Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Notability

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Itsmeront (talk | contribs) at 15:35, 26 May 2015 (→Suggest WP:NSM noteworthy based on social media). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Notice: RFC at WikiProject Film

There is a discussion at WT:FILM#RfC: Do list items need their own WP article in order to be sourced in list articles? which is about this page and could potentially lead to changes to it. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 11:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest WP:NSM noteworthy based on social media

Itsmeront (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that a criteria that existed in WP:IMPORTANCE was lost in WP:NOTE.

WP:NSM Noteworthy based on Social Media.

"An article is "important" enough to be included in Wikipedia if the following is true:
  • There is evidence that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be simultaneously interested in the subject (e.g. it is at least well known in a community)." WP:IMPORTANT.

The criteria for reliability should be set high. It is important that wikipedia get the facts straight. Just because a million people state that George Washington chopped down a cherry tree does not make it factual. When the reliability is not of primary concern editors CAN also consider social media and web aggregators as an indication of Notability. Editors should be careful to include sources that show actual notability. An article submitted to Slashdot IS NOT SUFFICIENT to indicate notability, whereas, an article that makes it to the front page of Slashdot, evidenced by a large community taking interest to promote the article, CAN be considered as an indication of Notability. A hashtag on twitter is not sufficient, but if millions of people are retweeting it, and it shows up as trending, it CAN be considered. The existence of a significant community around projects, such as OpenSource software development CAN also be considered when determining Notability.

To be clear, #icewaterdumpedonmyhead does not indicate the same notability as #alsicebucketchallenge. Even before the celebrities and the media picked up the story, #alsicebucketchallenge trending by millions of people could have been used to indicate notability. This alone does not indicate that an article should be written, but when the questions of reliability are answered and the reasoning is settled that a separate article should be created, Social Media CAN be used to establish notability. Itsmeront (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussion of whether Slashdot contributes to notability may be found at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 April 26#Nim (programming language). Msnicki (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't around at the time IMPORTANT was alive, but looking through the page history appears to me to show that though there were several efforts to promote it from a proposal to a guideline or policy (or semi-policy, whatever that was at the time), it never made it and was finally marked as a failed proposal, so nothing was lost: it was rejected. Having said that, I would also note that IMO there are few places at Wikipedia where the wiki principle plays more of a part than at AfD: IAR comes into effect there perhaps more often than anywhere else (except perhaps with BOLD edits) and articles are sometimes kept which do not meet our notability criteria. That's for a variety of reasons which might be generalized under an importance policy, but having such a policy would then become being used as a justification for such retentions and that would change those exceptions from being just IAR outliers to being mainstream. That's a bad idea. (And unless you're proposing to change the definition of reliable source to include trending on social media, merely trending on social media does not indicate reliability, much less verifiability; something that's heavily trending there is often going to be reflected in actual reliable sources and thus become verifiable and, in turn, support notability, but that's because of the secondary coverage not the social media itself.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments TransporterMan (TALK) The comment at the top of Notability lead me to believe that Importance was replaced by Notability.
  • ""WP:IMPORTANCE" redirects here. You may be looking for WP:IMPORTANT, which was replaced by this guideline."
If IMPORTANCE was rejected then I withdraw that comment. I would still encourage Wikipedia to reconsider this particular aspect of Importance relating to communities. I agree with your sentiment that in MOST cases something that is trending will then be replaced by reliable secondary coverage. The problem is that this is not always the case. I'm sure you are aware that coverage in general for things that are not political, sensational, entertainment related, or on the other end Scholarly research, or basic science, is declining and being replaced by social media (or even worse by company sponsored news content). In the specific case that I made this point, the area of new programming language development, it is unreasonable to expect that even with high trending like the front page of Slashdot, that media outlets will then pick up the story. In many cases, notability is better defined by the size of the community and the amount of interest generated on social media. This is especially true for open source projects. Open source projects, including the software that runs Wikipedia, are made up of small communities numbering in the 100's of people. The communities are comprised of experts, and these experts tend to communicate with each other using social media. This includes web aggregators (like Reddit, YCombinator, and Slashdot), IRC, Email lists and Blogs. There is already exceptions in NEWSBLOGS and BLOGS that allow, in my opinion, for the inclusion of slashdot, or expert blogs, but without something like this category that makes it more explicit, I was unable to persuade editors that Slashdot should be considered at all under any circumstances.
  • You're not sure? Here, read through WP:RS and related policy & guideline pages that link from there. Then you'll be sure what is and what is not a reliable source, and understand why slashdot and reddit do not qualify, why the Nim creator penning his own artcle do not qualify, and why a short paragraph-length blurb does not qualify. Tarc (talk) 22:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2015_April_26#Nim_.28programming_language.29
  • If you are unable to grasp the very straightforward WP:RS guideline, then I'm afraid that the Wikipedia just isn't the project for you to become involved in. The amount of people on social media who like a product is irrelevant. The number of upvotes a buddy of yours got on Slashdot is irrelevant. The Wikipedia does not accept either when discussing the notability of a topic. Tarc (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2015_April_26#Nim_.28programming_language.29
It seems to me that something more specific that allows citing social media, when the subject of should an article be written at all and not included within another article and is the content of the article reliable are addressed, should be added to make it easier for this argument to be made in the future. To be clear the point of creating an article and if the content of the article reliable was already settled by most editors. The outstanding question was if the subject itself was notable. I had pointed to a number expert blogs, and front page inclusion of on Slashdot, Reddit, and YCombinator, a community of 100's of users, and still was told this is not notable enough for Wikipedia. For subjects that are unlikely to gain secondary media coverage, this type of attention was quite notable, in the community of new programming language experts, and should be considered and allowed explicitly by Wikipedia editorial policy. Itsmeront (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree that we need this, because it becomes extremely subjective when that line is considered crossed as to be widely important. And while I don't know the exact history of WP:N being clear on how importance is not a factor, I would strongly object to its removal as it is clearly practice today - we don't keep articles because of page view count, etc.
In terms of social media, there are now enough developing RSes that report on trends on the Internet to establish when they believe a topic has become important for social media as for us to establish notability on those assessments of reliable sources, which falls in line with GNG principles and does not need any "new" language. --MASEM (t) 19:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again to be clear the recommendation has nothing to do with reliability, it is only intended to ALLOW the consideration of Social Media when determining Notability. Since Notability itself can be used as a rationale for deleting an article, what counts as notable, for subjects that are not likely, and may never be, covered by RSes, considered Wildly important or, covered secondary sources, should be more clearly specified. Itsmeront (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But that's still weakening RSes to allow inclusion based on popularity. If someone has a million followers on Twitter, that doesn't necessarily mean they area notable if there are no other RSes to discuss that person. We also have to be aware that social media can be gamed - if we did allow people with a high subscriber count in on just that metric alone, there would be groups that would game that system to get an article on a nobody or a false identity onto WP (it happens in other areas, so would not discount it here). I will say that the normal RS media is pretty aware of when certain topics hit a "critical mass" of social media and report on that, but that also is not a universal aspect as some cases fall to the edge, but it is still keeping with all other core policies.
I've not really seen a case where a topic is at AFD where there's some but weak RS sourcing and the swing is that "but this person is important on social media". It's the RS sourcing that makes the difference. --MASEM (t) 19:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that social media should not be considered alone for reliability. I am only discussing the case where there are sources for reliability or a good case has been made, there is a cogent argument for the need of a separate article. Being notable in social media is not sufficient for reliability, I'm conceding that point (actually I never made that point). The issue here is what determines notability. My argument is that for certain topics the front page of news aggregators like slashdot are the pinnacle of coverage. Wikipedia editors should not confuse inclusion in slashdot, with reaching the front page. We are also not talking about criteria for adding people to Wikipedia. I would agree with you that secondary coverage is very prevalent in entertainment. There is no dearth of resources covering the next social media star. The issue here is communities of people dedicated to an important subject, where the reliability is not in question, and the argument of should there be an article is settled, social media coverage in News Aggregators, Expert Blogs, and community size should be ALLOWED to be considered. I'm also not suggesting that it MUST be included, but arguments like Slashdot will never be an indication of notability should be discouraged by Wikipedia editorial policy. Itsmeront (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am entirely comfortable with social media being no consideration whatsoever, and with the bar set to sources from the mainstream media. If a person, thing or event is important enough, the mainstream media will cover it. If it isn't, then I'm unimpressed with its ephemeral number of Facebook "likes." If the Boston Globe does an article on someone, that article will be verifiable a century from now. Given the so-far ephemeral staying power of social media, we can't guarantee that we'll be able to verify jack five years down the road. Ravenswing 21:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ravenswing This has nothing to do with Jack or adding infomration about any person. It is not about verifyability. It has nothing to do with reliablity. Itsmeront (talk) 01:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that I'm not a professional Wikipedia Editor. So maybe I'm missing some point here. Please feel free to explain. Notability was brought up by editors as a separate topic then Reliability. After it was agreed that the content of the article was RELIABLE, it was claimed that the subject was not notable. We were then told that notability must exclude newsblogs and expert blogs and community size. My claim here is that for open source projects like new language design, NOTABILTY is newsblogs, expert blogs and community size. So if I am wrong or not making sense please feel free to elaborate. Itsmeront (talk) 19:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another Perfect example why this is needed

