Wikipedia talk:Notability

WP:Notifications

Any objections to adding a link to WP:Notifications in the header? I keep coming here by accident via WP:NOTE. Nyttend (talk) 01:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Propose Transportation Notability Subsection

I propose the creation of a new Transportation subsection for the Wiki Notability Guidelines and Criteria. And to start off this discussion I will more specifically suggest the following...

General Guidelines

• Presumption of notability in no way mitigates the requirement for correct and verifiable secondary sources. Inadequately sourced articles should be treated as suspect and tagged for improvement. If no sources are cited at all and none can be found, the article should be considered for deletion as per WP:DEL.

Trains

• Named or numbered rail lines of more than trivial size are presumed notable.
• Railroad Corporations and Rail Mass Transit Organizations have a limited presumption of notability. They may however be challenged if they were/are of very small size or limited lifespan.
• Named passenger trains, i.e. the 20th Century Limited, are presumed notable.
• Individual rail cars, named or not, are not presumed notable unless they meet the requirements of WP:GNG or other specific notability guidelines.

Ships and Shipping

• Named ocean liners, cruise ships and cargo liners carrying more than a trivial number of passengers, which shall be defined as 100 or more for any ship constructed post 1900, are presumed notable.
• Commercial cargo ships, tankers, river boats, ferries, yachts, tugs, trawlers and other non oceanic passenger vessels are not notable unless they meet notability criteria set forth elsewhere.

• An exception exists for commercial vessels that served during wartime either in the merchant marine or were appropriated by naval/military forces for service. Such vessels are presumed notable.
• An exception exists for any commercial vessel wrecked with significant loss of life or sunk during wartime by hostile forces. Such vessels are presumed notable.

• Trans-oceanic shipping companies have a limited presumption of notability. They may however be challenged if they were/are of very small size or limited lifespan.

Air Travel

• Regional, national and international airlines are presumed notable unless of trivial size and or of very limited lifespan.
• Small, local or tourist oriented companies are not notable.
• Aircraft designs, i.e. Boeing 707, are presumed notable.
• Individual planes, named or not, are not considered notable unless they meet specific notability requirements elsewhere.
• Commercial airports are considered notable.
• Private airports are not considered notable unless they meet notability criteria elsewhere.

Automobile Related Transport

• Automobile manufacturers have a limited presumption of notability. They may however be challenged if they were/are of very small size or limited lifespan.
• Automobile designs or models, i.e. Ford Model T are presumed notable.
• Individual manufacturing years of a given make and model are not generally considered sufficiently notable for a stand alone article and should be incorporated into make and model articles. Exceptions may exist if notability can be established using criteria set forth elsewhere.
• Individual cars, named or not, do not have a presumption of notability. This does not preclude the possibility of notability being established via criteria elsewhere.
• Regional or national named or numbered highways unless of trivial size are presumed notable.
• Local roads and highways are not notable unless meeting criteria elsewhere.
• Pre-automobile and historical forms of surface transportation have a limited presumption of notability.

This is just something I have thrown together off the top of my head. It is possible it may duplicate other pages in some respects but to the best of my knowledge we don't have any broad notability guidelines relating to transportation. And I think that is a gap that needs filling. There is nothing sacred in here and I am not nailing my flag to any mastheads. So feel free to criticize or propose changes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Discuss

• This would not be a new section in WP:N, but instead you are looking to make a subject-specific notability guideline (an "SNG"), which would, if it existed, be at something like WP:Notability (transportation). But that's just more about where this advice would go. That said, how you are presenting what is notable would not fly. We don't based notability on topics simply being in a class (eg "automobile designs or models"). Notability is about being documented in independent secondary sources we can build an article about it. If there is some criteria that a topic relating to transportation that would likely lead to the presumption that sources can be found about it, then it makes reason that we presume that topic notable. To compare, in WP:BIO, we presume a person is notable if they have one a highly prestigious prize like the Nobel Award. That's because in the past, everyone who has won such awards will have their contributions well documented - if not before the award was given certainly after the award was given. We would need similar criteria here for transportation topics. I'm certain that there may be some that could be defined for transportation topics, but that needs to be written in a different way than how the above are presented.
  The next step would then to be to have a global RFC to draw attention to these and get the guideline approved as an SNG, because this affects the whole project. --MASEM (t) 22:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I agree with your assertion about establishment of notability. You cite WP:BIO but a glance at WP:MILNG suggests that some topics might be given a presumption of notability provided sufficient sources can be found. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• First, MILNG is an essay (a Wikiproject-level notability guide, ergo not vetted by the community at large) but they still have the points. First, to iterate, the guides for notability is that either the GNG has been met (presumed notable by significant coverage in secondary sources) or by an appropriate SNG (a criteria where presumption of existing sources has been established). So if there's significant coverage, we nearly always have stand-alone topics. The SNGs are for cases where it may take time to locate such sources and we shouldn't be rushing to delete these. That said, I point you to WP:MILPEOPLE which is the type of criteria you need to establish - these are all cases of merit whereby if the person meets any of these, there's a good presumption of sources that will be found. This is similar to those in WP:BIO and other SNGs. --MASEM (t) 23:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• I would oppose this proposal; granting a presumption of notability to large classes of subjects only makes one big difference - it enables mass production of minimally-sourced microstubs. Right now, if somebody wants to write an article about (say) a hovercraft, then they have to gather and use various independent sources to show that it passes the GNG, and those sources allow the development of substantial sourced content. However, the day after we rule that any hovercraft passing some technical criterion is notable, some editor will go through a directory and copy & paste a thousand microstubs, one for each row in the directory; subst:pagename is a hovercraft in Peru. {{PeruHovercraftStub}} [[Category:Hovercraft in Peru]]; regardless of the fact that all 1000 of them fail the GNG. It certainly bypasses the irksome requirements that editors understand what they're writing about and that editors should build something informative for the benefit of readers. The community only stands to lose by enabling such folly. bobrayner (talk) 01:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. The suggested guidelines are vague and will likely cause more arguments than they will solve. (The proposer even admits that he hasn't given them careful thought.) What is a "rail line of more than trivial size"? Ten miles might seem trivial in the USA but it would be half-way across the country if there were railways in Andorra. What is "of small size or limited lifespan"? If every automobile model is presumed notable, what is a "model"? Does it include something some guy builds in his garage? What if he builds a second one and sells it? If you want to say that the manufacturer has to be notable already, that falls foul of WP:PRODUCT and WP:NOTINHERITED: manufacturers of notable products are not necessarily notable and individual products of notable companies are not necessarily notable. Why are modern methods of transport presumed notable but obsolete methods not?

  Fundamentally, though, I just don't see a need for these guidelines and the proposer doesn't give any reason for having them. There is a whole industry producing books and magazines on transport topics so the standards of WP:GNG are pretty easy to meet for a transport article. The wide availability of sources of cast-iron reliability means that WP:GNG can already be interpreted in a fairly consistent way across transport topics, without the need for specific guidelines. Transport-related companies are already covered by WP:CORP/WP:ORG; notability of automobile models, aircraft designs and so on is covered by WP:PRODUCT. I'm fairly active at AfD (I'd estimate I read about 10% of all proposals there) and I don't recall seeing many transport-related articles being nominated for deletion, which suggests that there are few arguments about what constitutes notability for transport topics. That, in turn, suggests no real need for specific guidelines and little precedent on which to base such guidelines and say that they're representative of community consensus. (Ironically, the only transport articles I can recall coming up for deletion recently are articles on British bus routes, a form of transport that the proposer hasn't considered.) Dricherby (talk) 10:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Fading notability

I was looking at our article on the University of Florida Taser incident recently... and it caused me to ponder on how notability can change and even fade over time... Five years ago (when that the article was written), a lot of people believed that the event was highly significant... but today? Now that we can view the event with some historical perspective, I am not so sure.
I am not trying to say that the event is non-notable or that the article should be deleted... but it certainly has turned out to be less notable than we expected it to be at the time. And I am sure that there are other examples of changing/fading notability (and feel free to raise them... I don't mean to make this about just that one article). So, how should we deal with such changing/fading notability. Should we say something about it in the guideline? Blueboar (talk) 17:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

