to find a single negative movie review. By the way, the point of WP:N is not that every source has to be independent of the subject, but that we can find enough independent sources that have deemed the topic worth reporting. If all the coverage is official advertisment, then the topic is likely not notable enough.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Folken stated, we consider the connection at a very high and direct level; the direct benefit to a movie reviewer for reviewing a specific movie is negligible - there may be some deeper connections, but a good reliable reviewer is not going to let those benefits taint his opinion of the work. Basically, the dependent/independent axis is simply to assure that we are not getting any obvious biasing from the source; otherwise, we would only be able to use sources from completely disinterested reporting, which would make for a terrible encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 13:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This whole discussion is based on some basic misunderstandings, including:

  • WP:Verifiability#Notability specified "third-party sources" for years—until last week. The changes are being discussed on the talk page.
  • A notable topic is defined (read the nutshell) as "notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time". Notice by, say, a company's own sales department is not evidence of "significant attention by the world at large". It may be verifiable—you could show that someone said something—but it is not notable, because if the only people who have ever published anything about the topic are the people selling it, then the world at large ignored the topic.
  • DreamFocus, I would really appreciate it if you'd read WP:Party and person. A third-party source is not the same thing as a third-person source. Third person is purely a matter of grammar. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, I am not suggesting that any primary source is fine for any reason. I am stating that if conditions are met in the Additional Criteria Guidelines, then it is acceptable in those specific conditions. Dream Focus 07:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of voices in debate here that are mostly correct but subtly different in perspective. I makes it difficult to work out exactly what the problem is. Today I find little from most to disagree with. I don't uderstand the excitment over the wording about WP:N at WP:V. If WP:N is rooted in policy, it is WP:NOR and WP:DEL. Notability is not about verifiabilty, nor vice versa. For content, see Wikipedia:Core content policies.
The seems to be some confusing conflation of notability-demonstrating sources and reliability. The two are barely connected. Notability-demonstrating sources (e.g. independant secondary sources per the GNG) are sources that show that others have already covered the subject in question. They are required to justify a standalone article, regardless of whatever content. They are not asked to be particularly reliable (that a subject was discussed at large does not mean that the discussions included accurate facts). It would be better if we stated that notability-demonstrating sources should be "reputable". Of course, they have to be somewhat reliable, but when it comes to fine qustions about the content, it is likely that some other source answers more directly.
Reliable sources are required as the foundation of the actual content. Notability is not concerned with the content of articles.
I strongly recommend reading Wikipedia:Party and person to help clear up common misunderstandings about some common terms. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What seems to be the issue is at WP:V, the statement "If no third-party sources can be found for a topic, WP should not have an article on it." Now I never remember that being tied to notability, but the last 6 months of WP:V seemed to have it there, so maybe I was just mistaken. But the point of that statement is not a notability factor. It is about verification. A third-party source, by definition, is going to have had to do some research and fact-checking to make a statement about a topic, the degree to which that is done based on how well of a reliable source they are. Articles need to be built on that to meet WP:V, to assure that its not a person directly involved (first party) or an biased eyewitness (second party) misstating the facts without research (but again, not saying that first or second-party sources can't be used alongside third-party ones. Core principle. Why that statement was removed, I can't follow on the talk page, but I do agree that tying it with the guideline notability is not right, because it has nothing to do with notability. Notability is about the depth of coverage that exists or likely to exist for a topic to make it a good article, on the presumption that this coverage already meets WP:V. --MASEM (t) 13:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes... the statement at WP:V is about verifiability, not notability. The original intent of that sentence at WP:V was to say: If no verifiable information can be found for a topic, WP should not have an article on it. This is similar to, but not the same as the concept of notability. Obviously, whatever we say to substantiate notability must be verifiable ... but Notability requires more than just verifiable information. Blueboar (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability&oldid=444812704"