Wikipedia editors have made it perfectly clear. Slashdot and Reddit, and expert blogs are not respected. The problem here is that Wikipedia editors DO NOT READ the content before they remove references. They seem to believe they understand what is useful and what is not. The blogs, the Slashdot article on NIM (programming language) and the article on Reddit have useful information for programmers trying to dive deeper into the subject. Not only did we have to argue that Nim was notable, now we have to argue that references are relevant. This change to editorial policy is needed because News Aggregators ARE VALUABLE sources of information for open source communities. The expert blogs are also excellent sources of information.

Edits made on Nim (programming language)

  • 02:40, 4 May 2015‎ Be..anyone . . (10,732 bytes) (-272)‎ . . (slashdot reference dismissed as BAD joke, willing to report more jokes on AN/I) (undo | thank)
  • 02:11, 4 May 2015‎ Be..anyone‎ . . (10,871 bytes) (-349)‎ . . (reddit removed) (undo | thank) links to expert blogs were also removed.

It is easy to just dismiss the valuable information on these sites and my contention is that this Wikipedia editorial policy has fostered this harmful trend. While there can also be crap on Slashdot or Reddit, wholesale dismissal of a format that a very large world of Open Source developers use to communicate is harmful to Wikipedia. Not only should this policy be changed but it should be communicated to editors so that some thought replaces foolish edits like these mentioned above. I can assure you that the slashdot reference mentioned is no BAD joke. Itsmeront (talk) 03:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure you're understanding the point of the relevant policies. The point behind requiring that sources have a proven and verifiable record for fact checking and accuracy is so we don't impose our personal editorial judgments. Mainstream media sources have such a record. Slashdot, Reddit and blogs, all sites with user-submitted content and with no third-party editorial factchecking taking place, do not, and it is not one bit harder to link to "crap" on those sites as to any other part. I see very little use for WP:V, one of the core content policies of this encyclopedia, to be thrown out just because there are -- or you claim that there are, anyway -- computer programmers whose lives would be made easier by Wikipedia ceasing to have standards. Ravenswing 05:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again you are completely missing the point. This has nothing to do with fact checking or reliability. This has only to do with notability and now usefulness (it is hard to argue that once an article has been accepted because it is both reliable and notable, that links to useful content can not be included as references, especially if they are removed without the editor even reading them). If hundreds of people upvote something and take the time to discuss and comment on it, in a community like new programming languages, how can you say it is not notable. While slashdot does accept user-generated content, as does Wikipedia, it is reviewed by experts. The upvoting and subsequent promotion to the front page, is an indication of editorial fact-checking, the editors at slashdot create summaries of useful content. If someone says that Slashdot is an indication of notability it should be ALLOWED to be considered. If someone sites articles and comments in Slashdot in references as useful, they should be considered. If someone cites slashdot as the only source for reliability or verifiability it CAN be discounted, but even then, editors should at least READ the slashdot content. Please stop confusing Reliability with Notability. Itsmeront (talk)
I have a .sig I generally use on VBulletin-type forums. It runs "It's not that I don't understand what you're saying. It's that I don't agree with what you're saying." Let me phrase this as simply as possible: I am not contesting that Slashdot and Reddit are notable websites. They obviously are, and they have Wikipedia articles with lots of qualifying sources attesting to their notability. I dispute that they meet Wikipedia standards for being reliable sources -- it seems you're the one confusing "reliability" with "notability" -- and the notion that upvotes and comment sections constitute "editorial fact-checking" is frankly laughable. With that, I don't think there's anything more useful to say on the subject other than to point out that not a single editor seems to agree with your POV. Ravenswing 19:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have still not provided an argument against except to say that it is laughable. Before you write this off and talk for all Wikipedia editors, I'd ask you to consider the effect the lack of this policy is having on Wikipedia. Editors are currently running roughshod over programming and seriously contributing to bit rot by deleting articles. Sources of information that were and are in my opinion quite notable are being deleted by way of a lack of understanding in this area. I've noticed a number of places where information really should be corrected but who in there right mind would go through the trouble, just to be told their understanding of a topic is laughable.
My contention is that this is extremely unfortunate. Again I would urge others to speak up because this has nothing to do with Reddit or Slashdot being notable websites. Itsmeront (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant policy is WP:RS, specifically Self-published sources. We want articles to use sourcing that has come from publications that have shown a history of fact checking and editorial control. Slashdot, reddit, etc. do not have that at all, and add to the fact these sites specifically have a voting/rating system to promote stories and content, that means they are very far from a reliable source. If the only sign of notability was through these sources, we would not be able to have any RSes for the article and as such would fail content policy. --MASEM (t) 20:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we agree that Slashdot does not apply to WP:RS. Is someone arguing that a NOTABLE subject must be allowed to be published on Wikipedia? I'm not saying that, nor do I think I can be misunderstood to be saying that. We agree that WP:RS AND WP:NOTE are required before an article can survive a request for deletion. I am only discussing WP:NOTE and I'm not aware of a policy that says WP:NOTE is sufficient without WP:RS. If I am wrong here I will happily remove my request. Itsmeront (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V is the relevant policy - articles must be based on WP:RS. What you are asking is that allow an article where the only sourcing - the same sourcing that is used to establish that the topic is notable - for the article is coming from SPS , non-RS sources that are judged on popularity and not importance. --MASEM (t) 20:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure anyone here is quite sure what you're proposing, Itsmeront. Let me ask a question or two: Right now, Notability is determined by, basically, this criteria (from GNG), "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Are you proposing:

  • Option 1: That Newsblogs, Expert Blogs, and community size should, without regard to reliability, be able to be used as sources in an article?
  • Option 2: That Newsblogs, Expert Blogs, and community size should only be used in an article if reliable, but should (or should be able to be) considered, even if not reliable, in deciding whether an article which may not otherwise meet the notability guidelines (i.e. may not have sufficient reliable sources) should be retained in (a) a deletion discussion (such as AFD) or (b) an articles for creation request or (c) both? (Those being the two primary situations in which notability becomes an issue.)
  • Option 3: Something else (if so, please explain).

I would note, hopefully just in passing, that Newsblogs and Expert Blogs are not necessarily non-reliable. Some are and some aren't: See NEWSBLOG for what we call newsblogs (though I think you may be using the term in a different way) and SPS for (among other things) blogs by experts as we define them here. Community size is, however, not reliable unless discussed in a reliable source. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you TransporterMan (TALK). In the argument we had on nim, I showed that blogs were written by experts, People that have been published in RS on the subject matter. Those are the blog entries deleted by Be..anyone should have been "considered" as potential Reliable Sources based on your policies. I would agree with Option 2: with some clarification. If an article has been established as Reliable, through whatever means, that editors should read links that are proposed to be indications of notability. (to answer the charge that an article should not exist because it is not notable in a deletion discussion) I would say that after a reading if an argument can be made that the news aggregator, expert blog, or community size presented is not reliable, then it can and should be thrown out. I would also like to say that useful references in a reliable article, should not be deleted, again unless an argument is made that the content is not reliable. I'm not sure how a blog that compares and contrasts Object oriented programming and how to use NIM to replicate features in other languages would qualify as unreliable. See the 4 part article here: [|Nim and OO]).
I would like to clarify RS comments, but really didn't want to do it here or now because I didn't want to confuse the issue. Some of the deletions above occurred, in my opinion, when nobody was watching. Saying that a published dissertation, is a self-published and, therefore, a non-reliable resource is ridiculous. Deciding that since a primary resource is no longer available online is not sufficient, in my opinion, to compound the problem of bit rot on the internet. I understand that where Open Source community work is concerned, there is a very high, almost too high bar, to climb before Wikipedia will consider the sources reliable. I also think that is a mistake since there is not likely to be reliable third party coverage. In the case of nim your normal editorial policies, if followed, should have been enough to prove RS. What concerns me here is that even after the editors decided there was enough reliable third party coverage, that they then changed to an argument that it was not notable. That aside I could also make the argument that for open source communities your requirements for RS do not make sense. I made the argument earlier that some of the software used to create Wikipedia would not qualify to be included in Wikipedia, but I'm satisfied with your Break All Rules and other policy exceptions that exist to allow someone to make an argument. What I was unable to do was answer the argument of Notability with what I consider to be Reliable indications of a large community, significant community coverage in Blogs, Reddit, YCombinator, and Slashdot, because when I said Slashdot everyone laughed. It is very short sited and a bad excuse for what I would call laziness, to not read the reference just because it contained the name Slashdot.
One last comment about programming languages. Alan Kay is known for many things, but one very important argument that he has made over and over is that the present is not based on the past. The present is based on only parts of the past. There is very valuable information lost when we think we understand where things come from. To really understand programming, and it's history, you should start by researching the past and inventing a future that is different than the future we currently live in. By deleting the past because you can not find current third party reliable resources, you are harming the future. I believe that it is in Wikipedia's best interest to address some of these issues, instead of alienating open source software developers. Every time I discuss this outside of Wikipedia, I get the same answer. The editors are just nuts don't waste your time. Itsmeront (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • TransporterMan (TALK I just read your comment more closely (including GNG) (sorry I didn't read closer the first time) and it seems that indeed Notability is very closely entwined into Reliability. So the argument that reliable sources were presented but they were not significant enough to provide notability (because only reliable third party sources, according to GNG, can be considered for Notability). In open source software development, there will always be very limited third party coverage and lots of other coverage that cause Wikipedia Editors to stick their collective noses in the air. Based on this definition I doubt that Wikipedia can actually be useful for documenting open source software development, history and advancments. It is a shame that Notability is so closely entwined into RS. That seems wrong to me but I have been corrected and I understand why my comments were so confusing. Thank you for taking the time to point it out. My suggestion is that in cases where some reliable sources exist, agreed limited in number, that notability be extended to "allow" the consideration of community size (actual size not third party reported size), news aggregator popularity, and expert blogs, to demonstrate that a community exists and that people are interested enough that an article in Wikipedia would be useful (my definition of Notability). Also, the policy should change such that useful information added to articles be allowed to stay unless the content is read by editors and an argument against the content being unreliable is made. "Deleted because this is slashdot, what a joke", edits should be discouraged. I'm happy that Nim is at least temporarily saved from the chopping block, but the article is definitely less useful then it could be now that useful links have been removed. Thank you again for your consideration. Itsmeront (talk) 03:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC I've removed 3 of 4 softpedia references introduced by me on MKVToolNix after it survived a speedy within 43 seconds, with PROD + AFD on the same day. Dogfood, similarly I cleaned up the Nim references after it survived a similar procedure plus deletion review, where I supported keep, added {{Openhub}}, and converted external link OSCON to {{cite web}}. If you disagree be bold, etc., it's a wiki. –Be..anyone (talk) 04:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Be..anyone (talk), actually I think your edits made the article better. Thank you for doing them. Those edits were fine. What I object to is removing slashdot and reddit, and the comment you removed reddit is imcomplete becuase you also removed very useful links to expert blog articles. By deleting these links you made the article much less useful for anyone that visits Nim on Wikipedia.
  • 02:40, 4 May 2015‎ Be..anyone . . (10,732 bytes) (-272)‎ . . (slashdot reference dismissed as BAD joke, willing to report more jokes on AN/I) (undo | thank)
  • 02:11, 4 May 2015‎ Be..anyone‎ . . (10,871 bytes) (-349)‎ . . (reddit removed) (undo | thank) links to expert blogs were also removed.
All three slashdot, reddit and the blogs are not jokes. They are useful discussions and solutions to real problems encountered by people using the program. Thank you for your keep argument! Itsmeront (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am completely opposed to use of any social media sites lacking professional editorial control and a reputation for accuracy, fact checking and correcting errors for the purpose of establishing notability on Wikipedia. We need reliable, independent sources for that purpose, and I am unaware of any social media site that meets that standard. If it is "reliable" then it cannot be "social" since social sites allow any passing jackass to post their ill-informed opinions. No, no, a thousand times no to the misguided notion that notability of a topic for inclusion in an encyclopedia can be established by faddish chatter on social media sites. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I'm begining to get the drift here that my cause is hopeless. You are completely wrong in your assesment of social media when it comes to software development, but I don't think that wikipedia editors are going to understand the difference. A community that forms around something like open source projects is not comprised of passing jackasses, infact without some of those jackasses as you call them you wouldn't be spreading YOUR stupid opinions on Wikipedia. Itsmeront (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One Last Try Hi all. I would like to give this one last try and ask for your help to come up with an editorial policy that addresses these issues. First I would like to say that I am a programmer that owns a company that writes software for the government, colleages and universities around the world, and Fortune 100 to Fortune 10 companies. I lead a cryptography open source group in Squeak Smalltalk, and implemented the SHA256 and was responsible for the first implementation of TLS on squeak. I also have a patent on Peer to Peer databases. I know a bit of what I'm talking about, but don't consider myself a reliable source based on your policies. So feel free to disregard all that.