We already say - contrary to this - that once something is notable, it cannot lose that notability. We just need enduring notability at the time of the event, more than just routine or a burst of coverage, to establish notability to start. That's why NEVENT is rather important and that editors should not rush off to create articles on breaking news stories until its established that there's potentally improvement. One can always challenge an event or a BLP only notable for one event on the grounds that no enduring coverage was established at the onset of the event, though I doubt you can claim that for the example above. It would be wrong for us to delete articles like this just because years later, nothing else has come from it; that would lead to the slope of deleting any topic that is in humanity's far past as having no modern coverage. --MASEM (t) 18:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, although I think its a good idea to hold on to the idea that notability is not temporary, I do think that sometimes an unexpected event can cloud our collective judgement and that reconsideration later on might be helpful. You asked for examples so here is one that turns out to be a surprisingly poor example. Rob Knox was an aspiring young actor who was murdered in 2008. The scene at WP:AFD/Rob Knox is now courtesy blanked. Quite a few people !voting "keep" agreed that in the longer term he might not be considered notable. Surprisingly the article is still getting over 200 page views a day (thus making it a poor example of fading notability). In the case of your example the mere fact it was recently given a second AFD nomination suggests to me it has maintained notability (it also gets even more page views). Of course our "multiple reliable sources" proxy for notability means that, unless our standards change, proxy-notability can't fade. In the longer term none of this matters. Historians will find deleted articles and oversighted revisions will say more about 21st century society than the things we now believe are notable. Thincat (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Consider this... If we were looking at an event that occurred in the 1700s, and trying to determine whether it was notable or not - we would certainly be concerned if the only sources we could find were newspapers of the time ("Delete - no secondary sources") ... we would want at least some coverage of the event by historians. Yet for current events we are quite happy to rely on media coverage to demonstrate notability. In other words, we have different standards for sourcing between "current events" and "historical events". The problem is that all "current events" eventually become "historical events". And when THAT happens, the standards for sourcing has to change. Blueboar (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure we would be so keen to delete this hypothetical article that was well-sourced in 18th-century newspapers. Dricherby (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that we would. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

It's a problem created by the fact we pretty much let anyone create articles and once created, takes work to delete. NOTNEWS and NEVENT are there to try to advise editors from creating articles on spur-of-the-moment news reports but we can't enforce those with any type of strictness. Which is why we can say that while these articles may appear notable in the days and weeks of the event, we can reassess if the coverage was really of "enduring notability" that we expect or a flash in the pan that may have been longer than the standard 24-48 hr cycle. We do have a systematic bias because of modern reporting today which creates a lot more sourcing but really much of this is just primary; editors simply see that they can make articles like this without being aware of the longer issues. Its just that the example above is a bad example of where notability may have waned - the event had some influence after the fact even if that hasn't been talked about for 5 years, and thus better than the average news cycle. --MASEM (t) 20:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that the thing to do is to emphasize that just because an event appeared to be notable originally doesn't mean that it actually is notable. In particular, many such events (and many deaths, and many barely notable BLPs) need to be merged into lists, rather than being kept as stand-alone articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• It is very easy to overestimate the significance of current affairs. Current affairs articles have to hurdle issues of NOTNEWS, and use of secondary sources. However, we tend to readily accept current affairs articles, if there are many sources. We tend to accept multiple reportings in the media as evidence of notability. What we should look for is commentary on the topic, not repetition of the reports. Commentary on the topic means something is written and published about the topic with the implicit assumption that the reader of the commentary already knows about the reports.
  The Taser incident article is a weak encyclopedia article because it doesn't seem to reference any sources that comment on the incident historically or in a wider context. That the sources seem to be entirely from 2007, is a bad sign. That each source references a fact, not commentary, is a deeper bad sign.
  An initial lack of commentary on the reports does not "fade".
  Despite the article technically failing WP:N, I don't advocate its deletion, or smerging. I expect that there are indeed secondary sources covering this event, but just not google-accessible sources. I think it very likely that there is academic social commentary on this published in academic social journals that are not free to access. Wikipedia has a quality-bias to scientific/technical subjects, and languishes in subjects such as Sociological theory.
  I also don't advocate deletion of these articles for other reasons of reader engagement, editor attraction and editor retention. There is no doubt that the article is information of interest to our readers, and that we have many editors who like to create, edit and watch these articles. It is not obvious to many that Current-affairs-of-the-day summaries are not traditionally encyclopedic content, but it is not important enough to create conflict and tension in trying to suppress it. As long as the article is not promotion or advocacy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The problem is, we shouldn't be accepting current affairs articles until they pass NEVENT or clear NOTNEWS. We in fact have Wikinews as a sister project where this type of coverage is perfectly suited. Editors just don't do that, and instead want to be the first-to-create or get the ITN nomination. That's the problem, the Foundation has created a separate space for news where notability isn't a question, and no one wants to use it. We need to discourage current event articles until they've proven notable. --MASEM (t) 02:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Well, it would be good if people didn't rush to create such articles here but instead created more encyclopedic content or went to Wikinews. I am less clear that we need to busy ourselves deleting it. I see people here in a reflective mood being quite tolerant of the Taser article and it was kept at its latest AFD.[1] It would also be good if people didn't rush to nominate news articles at AFD. If they waited a couple of weeks it would be so much easier. Thincat (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is thinking in terms of rushing off and deleting any articles. The taser incident article is being used as an example of a more fundamental problem, and the goal here is to share opinions on how to resolve that more fundamental problem. Blueboar (talk) 21:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

WEll, the other aspect here is that we always use the word "presumed" because notability cannot be quantified. We may presume notability early on but as time goes by, we're aware that our presumption was bad, and thus an AFD is appropriate. This applies to all topics across the board, not just events. --MASEM (t) 23:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• In AfD2, Cullen328 (at 02:58, 12 March 2013) points out sources that demonstrate notability. So, the presumption was correct, and a little work remains to be done. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, SmokeyJoe. Yes, this particular article came up at AfD less than three months ago, and I then discovered that this incident has been discussed in reliable sources many times over the years, and is credited with influencing policy discussions regarding taser usage. On the broader question, I don't think that there is any such thing as "fading notability" although I agree that is is difficult to judge notability in the immediate wake of an event that gets a burst of media coverage. This incident has "meme" aspects and I am in general skeptical of the notability of memes. But this one goes way beyond that, in my opinion, and is notable for an article on this encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Without the viral/meme popularity of "Don't tase me, bro!", the event would be on much shakier ground. Compare to UCLA Taser incident, which had direct real-world impact in the form of a new UCLA PD Taser policy and a lawsuit settlement. Its video also went viral, but it was overshadowed eleven months later by the Florida incident. Flatscan (talk) 04:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Influencing one policy of one small police force abount one piece of equipment isn't a great claim to significance... Law enforcement in the United States says that there are nearly 18,000 law enforcement agencies in the USA. If we had articles about every event that had influenced any of their policies, we'd be swamped. Lawsuit settlements are even more common. Dricherby (talk) 08:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

You're absolutely right – I am not sure if the UCLA article would survive an AfD now. Flatscan (talk) 04:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Another thing often with these news events stories is that while the event may seem notable and have some influence, at the end of the day (days, weeks, years later) its recognized it is merely a interesting story that may be part of a larger topic but really it's worthy for a standalone page. Example that comes to mind is the recent violence at the Mother's Day parade in New Orleans, which basically turned out to be press-escalated stories an example of street violence that can happen at such second line parades. We had an article on the event but it was appropriately deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Mother's Day Parade shooting. It makes much more sense to have that story described at Wikinews, and then in second line parades to make mention of that event (including the link to Wikinews) to show how violence can occur at these. This may not be true for all events (they're isolated and have little impact on policy) but where they can, if notability after some time seems week, editors should consider merging. But this is basically related to the fact that editors are not aware how NOTNEWS, NEVENT work and that editors often mistake routine reporting as secondary to claim events are notable. This really needs to be fixed whether through better education (pushing on Wikinews where there's no question that sourced events can be included regardless of scope) or better vigilance of news events articles so that we aren't worried about questioning their notability years later.- --MASEM (t) 13:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The issue isn't just with events, new products and websites often get a few reviews when they first get started and then fade into oblivion. The initial coverage may be enough per our guidelines to ensure "enduring notability". This initial bump of coverage, while enough to satisfy the notability guidelines, may not be enough to guarantee enduring notability. NOTNEWS talks about this, but that policy is worded very narrowly and doesn't affect coverage such as product and website reviews. ThemFromSpace 17:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

One possible way to address this is by adding some text that would discourage news-type article creation. Do you think that something like this would help:

Notability is not temporary. Editors should have a reasonable expectation that the events, people, places, and things will be the subject of ongoing interest by reliable sources. If an incident, company, product, or is not likely to be written about ten years from now, then avoid creating an article about it.