For people that work in and with open source programs, there is a tremendous amount of research required. We scour sources for useful information, not only for gems of software, but for advice on the proper usage, benefits and performance improvements. When your company relies on decisions you make you have to be very careful and get the answer right, or you will spend a lot of money trying to do something that will end up failing because you missed some nuance or idea and ran head first into a wall. In other words, Open Source Programmers are like Wikipedia Editors on steroids.

I'm currently working on Anti-Aliasing. So for something that might be a bit more current I figured I would have a look and see what Wikipedia says about FXAA. The answer is not much. I was even surprised to see that FXAA was mentioned at all. I had a look at reliable news sources and did find some information on FXAA so I guess that there is an article at all makes sense. The problem I'm trying to address here is that FXAA is a revolution in Anti-aliasing. It's not a stub, or low importance new development. It changes Anti-aliasing from something that you would expect to decrease performance by 400% to something that is only around 17% performance penalty. It also changes the methodology so that even shaders are Anti-aliased. Something current models, what Wikipedia points to as state of the art, does not.

Now it doesn't stop there, have a look at FXAA2 and FXAA3, something that Wikipedia knows nothing about. The problem here that I'm trying to address with a change to Wikipedia editorial policy is that FXAA2 and 3 are both well reviewed and provable. You can look at a huge number of expert blogs, news aggregators, and even twitter [[1]] to realize that a major change is happening in computer graphics.

When we develop software we are searching for software projects to use. Those projects will start out with a few developers, and if it is useful people will start blogging about it, more people will join the effort and it will grow in popularity. It may never be popular enough to be included in third party sources, but it can still be wildly popular in other sources. Many of these programs will get picked up and used in much more popular programs (like the software the runs Wikipedia). While I don't expect to see reliable third party coverage of FXAA, these programs will also not have major coverage but will have a major impact in software development. Having some of these, wildly popular, software projects listed on Wikipedia would make Wikipedia much more useful for developers, historians, and the curious.

I also believe strongly in the notion that noteworthiness is not temporary. Failed open source projects are still notable. Their failure may have nothing to do with the quality of the idea, but instead, the amount of time spent. Deleting things like Obol, or simula2 is just wrong. It does a disservice to history.

Again I would ask your help to improve Wikipedia, by considering how the editorial policy can be changed, such that the history of open source development can be better represented, and captured. I probably shouldn't have used the term Social Media since I was somewhat aware that the term was toxic here, but it seemed to apply. Maybe a better term for this is required. Itsmeront (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But again, we build articles on reliable sources written by experts, not social media sources. This will mean some topics will go undiscussed even if there is a large number of people interested in it. (Case in point, we definitely do not cover every popular Internet meme, only ones that get noted in RSes). Open source is the same thing, though that said, there are tech magazines aimed at the programming side that can be used. For example, your FXAA concept, I do see reliable sources discussing it, you just need to know what are the reliable sources in those areas, such as HardOCP, CNet, and other "hardware" tech sites.
What happens more in open source is that because anyone can start an open source project, we cannot just let any open source project with an article, as that's the equivalent of self promotion. We need the secondary sources of reliability to notice the project and talk about it. Most open source projects will go by the wayside per our rules as a general encyclopedia. But this should not stop you from creating a different wiki elsewhere that is geared towards open source projects. --MASEM (t) 19:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with FXAA that there are reliable sources, but not for FXAA2 or FXAA3. The question here is not about ANY open source project. It is about open source programs that are making enough of a difference to gain a large community, significant non-third party coverage, but a large amount of coverage in other media sources. For Wikipedia, these programs don't exist, but they are extremely important outside Wikipedia. The question is how can the policy be changed such that these important developments that are not chronicled in Wikipedia and will probably not be chronicled in third party sources be ALLOWED to be considered.
I know this is a very steep hill to climb, and if not considered now, the issue will eventually come up again from someone that can make a better argument than I, when third party coverage declines more. Itsmeront (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my take on this... there is no need to change the policy. If a development really is important, it will (eventually) be discussed in reliable third party (independent) sources... and when that occurs, Wikipedia will "allow" that important development to be chronicled. Of course... if the development never does end up being discussed by reliable independent sources, then we have to question whether it really is as "important" as we assumed it was. In the meantime, we don't know if the development is actually important or not. We have to wait and see. Blueboar (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Blueboar (talk). Thank you for your comment I agree that is exactly the state of things today, if policy doesn't change. My argument is that you are missing important developments and that is unfortunate. Am I the only person that sees declining coverage in thrid party sources for non entertainment topics like this? Maybe I have not really made the point well that the issue is compounded by the change in the media landscape. This is just an example.
Why?
Why would a well-known site, dearly loved by its readers and coming off a year of record page views, be sunset by its owner?
In one word, revenue.
The landscape is changing and this type of third party coverage is being replaced by citizen journalism, which good or bad is not considered reliable by Wikipedia. As this trend continues things will get worse and eventually Wikipedia will need to change it policy, or failing that decided to record all the articles on 8 track tapes and move on. (please take that as the joke intended) Itsmeront (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We do recognize that, as we allow blog-type websites that have shown the qualities of traditional print journalism to be used as reliable sources for topics. But they need to have a history to evaluate and an editor pool that reviews all submissions, as to avoid the traditional issues associated with self-published sources. Things like Slashdot do not qualify for that. --MASEM (t) 22:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am getting tired of Itsmeront copying and pasting this: [2] from an AfD I participated in over a month ago into countless locations throughout Wikipedia. Should I expect to be talked about in several threads over the coming months or can I get an admin to tell this guy to WP:DROPTHESTICK already? ― Padenton|✉   23:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Itsmeront, you say: "... you are missing important developments and that is unfortunate." How are we to know which developments are important and which are not? Again, if a development really is important, it will get covered by the sort of sources we require... it may take time, but it will happen eventually. Given this, the policy isn't going to change any time soon. Get over it. Blueboar (talk) 01:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Blueboar (talk) I apologize if I offended you with the comment "get over it" to Padenton. It was "code especially for him" since I'm currently trying to tell him that his actions, Like telling people to "get over it" are inappropriate. It's hard to keep emotions out of arguments with bullies. I should not have said it here and I apologize. I think I also called someone's ideas stupid after he called open source developers jackasses. That was also inappropriate. I apologize for that too. The answer to your question is, if your question was serious, is that policy should "ALLOW" but not "REQUIRE" Wikipedia editors to make the decision. The question is mostly notably in my mind, but as pointed out, reliability is also important. Experts in software design can read expert blogs and decide if they are reliable. The front page of news aggregators, or a large community, working on software is another indication, but there should not be hard and fast rules because there is no one answer here. Expert blogs and news aggregators can be unreliable so, reading the citations first, then making an argument about reliability seems the best course. Right now, there is no way to make an argument that something is notable, even when it is, and should be in my opinion, notable for Wikipedia. Your policy currently prohibits the consideration of these factors, in the minds of most editors. Again I apologize if I offended you. Itsmeront (talk) 01:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this indeed is Itsmeront's "one last try," huzzah (and may we take him at his word?), because the TL;DR rendition of his argument seems to be "It doesn't matter how many of you disagree with me, I'm right, you're all wrong, so how do we go about changing the policy to reflect my POV regardless?" Unfortunately for his effort, Wikipedia still isn't a web host, and I don't foresee that changing just because it might make life easier for some computer programmers.

    Quite aside from Itsmeront's airy suggestion that the way around the consensus concerning social media is to come up with some term for it that won't be recognized by enough editors, I'm with Blueboar: if said "developments" are important enough to be covered by mainstream media or in published, reliable works, that's not only the standard in place for importance, it's the way it's always been on Wikipedia. I'm quite comfortable with that standard. Plainly, Itsmeront, you disagree, but the rest of us do not agree with you, and nearly two weeks' worth of filibustering as to how overwhelmingly important your hobby horse is hasn't changed that. It's long past time for you to lose gracefully and move on. Ravenswing 02:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ravenswing Thank you for your comment. You have made your opinions clear. The only objection I would make, and I do understand your point, is calling it a hobby horse. I have come and edited Wikipedia a total of Two times and in both those cases I have run into significant challenges. This time much more than the last, but I would hardly call my call for change some sort of Hobby or Hobby horse argument. Having someone that is not in your club make a suggestion should not be something you take lightly. Most people will never come to Wikipedia and attempt to navigagte through the challenges I'm discussing here. I come with a suggestion, not a cause. When I'm eventually voted down I'll leave this alone. Until then I'm not sure why you feel you need to denegrate instead of argue the point. I have heard your point also and undestodd and thank you for at least particpating in the discussion. That is more than most people here, which I undestand, in your point of view, I should assume means that people don't agree or disagree enough to participate. Fair enough. The length of the argument in an archive I'm sure will not cost much in terms of hard drive space. Itsmeront (talk) 03:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ItsMeRonT Criteria for OpenSource

I thought I would answer the question from Blueboar (talk) in more detail.

How are we to know which developments are important and which are not?

Instead of answering the question of how should Wikipedia editors encountering AfD about open source projects judge what is important, I thought I would give you my criteria. Given that there is insufficient Third Party reliable coverage.