I'm not at all happy with the wording, but perhaps you'll get the idea. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

That's the exact opposite of what WP:NOTTEMPORARY says: "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of 'significant coverage' in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." In any case, my own feeling is that we end up with articles about non-notable things not because their creators didn't understand the guidelines but because they didn't even know they existed. Dricherby (talk) 23:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, "ongoing" is definitely the wrong word; we've got "enduring" to describe the typical sourcing timeline for most topics where they will cover a longer period than a typical news cycle but need not be continuing to the present day. --MASEM (t) 23:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• This whole thread is about "Fading presumption of notability", not "Fading notability". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you, that's the point I'm trying to make, succinctly. It's about our presumption going south, not what actually has been out in sources (which can't change). --MASEM (t) 06:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

    In practical terms, what's the difference between "fading presumption of notability" and "fading notability"? Let me give you an example: Alice kills Bob, and there is intensive, national media coverage for a month. There is some media coverage for a year (maybe as part of "Top ten stories of the year" retrospectives). There is a short burst of news articles during the trial, most of it either local or very brief.
    That's all pretty typical for a high-profile murder, right? So let's say that at the three-month mark, someone sends the article on the [[Killing of Bob]] to AFD. AFD closes overwhelmingly as "keep".

    • Does this AFD outcome mean that the murder is notable, or only that it is presumed notable? Does anything ever truly qualify for a separate article on the English Wikipedia ("notability"), or might we all wake up next week and decide that the article about Queen Elizabeth II should be merged into some more obviously notable page, because she's not truly notable, and the page has only been kept separate on the presumption that she qualified for a BLP article here?

    Now let's go on: After the trial, editors search diligently, but they are unable to find even one single word published about the murder. A second AFD appears ten years later and closes as "merge to [[List of murders in Ruritania]]", a list that typically gives two sentences about each murder.

    • Was the first outcome wrong? Was the murder actually not notable?
    • Were the participating editors merely mistaken about their decision that the article qualified for a separate, stand-alone article on the English Wikipedia? Is it possible that the subject did qualify for a separate, stand-alone article during those ten years, but now it no longer does qualify for that separate, stand-alone article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

    • The core point to all this is that we can't measure notability. It's a non-quantity about a topic. There are topics that are more notable than others, but we have no idea what this scale actually is. But is a quantity that is fixed irregardless of how much time has passed. We as editors can only estimate what that notability is via presumption, and our presumptions can change over time. That's the thing to keep in mind. --MASEM (t) 05:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
      • • I would measure Wikipedia-notability by the number of separate words written and reputably published about the subject by different authors who are independent of the subject. Note that "about" means commentary, analysis, etc on the subject and does not included repetition of facts.
          WAID's introduction didn't clearly indicate whether the news stories were secondary source material. Were they commentary and analysis, or were they factual updates? This difference is everything to notability vs NOTNEWS.
          There are biographies on QEII, positive and negative commentary, etc. QEII is proven notable because reputable publications ave created content about her.
          It is tempting to say that AfD1 was wrong. We could soften that by saying that the participants presumed in error. I hadn't before appreciated any importance to the "presumed" thing, but now I do. We have to allow for presumption of notability if we are going to let any editors on to build content in real time. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
          • Not to say this is wrong, only that the number of words written is a poor measure. There are topic areas where only a few words are needed - plus the general importance of the topic - that would give the same measure of notability for a topic in a field where many more words are required to meet the same thing. (This, in part, is why there's no minimum number of sources specified for GNG). Certainly the more words written in this manner, the more likely the topic really is notable, and thus our presumption of notability will likely be correct. That also means that we have some leeway for considering other facets beyond just the sourcing (Though this is of highest importance). That's why I've always found it best to stress the presumption of notability, and not notability itself, as the latter is simply always going to be immeasurable. --MASEM (t) 06:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
            • Yes, "number of words" might be a bit crude, you probably have to remove redundant words/ideas, and probably try to count information. Also, I should have said "after a very long time". I think you can measure notability, but not in the short term, which leads to the same conclusion as Masem's. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The "presumption of notability" is fine for saying that Xs are usually notable (or that most Xs are notable)... but it does not tell you whether a specific X is notable. For that we have to have something more than just presumption. Blueboar (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to join this discussion at such a late point, but the idea of “measuring notability” caught my attention. Although the discussion is interesting, its premise is flawed and focusing the discussion on “current events” amplifies the flaw. Careful reading of the guideline leads one to the conclusion that Wikipedia’s concept of notability is binary, and a one-way binary at that. Once a topic is deemed notable (by our standards) it remains so. In other words, once a topic has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources, it is notable. It cannot become non-notable by any lack of continuing coverage. Once a tree is cut down, it can’t be restored to its former self. Such is notability. Of course where there is a great deal of subjectivity is the evaluation of “significant coverage in independent reliable sources”. This subjectivity leads inevitably to situations where a topic presumed to be notable is deemed not to be notable and is thus deleted or merged. When that happens, the reality is that the topic (whatever it may have been) was never notable. Notability is binary, and one-way. It cannot fade, dwindle or disappear and thus is not measurable except in a binary way. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Notability arguably is binary - either it is or isn't, with possibly levels of being "more" notable than others. However, we can't easily tell if it is or isn't unless we have the full body of available sources that will ever be written available to us. The best we can do is to do the best sampling we can of sources and make a presumption about notability. This is akin to any sort of census or the like that uses a fraction of a population to come to conclusions about the whole - the larger the sample size, the higher the confidence on the results. Similarly, the more sources you can present, the stronger our confidence in the notability is. That said, what may appear to be appropriate sources near the time of the event or related to the topic may over time be realized as not good samples. This is most often the case of current events - editors rush to add in sources about the event from newspapers believing these are demonstrating notability, but over time those are shown only to be primary sources and not indication of notability. Ergo, the presumption about notability was wrong. Again, the quality "notability" is immutable, but impossible to known its value, and instead we are using presumption of notability which can be mutable over time. That's why our guidelines on notability always use the word "presumed". (This is justified by the fact that once an article passes AFD by a keep, it can be challenged again at a later time). --MASEM (t) 15:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that we can't determine notability without reading the future and seeing all the sources that will ever be written. For example, nearly a hundred years after the event, books are still being written about the First World War. There are already enough sources to demonstrate lasting impact of the war; we know that it is notable now and, as long as Wikipedia's notability criteria don't change, it is notable for all time. Dricherby (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure, some topics will have a very strong presumption of notability with only a few sources written - eg events like the Boston Marathon bombing was clear within a few hours of the story breaking that we could easily presume it notable (And the presumption has only strengthened as we go along). But the same pattern can be seen with other events that typically at the end of the day aren't really that notable, such as the more recent 2013 Mothers Day shooting - which turned out to be more street violence despite getting international coverage for a few hours after the event. --MASEM (t) 16:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Fading secondary sources

I think these are all interesting responses, but some of them are a bit muddled because they sometimes say "notability" when they mean something like "importance" and sometimes when they mean "qualifies for an article on the English Wikipedia."

So here's what really happens in the example:

• In 2005, editors decided that the subject qualified for an article on the English Wikipedia.
• In 2015, editors decided that the same subject did not qualify for an article on the English Wikipedia.

Unless you are willing to declare that the editorial community is not capable of deciding which subjects are accepted here, then "notability", in the meaning of "qualifies for an article on the English Wikipedia", was actually temporary.

Furthermore, if no sources continue to be produced, then notability must be temporary on the historical scale, because an article that we would accept as a secondary source today is a primary source from the perspective of the next century.

Why does this fact mean that notability is (or at least, can be) temporary? Because we require more than multiple independent sources: we require multiple, independent, secondary sources, and nothing that was published in a century-old newspaper is a secondary source (any longer). Even if our standards never change, the sources themselves change classification as time passes. That inescapable reclassification of the sources means that notability indeed is temporary. On a very long-term scale, the very fact that we require secondary sources means that we require ongoing coverage.

This, by the way, is already evident in actual community practice: events that seem plausible at the time are routinely deleted or merged away if there has been little or no coverage after several years have passed. The only thing that hasn't been done is to make NTEMP clearly articulate the community's real policy on this point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Your comment about how a newspaper shifts from being secondary to being primary is a valid one... but that opens a side issue: at what point does a newspaper make this transition? A century after it is published? Fifty years? A decade? A year? Blueboar (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. Almost certainly when a century has passed, and probably often when a decade or two has. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Judging by AFDs that I have participated on events, it's usually not the argument that "this event is notable, it must stay" but the argument that the burst of coverage is considered as significant secondary sourcing, which, more often than not, is not really true (partially because some editors take that the difference between primary and secondary is the "one step removed" approach, where we actually require transformation of information.) As such, event articles are kept typically by overwhelming numbers and not policy. But this is usually if you challenge the event within the first few weeks. A year later, that's different. The notability of the event has not changed, only the means that we come to access that. That's why to me the thing to keep in mind is that notability itself is immutable but our perception of it (and thus the article-worthiness factor) is. --MASEM (t) 19:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

OK but newspapers are not the only source. There have been hundreds of books written about the First World War and Queen Elizabeth II. These secondary sources will never become primary sources about WWI or QEII. Given how many modern books have been written about, say, the wars of the ancient Greeks and British monarchs who died hundreds of years ago, it seems likely that these topics will still be studied and written about in hundreds of years' time: that is, in addition to the non-temporary notability already demonstrated by coverage to date, there is also a presumption of ongoing coverage (which is more than is required). Dricherby (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, even books change their status over time. All ancient encyclopedias and dictionaries, even though encyclopedias and dictionaries are the archetypal example of tertiary sources, are now considered primary sources. It may take centuries, but it will happen.