  1. Does it work: a stub or an idea for projects is not sufficient. There should be evidence that the software does something useful, not just promises to do something useful in the future.
  2. Has it be around for a while: something that just showed up should not have an article. Most projects will be in development for a long while before they become useful for anyone to use.
  3. Evaluate the size of the community: This is more an art than a science. In most cases, a community will form and grow around useful projects. It is possible for one guy to write something perfectly the first time that doesn't need to change, but that is rare, it is also possible that the project is picked up by another project or forked by another group, which would account for the community size stabilizing or shinking. Those cases actually prove notability and should be considered. In general check to see that there is a large community and it seems to be growing.
  4. Does the project have a liberal license: Wikipedia needs to watch for advertising or self-promotion. A liberal license, like the MIT License, means that the community does not earn any money from their work. Anyone can take the code and do anything with it. (Much like Wikipedia). A license like GPL, or LGPL, can be sold by the license holder under separate terms. In other words the more liberal the license the less chance of self-promotion.
  5. Are people interested: Evaluate the quantity and quality of the expert blogs and news aggregators to see if people are discussing it. What they say is as important as how many people are saying it. You can judge the importance of a project by reading what people are saying.
  6. Validate claims: This is like make sure it works but more detailed. Claims for performance improvements, novel functionality, should be verified by a number of people on different platforms (if applicable). Developers like proof and real performance numbers. If a 20% performance improvement is claimed it should be simple enough to find real numbers that prove or disprove that claim. If the project is useful because it claims to do X find proof that the software does X.

If all of these are checked off the project should be notable enough for Wikipedia. (According to Ron). Itsmeront (talk)

What you need to keep in mind is at the end of the day, every article needs to have third-party sourcing to be kept. Notability is a presumption that that sourcing exists and is significant for topics that are not otherwise immediately apparent. Everything that's been discussed in this so far implies that for the bulk of these projects, there just isn't any third-party sourcing that meets our reliability requirements; forum posts and news aggregators are not reliable as explained. We don't care how popular or how many followers an open source project has - if third-parties have not written about it, we can't either. This is how we avoid pet projects and small-group self-promotion (the same logic you are using here would allow for garage bands, and local restaurants and businesses to be included). We are not an indiscriminate collection of information, and trying to document every open source project simply is outside our scope. Wikias and other sites are better suited for this. --MASEM (t) 19:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks MASEM (t) that is very well stated. I agree with your scope argument. For the case I'm talking about is there any solution for the declining third-party media coverage? Do you think that it doesn't matter, is not declining, or is not bad enough yet to do something about? Itsmeront (talk) 19:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've pointed out before that in many areas where traditional print-based coverage is dying, new media online sources are thriving, and thus these are becoming our new RSes for verifyability and notability. This is particularly true for the tech areas, so for example, like video games, there's only a handful of actual print sources, but a plethera of online ones that started as blogs and proved their worth in time. I don't know enough in the open source world if there is similar nature, but it is also a more esoteric area (knowledge tends to be limited to the small group in that area) and thus that can be a problem. WP cannot correct the fact that where there used to be sources like Dr. Dobbs that no one has come along to replace that in a reliable manner. --MASEM (t) 19:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough thank you for your comments. I think the problem I'm pointing out is that the reliable sources are not commercial or news orgs. Expert blogs in this field are taking the place of print or even online news sources. The issue with finding them to be reliable is that a few experts become the RS for one topic. Becuase it's a single topic it's unlikely to be encountered enough for Wikipedia to consider it reliable. I agree with your points though. Hopefully, you are right and some media online source will find a way to make money off open source development enough to write about it and become a RS. Itsmeront (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Single topic blogs can become reliable sources, but it takes time and hopefully notice by others that the blog is an expert in that area. --MASEM (t) 20:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MASEM (t), I would like to think you are correct in your assessment of the evolution of RS's but I fear you are wrong. Here is an example I posted which I would think should have qualified. Notice the pains I took to prove that this was an expert blog.

His work on Croquet is equally notable. Notice it was picked up by [Lisa Rein] Lisa Rein is a co-founder of Creative Commons, a video blogger at On Lisa Rein's Radar, and a singer-songwriter-musician at lisarein.com. She is also a freelance journalist, writing for publications such as OpenP2P.com, XML.com, Wired News, CNET, Web Review, Web Techniques and many others.

And the predictable response:

You just don't know the rules and so far as I can tell, you don't care. You're too busy filibustering the same points over and over, completely oblivious to what the guidelines define as reliable sources, etc. This "20th" source is more of the same worthless blog material. Even if you're born with brains, you are not born with skill or knowledge and that's what's missing. Very missing. What makes it worse is you ignore everything anyone tells you that doesn't match your opinion, making it unlikely you will ever gain the knowledge you don't have.

Itsmeront (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonably Detailed expectation on top of notability.

Propose in WP:NSONG it states. "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed' article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." I believe that this is a healthy addition to the policy. Articles should be notable, and verifiable. but they should also be significant enough to merit a reasonably detailed article. I propose that this advice is added to the general notability guideline. Bryce Carmony (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rather vague about size. How short would be too short? What happens with articles are short but have nowhere to merge them to? Dream Focus 23:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
from WP:STUB "A stub is an article deemed too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject.". Per WP:5 Wikipedia is an encyclopedia the only reason we don't delete every stub for being unencylopedic by nature is that WP:DINC deletion isn't cleanup, there are stubs that could be more than a stub and just haven't been developed. but if only a stub amount of information exists than it is not able to be covered by an encyclopedia. that is why the wording "Articles unlikely to every grow beyond stubs should be merged" is worth adding to the notability guideline. It isn't subjective its just following policy Bryce Carmony (talk) 13:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC) Proposal withdrawn.Bryce Carmony (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't think this would be helpful. "Reasonable" is too subjective and too likely to turn on whether you like it or not. Anyway, WP:GNG already demands "significant coverage" that "addresses the topic directly and in detail". I think that's clear enough as it stands. Msnicki (talk) 23:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reasonably isn't any more subjective than "Significant" but the two together create a clearer picture. And how long an article can be written isn't dependent on if you like it or not so I find the link to I like it tenuous at best. Bryce Carmony (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have your opinion, I have mine. The point is, I don't agree with yours and I've given my reason. Msnicki (talk) 14:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose only because WP:PERMASTUB covers this better. This also extends from the idea of "presumption" of notability - it means we allow articles, even stubs, if there is sourcing that meets GNG or a SNG, but it is not required that we keep that article if nothing more can come for it. --MASEM (t) 14:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: I am confused by the proposal. Are your suggesting this be added to the Notability Guideline or the Notability Guideline (Music) which you link to above?--Mike Cline (talk) 14:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Bruce, thanks. The concept of "reasonably detailed" has very little meaning as it is too subjective given the total depth and breath of topics contained in WP. What is reasonably detailed for one topic area might be completely inadequate in another. The hurdle of GNG and notability is already difficult to explain to new contributors and gets interpreted inconsistently by experienced editors on a regular basis. If our goal is to build the encyclopedia, then adding another vague hurdle to inclusion serves no purpose. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • People keep saying that "reasonably detailed" has no meaning when it does. it's defined as "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs" So the more we define the nature of a stub the more meaning reasonable detail will have.
  • Because notability is the sole criteria for if a topic should have an article. and in GNG we currently offer a useless totology. A noteworthy article is Significant. what is the definition of significant? oh right, it's something that is noteworthy.... insignificant is defined as being small so let's use a metric of size (in this case something more than a stub) to mean significant. The criteria is too low which is why websites can easly pay editors to write articles for money for people. Bryce Carmony (talk) 17:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Change "Extract the content" to "write an article with the content"

Proposal change "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." to read "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to write an article with the content.

Reasoning

Original research in extracting content is fine, what isn't fine is using original research in the writing of an article. I think this minor rewrite is more inline with the purpose and use of the guideline. what "extracting content" is, I do not know, but every editor knows what writing an article is. Bryce Carmony (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Completely unnecessary. The problem isn't that WP:GNG isn't already pretty crystal clear about what's required and why, it's that people don't read it or insist their favorite topic is important and merits an exception. The proposed language also seems to introduce some unnecessary confusion. We need reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability, but this language ambiguously suggests that that's all that can be used to write the article. That's not true. Once notability has been established, it's perfectly legitimate to use primary sources in limited ways, e.g., to establish routine facts. For example, we've dated when Bash (Unix shell) was released by the author's Usenet newsgroup post announcing it, even though that's clearly a primary source. What we try hard (not always successfully) to avoid is for WP:BARELY notable topics to become excuses for WP:WEBHOSTING and WP:SPAM. Again, I think the guidelines are fine, if only everyone read them and was willing to cooperate. I don't see how this proposed change helps. Msnicki (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to correct my choice of words. Msnicki (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because the guideline is crystal clear, can you explain to me (or any other editor) what the hell "Extract the content" means.Bryce Carmony (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It means summarize the information and write the article. Msnicki (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's motivating two proposals within a day to make very specific changes to the language of WP:N? Absent some indication that there is widespread confusion over what this language means (not just the proposer's confusion), I don't see that there's any problem that needs fixing. postdlf (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • An example would be using the Daily Show's news reports as a "reliable" source. They present news stories in full on satire mode and not a direct manner. Without knowledge of what are news and what are jokes, it would be impossible to extract the factual aspects of Daily Show coverage for use on WP. Obviously we'd could use other sources to help figure out the line between fact and humor to do that, but why not use those sources then? --MASEM (t) 18:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conflating significance and reliable? There's only 5 criteria laid out for "meriting an article" and you want to make 2 of them more or less the same thing? The problem is this, The guideline is too low, so AFD is overloaded, because AFD is overloaded paid editors can write with an agenda for money. now, you might say that you continue to not see a problem. but I do. Notability is the sole criteria for an article. We should consider all coverage, and then consider the makeup of that coverage between primary and secondary sources, having 2 criteria is better than having 1 criteria. We take it step by step and work our way towards a guideline that resembles notability for a encyclopedia, then we can delete articles easier, then it's easier to stop paid editors. Significant coverage should deal with avoiding original research and synthases not overlapping reliability. Bryce Carmony (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You asked what "extract the info" means, I gave an example. If a source obfuscates its information that requires more than standard reading skills to use, it is not a good source per notability guidelines. --MASEM (t) 00:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • To add: I never said The Daily Show was unreliable. They have people researching the news, and I would probably defend them purely on reliability for them if there was an argument about their fact-checking/editorial ability. But what they also have are good writers to take the fact, add in colorful humor, and thus make a popular show. It makes it very hard to pull out the truth from the humor (even when half the time the humor is clearly delineated from fact), and thus making the source not usable under policy. --MASEM (t) 14:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try to explain in a different way... The fact that X is the subject of a joke on the Daily Show actually might go towards establishing notability (the fact that X is the subject of a joke on such a popular TV comedy show would mean that lots and lots of people know of X). However (and this is important), in order to state this notability in an article, and avoid Original Research, you need sources other than the Daily Show itself to note and comment upon the fact that the Daily Show made fun of X.
to put it another way... It would be Original Research for you or me to watch the Daily Show and extract the fact that X has been satirized on the Daily Show, and then use this fact to establish notability in an article by writing "X has been satirized on the Daily Show". On the other hand, if a reliable major entertainment magazine such as Rolling Stone notes that X has been made fun of on the Daily Show, then we can write "X has been satirized on the Daily Show: and cite Rolling Stone for that fact... and this would probably be enough to establish the notability of X. That does not mean we must have an article on X... but it means we can have one. Blueboar (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A joke on the Daily Show is not "significant coverage". So that's not a problem at all. A brief mention about it elsewhere wouldn't count towards the notability of the article's subject. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1] As for what is in the article itself, you can easily find either a reliable source saying the person was satired on the show, or the primary source of the show itself is acceptable if there is no reason to doubt it. They mention what they've done on their website, or even having the transcripts online for people to reference, or list the information on a DVD collection of that season's episodes. If the episode or a video clip showing this is available online, then you can link to that as evidence. Dream Focus 19:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A (single) joke on the Daily Show isn't significant coverage... but an ongoing, recurring series of jokes (a "gag") can be. How do we know if we have crossed the threshold from insignificant to significant?... the "gag" gets mentioned by other sources. Blueboar (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a real concern? By the time it makes it into a long Daily Show episode, don't you suppose it'll be all over the legitimate press? Is it really likely there could be an occasion where you'd need to use the Daily Show to establish notability? Msnicki (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While a joke on the Daily Show might not be significant, something like John Oliver's "Last Week Tonight" , which is done in a similar vein but stays on one topic for 20-some minutes would definitely count as significant coverage, save for the fact its humor obfuscates the content. --MASEM (t) 19:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "extract the content" relates to the requirement that coverage be "direct and in detail" in order to be significant. "Extract the content" is a helpful phrase because it implies some effort in discerning and "removing" facts (i.e., article content) from a source. Let's take a better hypothetical involving the use of news stories to establish the notability of a company. If a story does not cover Company A "in detail", it may not offer anything substantive worth writing an article about, such as the bland statement that "Company A does business in Foo City". Or it may be praiseworthy but in the form of vague generalities, such as "people in Foo City know the name 'Company A'", or "Company A has been a boon to Foo City", neither of which statement is concrete enough to extract any real article content (compare with "Company A has been the largest private employer in Foo City for two decades"). The requirement that coverage be "direct" means that it can't merely imply something about Company A (or to take the Daily Show example, can't be obscured by a satirical or humorous characterization). Say there's a news story generally about the growth of Foo City's economy, one sentence of which lists Company A and a few other companies operating in Foo City. As the story has not expressly attributed economic growth to Company A, it would be OR to extract anything from that story about Company A beyond "it operates in Foo City", as direct coverage would be a mere mention.