However, I agree that these subjects are likely to have new secondary sources written about them in the future, and so the fact that some older sources turn primary is not important in those cases. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Masem, absent a clear contradiction with a policy such as WP:V, WP:OR, or WP:NPOV, "overwhelming numbers" are policy, free to interpret narrowly or to even disregard entirely any and all notability guidelines if they have a reasonable argument that it makes the encyclopedia better in a particular instance. To ignore that is to pretend we have more incontrovertible rules than we really do. postdlf (talk) 21:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

It is very hard to meet V, NOR, or NPOV without meeting, at minimum, the GNG. It can happen, and I agree if consensus says to keep even in absence of sources, sure, but for most topics, meeting the necessary requirements for the presumption of notability will allow standalone topics to meet V, NOR, and NPOV. --MASEM (t) 21:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Any notability guideline that isn't satisfied by newspaper sourcing alone goes far beyond those core policies. postdlf (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

In most cases, newspaper articles - reporting on facts and not providing analysis or the like - are not secondary sources. (this is not saying newspapers are never secondary sources, just that more often than not, they are primary). But this also depends on what the newspaper article is about and what the topic is - the same article, primary for one topic, can be secondary for another. But we cannot say "just because there are newspaper sources, this is notable." That conflicts with both NOTNEWS and the GNG. --MASEM (t) 21:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

That it would conflict with NOTNEWS is not clear but instead very debatable, and it would not conflict with V. So we return to my above comment about consensus trumping notability guidelines instead of the tail wagging the dog... postdlf (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, first, I'm not contesting that consensus, via IAR, overrides the GNG where appropriate - if the consensus feels a topic is presumably notable despite any sourcing evidence to support that, it'll be kept, I've no question on that. Also, you're right, I meant NEVENT and not NOTNEWS (thougt NOTNEWS is basically the equivalent of NOTPLOT when it comes to primary sources). But, getting back to this point, we also recognize consensus can change, and that presumption can change down the road too. I know for example that there's cases at OUTCOMES (like schools) that are always kept regardless of lack-of-sourcing arguments, though I've seen recent discussion that suggests there may be reason to change that presumption. Basically, again, presumption of notability by whatever means we get there is not fixed indefinitely. --MASEM (t) 21:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

It's almost impossible to meet any notability guideline for most science and mathematics articles using only newspaper sources. Dricherby (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Fading Notability - getting us back on track

We have gotten off track... the issue is whether notability can fade. Or perhaps a better way to put it is... can a topic that we once thought very notable can be reassessed and deemed no longer notable. I think the answer to that is "yes"... but what are the grounds for saying so? Blueboar (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

In our current language, we're basically saying that one can always challenge the presumption of notability we assess to allow for a standalone article. When and how that presumption can be challenged, however, is hard to specify. The only case where I'd even think of putting a time frame of when that can take place is for articles written on events, looking at the events some weeks, months, or even years out to determine if the initial presumption of notability that led to the article creation was really right.

Given that this challenge is effectively starting a new AFD, then all the aspects of WP:BEFORE come into play. It doesn't make sense to challenge the presumption of notability of a topic a week after an AFD just completed that was a clear keep - that's far too little time. A year later, perhaps, but I'd never want to put hard rules on it for fear of editors that really really want to get rid of a topic hitting up AFD on a regular basis.

As to the grounds - it's a matter of opinion. If you aren't sure, you can avoid AFD and approach the talk page about it. Or suggest a merge if there's potentially a better location. But I doubt we can write hard rules that say "when this happens, the article needs to be reassessed for presumed notability." --MASEM (t) 19:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Imho the default case is that notability doesn't fade. The argument that when something turns into a historical event it might eventually need different sourcing, that is secondary sources, is problematic as long as we don't even agree, what we consider secondary sources in that context (recent discussions of that subject indicate we don't (as a community). Moreover that the switch to an "historic event" might be decades in he future. Having said that the notability as an other aspect of an article is of course subject to a potential reassment.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I think we are using the wrong word-- “fade” -- when trying to describe what is being considered here. Fame or notoriety can “fade” or for that matter “grow”, thus at any given time there are gradations of fame or notoriety for any topic. WP Notability (a construct the WP community contrived and defined) is clearly binary. A topic is either notable or it is not. It cannot fade, nor can it grow. However, as Masem points out, events (which move from “current” to “historical” over time) present us with a challenge, because overtime, the nature of the coverage of the individual event evolves. Historians, journalists, scientists, etc. begin to study and weave individual events into broader themes. The question we are pondering is “how does WP deal with that evolution of coverage from a single event to a broader theme?” Sometime it’s useful to take a “time machine” approach to explaining this.

On January 10, 1864, Montana Vigilantes hanged a number of the members of the Henry Plummer gang in Virginia City, Montana. The event received significant coverage in the Montana Post (the Virginia City paper at the time) and over the coming weeks in many Montana newspapers and eventually papers throughout the U.S. If WP was functioning then, as it does today, I am confident there would have been an article created something like January 1864 hanging of Henry Plummer, because at the time, this was a big deal in the Montana gold fields. Over the next couple of years, the editor of the Montana Post (Thomas Dimsdale) began a serial describing all the “vigilante” activity that had occurred in the gold fields (~15-35 died at the hands of vigilantes in 1863-64). In 1865, Dimsdale turned that serial coverage into Vigilantes of Montana: Or popular Justice in the Rocky Mountains which became the 1st secondary coverage of the Plummer hanging and a seminal work on western vigilantism. Over the next half century, many other authors wrote about the Montana vigilante period which actually extended into the 1880s and the open range cattle ranches.

So if we fast forward to today, WP still covers the Plummer Hanging, but in different ways. The event itself is still notable by our WP notability standard, but our inclusion of the event has evolved, with the evolution of coverage of the event by authors, journalists, etc. Today the event is handled as part of the Montana Vigilantes article, the Henry Plummer article and a great number of other articles on places and individuals that participated in or were the scene of Montana vigilante activity. The topic January 1864 hanging of Henry Plummer never lost its notability, it just got woven into more comprehensive coverage of the broader topic of vigilantism and the people and places impacted by it. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

You are basically describing what NEVENT is all about. I disagree that we would have had an article specifically on the hanging, because for all purposes the coverage you described was a "brief burst of news", given how "fast" news stories carried in those days. That's not to say we wouldn't have included the event but the proper action is what we would have had now - where the event is covered as part of the larger, notable topic Montana Vigilantes. Of course, I'm sure some editors would have created the hanging article but that would have been of dubious notability because all that there was primary sourcing. I argue this is exactly the same situation as the 2013 Mother's Day shootings (deleted, but you can see the AFD here [2]). The event was covered internationally, but within a day it was clear that the event was "routine" for what actually happened, and hence why it was deleted. However, the event is still a major facet of second line parade since it highlighted the violence those can come from. It's the exact same pattern you mention, just on the time scale that today's media works.

Basically, much of this comes to people forgetting that we have Wikinews and instead wanting to be the first-to-create an article on a breaking news event and/or the ITN credit. We should not be creating articles where the initial rush of sourcing is going to be primary unless it's blatantly obvious (eg the Boston marathon bombings once it was affirmed it was intentional). When that is done, we have to consider how our preception of the event changes down the road, and whether the presumption of a stand-alone notable article is correct. --MASEM (t) 14:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

This is where this type of discussion gets difficult. You noted: You are basically describing what NEVENT is all about. I disagree that we would have had an article specifically on the hanging, because for all purposes the coverage you described was a "brief burst of news", given how "fast" news stories carried in those days. I said the Plummer hanging was a big deal at the time. Based on what I know about the history of the settlement of West from 1805 to 1900 (most specifically the Northern plains states), the lack of law and order in the 1850s-60s during the gold rush days was a “national” issue significantly influenced by the distraction of the Civil War. Although the Union wanted Western gold on its side, it was essentially powerless to provide any type of organized justice to the region and many of the Vigilantes were powerful men with significant political connections to the Union. The Plummer Hanging was seen at the time as a “National” event.

If I were to religiously apply NEVENT to the Plummer Hanging, I think it meets all the criteria. You are not to be faulted to think that coverage was a “brief burst of news” as most news coverage always seems. But what that news was doing and continued to do as it weaved itself into the broader topic of Montana Vigilantism was expressing a “National” sigh of relief that law and order was indeed making its way into the regions of the West. It’s a moot point today, but indicative of the complexity of NEVENT when applied to any given event. Is there a much larger context that must be considered when deciding whether the event is notable or not. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

If it meets all the criteria of NEVENT, why don't we have an article on it? It is because it doesn't; it represents the idea that this thread shows, that there are topics that many have a burst of coverage and appear significant at the time, but as time progresses, it is really part of a larger picture that they are better described, and thus that presumption of notability was mistaken. The hanging might have been a national interest story, but in the larger scheme of things, it is as you said, a point about the improvement of law enforcement in the undeveloped part of the country. Similarly, the Mother's Day shooting was initially considered in the first 24hr as a national tragedy but as it was revealed it was common street violence, the press quickly backed off. Another recent case is this Xiamen bus fire - a guy committed suicide and took out many of the passangers too. A terrible loss, but nothing in terms of any encyclopedic long term value. That's why we have to understand, particularly for events and people or things related to those events, that perception of notability will fade quickly if the story doesn't otherwise develop beyond news reporting. If editors aren't going to use Wikinews and instead create articles here about any little event, we must consider that presumption in the future and look at how the event really fits into the larger picture of human knowledge. Some can stand on their own, some can be integrated into broader topics, and some are simply news items. Until we get more people to use Wikinews for these types of articles and only later moving them into WP when the event is clearly past NEVENT's bar, we need to consider that our presumption of the notability of these events will change in time. --MASEM (t) 15:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

We don't have a separate article on it because even though the event meets all the minimum requirements, no editor believed that it was best handled as a separate, stand-alone event. At the time, we would have. Now, with the benefits of distance, we wouldn't. And that suggests that our presumption of notability, and our willingness to declare the same thing to be worthy of an article, actually does change (or would, if Wikipedia were more than a dozen years old).

Masem, in addition to events, I think you should also consider whether we might change our minds about products and organizations. A business that is maybe just on the right side of qualifying for an article is likely to be judged to be just on the wrong side a few years after it closes its doors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I can see in rare cases of a business that gets "notability" from a big claim they make as they start up, only to complete go bankrupt before a product was made a few years down the road (see: the burst bubble from early 2000s), but this is sorta of within the same field as "a brief burst of news" and not enduring coverage, so definitely follows from everything we have already (we would not be carving out anything new). --MASEM (t) 18:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Citations don't have to be in articles?

The Notability requires verifiable evidence section of the policy page states:

"The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable."

and

"Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation."

What? That's absurd.

Verifiability and reliability cannot refer to sources that are somewhere "out there" that or that are "available". It needs to refer to sources that are cited in the article. How can reader "verify" a source if he/she doesn't know what the source is? How did these passages wind up on a major policy page? Who wrote this? Can we please reconsider this? This is both wrong in theory, and in practice, it leads to editors creating numerous stubs little or no secondary sources that establish notability, and often no material in the article that even indicates or establishes what the topic is known for. WP:V should require that most material in articles be accompanied by citations (excepting stuff like "the sky is blue", or the plot or credits of a narrative work, for which the work acts as its own primary source). Can we please change that section? Nightscream (talk) 06:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Eventually, citations do need to be in articles to be a good article, but when it comes to AFD processes, as long as the sources that help to assert notability have been identified (concretely that is, citing page and chapter-level of detail), then we shouldn't be challenging the notability of the article. The lack of such sources - both here and WP:V - is a cleanup issue. And not so much for WP:N, but if you put in a contestable claim, WP:V does require you give it an inline cite or else it could be deleted. I will note this is a practice established at WP:V, WP:N following to be as far as possible, so the complaint about that should be taken at WP:V. --MASEM (t) 06:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It's an uncomfortable issue, and one that I wish would change. The problem is that there is a fear that not making that allowance would cause people to start mass-nominating older articles, and people seem to be unwilling to set a hard cutoff date where that fluffiness no longer applies. I think we have to, and that we should mandate that articles created after some specific date will be evaluated only using the sources actually specifically called out in the article at the close of the AFD. Our current practice allows a problem to continue to grow when we should be doing everything we can to reduce the amount of unsourced and improperly cited material.—Kww(talk) 06:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree we can do something about it - even something as simple as adding non-inline references formatted as citations and at the top of a References section is better than burying them on a talk page (or even a past AFD page, which is technically allowable), and takes nearly no effort. But we'd definitely need a grandfathering clause and would need consensus to proceed. --MASEM (t) 06:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• To survive deletion as "non-notable" citations do not have to (yet) be in the article. However, we want citations in the article. Please add the citations to the article. If citations can't be added, then maybe the article should be deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• • @SmokeyJoe If citations can't be added, then maybe the article should be deleted. You point out one of the long-term dilemmas facing WP. Whose responsibility is it to add citations? Any given article, assuming that there is some evidence that sources exist and there's sufficient data on the source to craft a citation, who is responsible for adding the citation. I think editor that suggests deletion in the face of known sources just isn't doing their job. It is is a bit of elitism. "My job is nominating articles for deletion, your job is adding sources. If you don't do your job, then I get to do mine." I firmly believe that once reliable sources are made known, deletion should be off the table, as it is every editor's job to add them to the article. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    • • • Completely agree. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    • WP:BURDEN, but with an ounce of good faith. Say I see an article without sources, and my first inclination is to delete. But in following BEFORE, I will see, perhaps, a section on the talk page with suggested refs for notability to be added but just not added. It would be completely stupid of me to take that to AFD, and better would be to simply migrate those refs in as general references. Yes, the people that primarily edit the page should be doing that, but this is a case where it takes all of a few minutes to complete this and benefits the whole work. On the other hand, same situation but there are no references on the talk page (or at least, called out in an obvious manner), and even scouring past AFD discussions on the article gives nothing. Then I'm in the right to AFD it. But it could be then, at that AFD, that an editor goes "we've identified these references before, they're listed at <some obscure place>". That's not the AFD'ing editor's fault, that's the BURDEN aspect, and if the editor wants to avoid it, they simply need to add them. We're not asking for even properly fomatted references, but just enough that any other editor can evoke the principle of WP:V and locate those sources as long as they are listed. If you are an editor of a page and stubbornly refuse to add sources that you claim to have or can't easily point to, you will eventually lose that article at AFD, hence why ultimately it is the burden of those wishing to retain the article to add the references to it. --MASEM (t) 15:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• WP:BEFORE requires you to do much more than looking at the talk page to see if anyone's suggested sources that haven't made it into the article! "The minimum search expected is a Google Books search and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects." Please do not AfD articles where you haven't done a basic search for sources: it wastes everybody's time. Dricherby (talk) 09:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Could we please stop using the excuse that "requiring sources in the article would mean deleting thousands of older articles". The fact is, there are no longer thousands of older articles lacking cited sources... and the few that remain are flawed and need to be brought up to current standards. If sources exist to support the notability of these topics, then those sources do need to be added to the article. No, I am not calling for a mass deletion campaign... but an article by article review of articles with long standing sourcing issues is in order. There comes a point when we have to admit that a flawed article is not going to be fixed unless some sort of action is taken.