Given how many language-altering proposals the OP has made recently on this page and others (all apparently based on nothing more than personal confusion or preference, rather than any experience of problems in the community at large), I think they should in the future post open-ended questions about how to better understand the language and ask if anyone else also has an issue with it. Formal proposals are a bad way to go about this as they presuppose there is a problem that needs solving and then attempt to limit discussion to yea or nay on a particular solution. And if you don't understand what something means then you can't reasonably know how it should be changed. postdlf (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Truncate to "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed. because the final clause is superfluous. The key point here is that we want detail about the topic. The stuff about OR is a rationale or justification and doesn't require elaboration. See WP:CREEP. Andrew D. (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with this suggestion of removing the final clause. "Extract the content" is jargon at best—I've never heard anyone in the real world say something like, "You can learn more about the UK election by extracting the content from the BBC's special section on its website." But the meaning is wrong, too: original research is not a way to gather information from a source. isaacl (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle. The existing language does confuse people. In fact, I'd be happy with removing all reference to NOR. The only (dubious) explanation I've ever heard was that it was meant to stop people from collating tweets to come up with statements that aren't "directly" in any of them—and that's already covered by "directly" (and, incidentally, prohibited by NOR). It adds nothing that we wouldn't have anyway. But if we can't shorten it, then I favor dumping the "extract the content" language and adding something like "so that it is possible to write more than a doomed permastub about the subject without violating either WP:V or WP:NOR, and without using any self-published or non-independent sources" (because if the only way to write more than three sentences is to rely on the BLP's or company website, then you have given UNDUE weight to the subject's POV, no matter how neutral-sounding it is). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a standard to determine "credible and authoritative books"

If some books from a publisher qualify, does every single book they publish automatically qualify without question? Are is it a case by case example based on the opinions of whoever is in the AFD at the time? If a writer with no other publications publishes a book he made containing nothing but 21 interviews with various people from YouTube or elsewhere, does that count towards the notability of every single person in his book? Dream Focus 13:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no hard or fast guideline. Books should be considered case by case, even if from a normally reputable publisher. Keep in mind that today, there are a lot of publishers that simply offer to take a manuscript, clean it up for printing, and print limited runs or even electronic copies of books, with no editorial control. So in the case of the example, an unknown author providing interviews from YouTube personalities, that might help to contribute to notability but far far from sufficient to pass notability for any of those people. But if it is augmenting a lot of other clear sources for notability, it's probably fine. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just one interview in a magazine, and then this book having the guy interviewed in it, is all he has. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David L. Jones Some argue that is enough. If the book isn't from a university press, but a company that exists for profit only, and it is not notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article, I don't see why it'd be used to prove someone is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Does anyone agree or disagree with me on that? I'd like some feedback to see if we can change the guideline page to say that or not. Dream Focus 14:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's enough to avoid immediate deletion but there absolutely needs to be more sources. Just because the book press is a commercial one does not make it a bad source, but I do worry about the press's narrow coverage of electronics and programming (eg I question a bit about its independence). But this type of case would routinely be kept per "no consensus" on the basis that more sources need to be found with reasonable time for that, or else the next challenge will likely go through. --MASEM (t) 14:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ending in "no consensus" does not mean it'll be any different if it was brought up again later. I guess any YouTube person who wants their own article, can just interview other YouTube people, easily get that published since they have YouTube fans and surely a few copies would be sold, and then use that to count towards notability. Dream Focus 15:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, AFD is weighted towards retention of articles if there is doubt to deletion. I agree with you on the sources there not passing the usual requirements for notability we'd expect in a developed article, but they also point to the possibly more sources could exist. If after some time no new sources are found, that likely indicated the presumption was wrong and we can delete the article then. (And this should not be a hard matter of actually getting hands on sources, being a social media star purportedly) --MASEM (t) 15:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Someone found a source showing how popular he was. He is the 8,574th most subscribed to YouTuber, and has the 14,684th most viewed videos lately. So thousands more articles can be created for the rest I suppose. Most of those participating in the AFD are his fans, most of the KEEP votes from those who didn't give a valid reason, and said so before even the one magazine interview and the book of interviews was found. We need to just pass a rule saying as soon as you get above a certain number of YouTube subscribers you get a Wikipedia article to help promote you. Dream Focus 15:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A stat saying he's 8,575th most subscribed is not significant coverage. And if there are fans that are new editors participating for this AFD only this should be noted in the AFD. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm.... Non-notable commercial publisher. Are you sure it's a real (third-party-type) publisher, and not the author's own publishing company? Starting a "publishing company" these days is (much) easier than starting a restaurant or barber shop (no licenses needed, for one thing). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Their Wikipedia article says they were started by two writers, and changed their name from Author's Press to Apress. Their official website mentions various bestsellers they have had in the educational category. [3] Anyway, how do you determine if a publisher is notable or not? Should it be based on how many of their books sell well or get reviews? Dream Focus 01:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This might get to the point of your question, in that we have to consider the accumulation of all the details of sources, and not necessarily if a source is necessarily good or bad. (Clearly there are some, like SPS, that we can discount immediately). The book and the magazine, individually, aren't bad sources, but they're not strong sources. Together, they beg the question if this person is notable beyond the small niche these sources cover. --MASEM (t) 02:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extradition history by countries

The extradition Treaty signed between the United States and other countries allows the United States to request from countries that have signed the Extradition Treaty to extradite persons who are wanted by the United States Security Authorities for criminal offences.

The United States have over the years exploited this treaty to request from countries it has signed this extradition treaty with to send back offenders for prosecution in the United States. A list of these countries and the number of extradition is currently not available.

Study is currently on to compile the records and feature it in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marchooo (talk • contribs) 08:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marchooo, What does this have to do with the Wikipedia guideline on Notability? DES (talk) 16:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability&oldid=664132525"