This gets me back to a suggestion I have made previously... I think we need two separate categories of Deletion review... Type A deletion would be used when Notability is questioned... Type B deletion would be used in situations where there are issues other than Notability that might cause us to delete the article (examples would include, but not limited to: a hopelessly POV article, an article based primarily on OR, or an article with long standing sourcing issues). Type A deletions would be permanent (unless some new sources on the topic are written to indicate notability)... Type B deletions would not be permanent... the article would be deleted "without prejudice" and a new article (without the problems) could be started on the topic at any time. Or to put it another way... Type A would result in "No article should exist on the topic" while Type B would be "An article should exist on this topic... but not this article." Blueboar (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It would be nice if "AFD" was "Articles for Discussion" and include things like merges and redirects and your Type B. That said, another approach would be to simply have article that have been tagged with the notability tag for X years and noone has bothered to either find sources or even add identified sources (But otherwise not listed in obvious places), BURDEN has failed and such should be admin-deleted after some review. X is large - like I'm thinking at least 3 maybe 5, but basically the point is, if you are an editor on such a page and know it has been called out for notability concerns and you simply don't bother to add the references, shame on you. --MASEM (t) 16:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

That's assuming those other editors continue to be active editors, watching their watchlist to see what cleanup templates have been added years down the road. BURDEN as written was supposed to be about resolving what happened when two people had a substantive disagreement about whether material was verifiable (i.e., someone has reason to think it isn't verifiable), not simply because someone is dissatisfied with the development level of the content. Which is why it says "material challenged", not simply "material currently unsourced". I've seen a lot of editors leap over that and claim unconvincingly that "to challenge" means just "try to and remove it for any reason." That interpretation improperly treats BURDEN as giving the original editor effective WP:OWNership of the content in a negative way, meaning that if those editors don't improve it, it will be deleted. postdlf (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Blueboar, your comment that there are no longer thousands of articles lacking sources is way, way wrong. Here's a category with roughly a quarter of a million such articles. If you'd like to fix them, you are welcome to start there. I was part of a very large effort to add, generally, a single source to unsourced BLPs, it took a number of editors nearly two years to address that, and that was about 80,000 articles, about a third of the total unsourced backlog. All of this could be fixed with an enormous amount of hard work, or it can be fixed with a deletion spree, but there really isn't an easy solution to it. I do think we should move policy in this direction, but ... well, I'll leave those comments to other parts of this thread. --j⚛e decker^talk 23:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not a question of "elitism", as Mike Cline said above, it's a question of responsibility. If Editor X is the one who created the article, or Editor Y is the one who favors keeping the article, the responsibility should be on them to explain how or why the topic is notable. How is that unreasonable? If you're willing to create a new article, how hard is it to simply explain the Lead how the topic is notable, and provide a few secondary sources that support the explanation? How can others do this if they don't know the article creator's reason for why the topic is notable? Why can't community accept the simple, logical, egalitarian idea of each editor being responsible for citing the material they want to add to an article, or citing sources when creating one? Why can't you people understand that asking others to do this just doesn't work, particularly in instances in which the topic's notability is not clear?

As Kww points, not doing this empowers careless editors to create a legion of crap articles that they take no responsibility for, and which others are made to figure out after the fact. Don't you realize that holding each article creator or advocate accountable for the material they favor including and the articles they create would eliminate this problem, and a lot of discussions (though not all) like this one?

Masem says, "when it comes to AFD processes, as long as the sources that help to assert notability have been identified (concretely that is, citing page and chapter-level of detail), then we shouldn't be challenging the notability of the article." The problem with this idea is that when someone creates an article without sources, and then just abandons it, perhaps leaving Wikipedia (keep in mind that a lot of editors come to Wikipedia and then leave after making a few edits, and in general, the editor count on the sites began dropping about four years ago), the person who later comes across the article has no way of knowing the reason why the creator thought the topic was notable. Obligating the creators and advocates of articles to add citations instead of just "identifying" them would be both much easier and much more fair than obligating a johnny-come-lately to do it, and would eliminate the problem that prompts discussions like this.

Kww and Blueboar, THANK YOU. It's nice to see that there are some who get it. Nightscream (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The case I described is not the case that you are describing. If the editor created the article and never attempted to identify sources, that's bad, and there is a right to challenge its notability, presuming that BEFORE does not lead to obvious hits. On the other hand, often there are articles that go to AFD and editors locate a number of sources and list them in the AFD. The AFD is closed as Keep, but no one does the next obvious step to add them to the article. This would be wrong to take to AFD again, as per WP:V/WP:N, sources have been positively identified, but simply not added. --MASEM (t) 17:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that all too often the identification of sources in the AFD goes only so far as "ooh ooh ooh lots of Google hits" and no one has done the necessary task of identifying any data from the article that is actually supported by any one of those sources.—Kww(talk) 17:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh agreed. There is yet a further distinguishing aspect that I point to, that is the exact citations (page + chapter-level of details) need to be there, not just handwaving at 1000's of GHits. I've seen AFDs close where a clear set of 4-6 exact references have been listed, but no one bothers to move them in; I still wouldn't delete the article in that case, but on the handwave of "1000s of hits", and no single source identified, yet, I would. --MASEM (t) 17:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that, at the moment, AfD is really a form of Notability/Noticeboard... AFD discussions are focused on the question of notability and notability alone. The question is... are there reasons other than notability which would rise to the level of deleting an article? I think there are (as outlined in my "Type B" idea above). Personally, I would set the bar for Type B deletion fairly high (ie I would make it fairly difficult to delete problematic articles on notable topics... giving editors lots of chances to fix the problem before we get to the point of deletion), but I do think a bar should be set. Blueboar (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

"On the other hand, often there are articles that go to AFD and editors locate a number of sources and list them in the AFD. The AFD is closed as Keep, but no one does the next obvious step to add them to the article."

It's more than that: The problem is also that iyou need a reason why the topic is notable. Merely pointing to sources does not do that, especially when the claim is unclear. Over on the current AfD discussion for the Sue Snell article, someone stated that that article's topic is not trivial, and provided this link to illustrate this. Again echoing what Kww said just above (I was composing this before you posted, Kww, but when I was ready to Save, you had posted your message!) that web page does not explain why the topic is notable, as it's just a list of books, which does not indicate very clearly how prominently that character is discussed in any of those books. What matters is not just being in secondary sources, but being covered prominently, in a way that explains the character's real world impact or literary significance, and for that, you have to not only cite the sources in the article, but explain what is it in those sources that makes the topic unique for inclusion. The aforementioned person who posted that link doesn't provide this. As I mentioned on that page, the Patil sisters from the Harry Potter books appear in five books and six movies, but that, in and of itself, does not make them notable. Nightscream (talk) 17:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Part of this is assuming good faith, than when sources at AFD have been identified that the editors are truly correct in stating they provide the significant coverage in secondary sources to show notability. Also, the barrier of "why something is notability" is actually not as hard as you're implying. The fact that the Patil sisters are minor characters cross five books/movies is why they are possibly notable. Now the question becomes if there are sources that really support that. --MASEM (t) 18:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Then we get to the question... can something be considered notable even if there are no independent sources that discuss it? I know we say "no" in our guideline, but the reality is that we sometimes ignore what the guideline says. There are a few topics that we accept as being obviously notable even without any sources. When taken to AfD, everyone just says... "Don't be daft... of course it's notable - Keep" (and we do). Blueboar (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

There's the issue of what is at WP:OUTCOMES like high schools and small but recognized populated places where the article can absolutely have no secondary sourcing but will be kept. That's a much larger issue, though. --MASEM (t) 19:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Is there a way to identify, perhaps with a category or a tag, articles for which good sources which can be found in Afd discussions? If so, I'm sure that there would be editors who would be willing to go through these, perhaps starting with the oldest ones. These editors could transfer the sources, if not as citations, at least as bulleted lists for later improvement, from the Afd discussions to the articles, and then remove the tags. This might lead to gradual upgrading of these inadequately sourced articles. Something similar has been going on in the Afc with articles which have been declined as blank. A group of editors including Joe Decker has been going through them, deleting the ones that really are blank, and restoring and rescuing any that had substantial content but appeared blank because of technical mixups. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• This discussion was kicked off by what seems to be a misunderstanding of the concept of notability at what is actually a fundamental level. Notability is a property of topics, not articles. As such, whether or not a topic is notable cannot possibly depend on what is written in the article about that topic. Barack Obama would not cease to be notable if somebody deleted all the sources from the article about him because notability is about the existence of sources. Neither of the policy quotes at the head of this thread is absurd: they both follow from notability being a property of topics, not articles. Now, an article that doesn't cite sources is a bad article. Very bad. Policy is very clear that we shouldn't have those: you should cite anything that has been, or might be challenged. The question then is, what to do with articles that don't comply with that policy? Who should fix the mess and how? Here, I think the best guide is to remember the real purpose of this whole site: to create a great encyclopaedia. Everything we do here, as editors who care enough about the encyclopaedia to be discussing it, should be aimed at improving it. If the best way to improve the encyclopaedia is to add sources to the unsourced article, we should do that, and consider teaching the article's creator about sourcing so their next article or next edit doesn't suffer from the same problem. If the best way to improve the encyclopaedia is to delete the article, we should do that, instead. If the topic seems reasonable, but the article is bad then, in an ideal world, we should fix the article. In the real world, we don't necessarily have time to do that but stubbing is a perfectly valid option, and is faster than starting an AfD. We shouldn't paint ourselves into roles of "creator", "editor" and "deleter" and start arguing about whose responsibility it is to deal with things if somebody in one of those roles doesn't do what they should have done. We're all here to improve the encyclopaedia. Dricherby (talk) 10:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• • Even stubs are expected to have sources to demonstrate what their notability is. If you create an article believing its topic is notable and can't add a single source to it, shame on you but outside some fringe cases we're not going to delete it right away (the only CSD tied to notability are those for potential vanity articles), but if you can't point out a bare minimum of one source to help that, and it's not obvious from a BEFORE-level google search, it will likely be deleted. That's why BURDEN exists and points primarily to the creator and original editor as the person who should be adding sources from the start. --MASEM (t) 13:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, stubs and all articles are supposed to have sources demonstrating their notability and yes, the creator should be supplying sources and so should anyone who added anything much; we're dealing with the case where they didn't. Also, if you come across a bad article (e.g., not NPOV, or OR) on a notable topic, it's still quicker to stubbify it, with sources to demonstrate notability, than to start an AfD, which requires you to check those sources, anyway. Dricherby (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Masem: "Part of this is assuming good faith, than when sources at AFD have been identified that the editors are truly correct in stating they provide the significant coverage in secondary sources to show notability." I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're trying to say here. I'm not trying to be the Grammar Police, but could you clarify? Are you saying that if an editor in an AfD discussion points to a Google search result list showing the topic in a list of books, that we should assume that that makes the topic notable? Again, see my previous message. Merely being mentioned in books or movies doesn't make a topic notable. And if I'm misunderstood what you said, please clarify.

Yes, Dricherby, notability is indeed an aspect of topics. I never said nor implied otherwise. But notability of a topic should be demonstrated by the person or persons who insist that a topic is notable, and to that end, they should explain in the article why the topic is notable, and provide secondary sources supporting that. Removing all citations from the Barack Obama article would be a vandalism issue, not a notability issue, so that isn't a very good hypothetical analogy.

Yes, we can agree that certain topics are obviously notable, such as U.S. Presidents, even if say, no one has created an article on them yet, or if thus far, there are only stubs on those topics without sources. The problem, however, is that not all articles have some demonstrably obvious notability. I do not know that Chris Hargensen or Sue Snell from Carrie are notable in a way that is independent of that novel or its adaptations. That's why I nominated them: There is no indication in those articles of why they are notable in a way that is independent of Carrie, and in a way that cannot be covered in simply the articles on the novel and films adapted from it. Some topics might be notable, but how we gauge notability is dependent the explanation of it in the article, and sources to support it. If these two things are not present in an article, then the topic should not be "assumed" to be notable. In this sense, I agree with Masem's most recent statement just above. Nightscream (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, simply it's this - an AFD where notability is questioned should identify potential sources by including basic citation information of the exact sources that are offered for notability, either on the article, the article's talk page or the AFD page. Pointing to a google link and saying "look, sources!" is not sufficient. We need exactly what is being considered as sourcing for the purposes of saying "okay, you've proven notability" and thus meet the "sources have been identified" for WP:V/WP:N's purpose. --MASEM (t) 23:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, Nightscream, notability should be demonstrated by the article's creator. Policy is clear that all articles should cite sources. However, the point of the policy sections that you quoted at the start of the thread is that the creator's failure to quote sources that actually exist doesn't mean that the subject isn't notable. If we find an article with no sources, the best thing to do is to add sources if they're available; deletion should be a last resort, only if there aren't enough sources. Our first guess at notability of a topic we're unfamiliar with is always going to be based on what the article says but, if the article is under-sourced, it's impossible to accurately gauge notability without going out and looking for sources. WP:BEFORE is quite clear that an article shouldn't be nominated for deletion based solely on somebody's first guess about whether the subject is notable.

  When you ask whether a character is "notable in a way that is independent from" the novel/movie/etc. they appear in, you again seem to be misunderstanding the concept of notability. Notability requires "substantial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Here, "independent" means that the source's author or publisher does not have a vested interest in the subject. It does not mean that a character in a novel is only notable if they have some sort of "life outside the novel". So, for example, the novel Catch-22 is notable because many people who are not Joseph Heller or his publisher or the president of the Joseph Heller fan club, etc. have written about it. The fact that the phrase "Catch-22" has entered the language and people talk about that concept without making direct reference to the novel (i.e., independently of the novel, in one sense of the word) certainly helps but is absolutely not required. Asking whether Chris Hargensen is notable independent of the novel Carrie is missing the point – except in rare cases, such as Mrs Malaprop, what else could a character in a novel be notable for, except for being a character in that novel? Dricherby (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that topics are not notable because the sources have not been added to the article. From what you're saying, it seems that we're mostly in agreement. My point is that those who create articles/add material or favor their inclusion should demonstrate notability by adding the sources. If those editors want others at AfDs to "consider" sources not yet in the article, then those who favor the inclusion of material should be the ones who add them.

When you ask whether a character is "notable in a way that is independent from" the novel/movie/etc. they appear in, you again seem to be misunderstanding the concept of notability. Notability requires "substantial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"

I indeed understand that, and that goes directly to my point about independence of the primary source material. You don't just need reliable sources that cover it, you need reliable secondary sources that cover it. What are the secondary sources for Sue Snell, Chris Hargensen, etc.?

what else could a character in a novel be notable for, except for being a character in that novel?

For the real-world impact that the character has had. For example, in the article on Norma Bates (Psycho), it is mentioned that in 2009, BookFinder.com included her in its list of the Top 10 Worst Mothers in the history of literature. Nightscream (talk) 17:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Political Notability

Okay, I've been having a discussion with another contributor, and I see both sides of the discussion and want to get some third party input. It is clear that notability is established through meeting the primary criteria, listed in the first part of the article, If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. No problem. In Politicians, it says, Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. Followed by Footnote 12 which says This is a secondary criterion. People who satisfy this criterion will almost always satisfy the primary criterion. Biographers and historians will usually have already written about the past and present holders of major political offices. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of major political offices, incorporating all of the present and past holders of that office, will be complete regardless. (I disagree that just because someone is an elected official there must be significant coverage, most people can't name their state legislator representative.)

So the point is, does this mean that they are only notable if they meet the primary criteria first? Or does it mean all 7,382 current US state legislators are automatically deemed notable, regardless of the availability of significant sources, because they were elected? On a conservative basis, that would indicate that some 100,000 articles on US state legislators need to be found in Wikipedia (60 years, 4 year term average). Add in those in every other country on the planet and it is a site all its own. I believe in most cases they should simply be added to a list for the specific state and session. Even that seems overly bulky.The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 16:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

In practical terms, if a politician satisfies the WP:POLITICIAN guideline, that article will be kept at WP:AFD even if satisfying the WP:GNG guideline is not demonstrated. I have no idea what "overly bulky" means in terms of an online encyclopedia or why it might be something we should care about. postdlf (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I would call that brings up again, why we use "presumed", in that it is reasonable to expect that every state-level representative, past and present - is notable, but that that notability can be challenged later. I do disagree with the idea that we have to have articles to fill in gaps (it's only thing if we're missing like 3 out of 7000 articles, it would be another if we were missing 300...), but am fine with presuming notability to start as long as we understand that may be challenged later. --MASEM (t) 17:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Not that I see a point to ever challenging the notability of anyone who satisfies WP:POLITICIAN...but regardless, notability being a guideline, an article may be kept by consensus consistent with policy regardless of whether it technically satisfies guideline criteria, so long as you can verify per WP:V that an individual did in fact hold that office. postdlf (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I am the other contributor referred to here. What triggered the discussion is that Aggie declined a submission at Articles For Creation of an article about a state legislator, on the grounds that the subject was not notable, and I objected citing WP:POLITICIAN. I am glad they have brought the issue here for community input. --MelanieN (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how there's really anything to discuss. By longstanding, prevailing consensus, Adam Zemke should have an article. I've never dealt with AFC, but obviously anyone else should be able to "override" Aggie on this, because no one person gets to decide that something doesn't go in the encyclopedia. postdlf (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC) (I also don't get why someone is reviewing an AFC submission by an editor with only 100 fewer edits than them, but that's a discussion for another page)

Ouch! That's the way the system works, any registered user can review Articles for Creation. Technically, they can review their own submission if the wanted to. This noob is sufficiently chastised and will go away. The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 17:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I would have to agree that the presumed notability on POLITICIAN is reasonable to start an article, with the understanding if no sources ever come about, it could eventually face AFD, but we start with good faith that more can come out. --MASEM (t) 17:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

And the flag is an attempt to find someone that can add those contributions to the article. I don't like the presumption, it should be done right the first time. That's the purpose of the review process, to get an article in decent enough shape so that it doesn't get challenged later on. Flagging something as not proving notability doesn't necessarily mean it shouldn't have an article, it just means the writer(s) haven't been proven there should be one. But what I hear is that the bottom line is being elected to a state position means they get an article, regardless of whether they have ever done anything notable. It appears that someone needs to re-write the Politician Notability section to make it clear that the over riding requirement of notability does not apply, as long as there is reference to being elected, it passes the test. So who does that? The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 17:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not reading as a problem here. If this article was created at the same state is it is but outside the AFC process, it would face the same lack of challenge in terms of an early AFD until time has been given for the article to grow. The point of the subject specific notability guides is to provide evidence of presumed notability where sourcing will likely be found, and that's exactly the process being done here. --MASEM (t) 18:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• Going right back to the start, I want to take issue with the statement that "most people can't name their state legislator representative." This has nothing to do with notability. Notability is based on the existence of sources, not the (non-)ignorance of the populace at large. Please also bear in mind that, when you say "most people", you mean "most Americans", i.e., "most of about 4.5% of people", which in the grand scheme of things, means "almost nobody". This is another reason why we don't base notability on what "most people" have heard of. Dricherby (talk) 09:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Most people also couldn't name the last winners of the Nobel Prize in physics. postdlf (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I just moved Adam Zemke to article space. Never heard of him myself, but he does fulfil Wikipedia's established guidelines for notability for people of his category and that's all that matters. The AFC project is full of self-appointed doorkeepers who apply far higher standards to AFC submissions (generally posted by the most modest of newbies, one may assume) than would be applied to articles posted directly in main space. Anyone looking around will find plenty of notable topics there, declined by someone for "appearing non-notable". As it is, many of these are likely sooner or later to be speedy deleted, as they tend to be abandoned by their frustrated and bitten newbie authors. --Hegvald (talk) 18:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Almost everyone is 'self-appointed' on Wikipedia. If you have criticisms of the AfC process, a better place to raise it would be with the project itself. Sionk (talk) 20:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

No, discussing anything at the AFC project pages is unlikely to accomplish anything. And I don't really think I have any issue with the process, whatever it is, but with a subset of the participants. People who normally don't participate there just need to be aware of the problem. It can be worthwhile to occasionally sift through the declined submissions. --Hegvald (talk) 23:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The reviewers at Afc have specific instructions, which can be found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions. The instructions specifically say that (1) article subjects must be notable - it seems that politicians get a pass on that one, and once that's determined, (2) article information must be verifiable, and the instructions say, "If what is written in the submission meets the notability guidelines, but the submission lacks references to evidence this, then the underlying issue is inadequate verification and the submission should be declined for that reason." and then "Articles require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Significant coverage: References about the subject – at least one lengthy paragraph, preferably more. Not passing mentions, not directory listings, not just any old thing that happens to have the name in it. Several of them." I don't feel that it's fair to put down reviewers who are just doing their best to follow their instructions. The instructions are partly based on the Wikipedia:Notability (summary) article, which states that it represents consensus among the editorial community. If there is a group of editors that feel that the instructions are inappropriate, a proposal to have them changed may be in order. I'm sure that the reviewers would adjust their practices if the instructions changed. We are all just doing our best over there. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the AFC instructions would allow an article that just meets the basic "state representative" requirement that BIO has even if the GNG is not met, as long as there's a source to affirm the person is a state representative. This is the same test in project space. There doesn't seem to be any difference here. --MASEM (t) 01:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

That's what I've heard. If you have any reference that a person was elected to a state legislature position, they meet the notability requirement. An existing article doesn't even have to meet the guidelines in Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions if it is a politician. As a results of this thread, I've created about 200 stubs for individuals that have been elected. Over half don't have any other connection on Wikipedia, a quarter appear only in the list of legislators that already exists and the other quarter are individuals that justifiably have made their mark in history. In many cases there will be little or no sources to determine anything more about R. G. Allen, but he has an entry! The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 22:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and I should note that I've had to have this same conversation on politician notability on other threads and defend several of the stubs against deletion actions. The guidelines are not as clear as people seem to think they are. The words of the guidelines WP:Politicians are not the actions of the community.The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Note that USer:Aggie80 is currently creating hundreds of stubs on historical California legislators in an attempt to make some kind of point about WP:POLITICIAN. These comments on the user's talk page make the motivation clear: [3] [4] Dricherby (talk) 22:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeeeeah, that's a possible problem (mass creation is generally frowned on unless it's a consensus-based task). Bringing this up at ANI since Aggie80's motivation is apparent. --MASEM (t) 22:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

On second review, the situation does seem under control in that these are appropriate stubs and other editors are helping to fix them. It's probably not the most sensible action but one that ANI won't act one. --MASEM (t) 22:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the problem at AfC arises if the article is rejected on NOTABILITY grounds, which is what happened here and shouldn't have. The appropriate review at AfC (and I have seen others do this)would be something like "the subject is notable, but the article needs more work. Please add (whatever is missing - categories, wikilinks, more references, a proper lead sentence, or whatever)." I would hope that AfC has a way to respond by saying "not accepted at this time, but likely will be accepted after x, y, z improvements." Similar to what is done with DYK nominations.

As for the current situation, I am glad to see that it was not taken to ANI. It's true that Aggie was trying to make a WP:POINT, but he was not disrupting Wikipedia to do so; on the contrary he was adding stubs for articles that we ought to have here. And he has gone back to those stubs multiple times to make improvements suggested on his talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 23:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm concerned if AFC is enforcing harder notability rules than if the article was created directly in namespace to start. Aggie80's current stubs meet POLITICIAN, and per how these SNGs are to work, we'll give them time to develop (and part of the reason I stopped an ANI compliant was that people were improving those stubs "nearly" immediately). I agree that if no SNG applies to a topic and the AFC article needs to meet the GNG, more work to get it there should be done, but on the cases that clearly meet SNGs like POLITICIAN, it should almost be a pass through check once the criteria is verifeid. --MASEM (t) 23:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Masem decided not to create the ANI thread. However, WP:DISRUPT describes this exact behaviour as "highly disruptive to the project". The disruption is in the time taken by good-faith editors to fix these stubs, which Aggie80 created precisely because he believes they shouldn't exist. While I agree that, ultimately, the articles should exist, it is hard to see the value creating an article about a politician if you don't even know which house of the legislature he served in. WP:CREATE specifically cautions against creating single-sentence articles. Dricherby (talk) 23:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

If the politician's article had a number of sentences, then it would have a number of facts, and under BLP they would need reliable sources, not for notability, but for verification of the facts. So the only kind of articles about politicians that could get by with just a reference to a list of elected officials would be a single sentence article with no personal information. But if WP:CREATE says not to create these, then I am confused about under what circumstances reviewers should accept articles about politicians without the usual several reliable independent sources. Can someone give me an example? I am not trying to be difficult; I do a lot of reviewing, and I just want to get this right. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

F-100 VS MIG 19

72.70.192.245 (talk) 21:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Just wanted to inform you of a error on page #80 of the July 2013 issue regarding the MiG-19 and your reference to the F-100 in the article as well. According to the overview the MiG-19 was the Soviets first operational supersonic jet that first flew in 1954. It was powered by two turbojet engines with afterburners. This may be true but it was not the first operational supersonic jet in the world as so stated in the opening paragraph.

The F-100 was the "First" in the world and here are just a few of the several achievements the F-100 recorded during its 45 years of service in the USAF fighter inventory.

5/25/53 - First operational aircraft to exceed Mach 1 in level flight - YF-100A flown by George Welch. Note that all F-100s were powered by "one" Pratt & Whitney J-57 turbojet engine with afterburner. The MiG had two engines equipped with burners.

10/26/53 - New speed record72.70.192.245 (talk) 21:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)ted 755.19 mph in F-100A by Lt. Col. Frank Everest. July issue states MiG 19s first flight of Jan. 5, 1954

12/54 - Collier Trophy awarded to NAA by Pres. Eisenhower for development of first supersonic fighter.

8/55 - New speed record 822.5 mph flown by Col. Horace Hanes in F-100C.

3/58 - First fighter to be able to deliver nuclear weapons at supersonic speed, TAC Comd. Gen. OP Weyland in F-100C.

4/61 - F-100s were USAFs first combat jets in Vietnam.

4/65 - F-100D 55-2894 flown by Capt. Dan Kilgus of 416th TFS Da Nang was the "First" USAF aircraft to engage in aerial jet combat during the Vietnam War while escorting F-105s to target. This engagement resulted in officially credited "probable kill" of a MiG17.

1972 - F-100s flew more sorties in Vietnam War than all other combat fighter aircraft " combined" - 360,283 - 242 F-100s lost (198 in combat, 54 non-combat).

Clearly by official USAF records the F-100 was "FIRST" operational fighter to rotate wheels up and achieve supersonic speeds. I kindly ask for a correction to include so stated facts above in the August 2013 issue.

Thank you for your consideration.

Mike Dean F-100 Crew Chief Super Sabre Society Friends of the Super Sabre HUN Maintainers Association