Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise

RfC: Notability compromise

WP:Notability is a guideline that determines which articles should be included in Wikipedia. This guideline has withstood several disputes, although it is unclear exactly how this guideline should be interpreted. The General Notability Guideline states that a topic is notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject (or, more succinctly, coverage in reliable third-party sources). Even though editors generally accept this as true, there are two issues without a clear consensus:

1. What is the notability of a "spin-out" article? Does it need reliable third-party sources, or can it inherit notability from a parent article?
2. What is the relationship between WP:Notability and specific guidelines such as WP:Notability (music) and WP:Notability (people)? To what extent can subject-specific guidelines re-write or override the General Notability Guideline?

For the sake of this discussion, it is important to ignore Wikipedians who abuse this guideline to delete articles that are actually notable, or keep information that is clearly not notable. Yes, abuse is a legitimate problem. But we cannot target abuse of the guideline until we have defined its proper use.

How to discuss

• Focus on the spirit of each proposal, rather than the exact letter. Wording can be tweaked as needed.
  • In supporting the spirit of a proposal, you are encouraged to offer wording or technical changes that will refine a proposal to achieve its spirit.
• Be flexible and open to compromise. Literally every editor has their own interpretation of notability, but consensus is impossible if every person insists on their own viewpoint.
• Stay on topic. Focus on the main two issues with notability. Further discussion about indirectly related issues should be placed elsewhere, perhaps on the talk page.
• Wikipedians are encouraged to support more than one proposal, even if you support one more strongly than another.
• Be conscious of WP:civility and Wikipedia:Etiquette. This is not a vote, so don't make multiple votes on the same proposal, let alone with multiple accounts. Work towards consensus.

Events leading to this RFC (why this RfC is important and necessary)

In recent months, discussions on notability have become more frequent and contentious. There have been literally dozens of theories of how the notability guideline should be interpreted. However, virtually every attempt at a compromise has faced resistance. As such, most discussions about the finer details of notability end in "no consensus".

The lack of consensus has prompted this RFC. Wikipedians from all points of view have tried to find a middle ground. From the dozens of interpretations of our guidelines, only a few have gained enough support that it would be possible for them to be supported by the larger Wikipedia community. We hope that one of these proposals will be adopted to clarify central issues with the notability guidelines, and allow other discussions to move forward.

Terminology

• "Appropriate sources": shorthand for "significant coverage in reliable third-party sources". These are sources that help an article meet the GNG.
• "GNG": the General Notability Guideline. This says that "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." It also defines words such as "significant", "reliable source", "independent", and "presumed".
• "SNG": the subject-specific notability guidelines such as WP:MUSIC and WP:ATHLETE.
• "Spin-out" or "Sub-article": an article that is created by splitting a long section out from another article. For the purposes of this discussion, it does not refer to the technology use of subpages.
• "RFC": Request for Comment, a discussion that Wikipedians use to resolve disputes among smaller groups of editors.

Issue A: Notability of "spin-out" articles

Issue: Wikipedians dispute whether every article must prove its own notability, or if notability of one topic can allow several articles to claim notability. On one hand, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia: there is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover. On the other hand, it is unclear how a verifiable article is to be written without coverage in reliable third-party sources.

Proposal A.1: Every spin-out is notable

Proposal: A spin-out article is treated as a section of its parent article. If a parent article is supported by reliable third-party sources, then its sub-articles do not need reliable third-party sources to qualify for inclusion. A sub-article is notable when it extends one section of a notable parent article.


Rationale: It is not desirable to delete sub articles with a lack of appropriate sources. It makes more sense to treat those articles as extended components of their parent articles. Splitting content from an article into sub-articles is a practice recommended by the recommended length of articles and summary style approach. By treating sub-articles as though they were sections in the larger article, this would allow editors to write detailed articles on specialized topics.

Support A.1

1. Support because I oppose notability requirements in general. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Tentatively support. I don't think its wise to enshrine "sub-articles do not need reliable third-party sources" without the explicit clarification (which I assume is implicitly there): "sub-articles do still require a source/sources." Logic would suggust that any split section will include a reliable source (third party or otherwise), to support the information included in it; for a list of episodes, the programme itself would be a good enough source for the separate article. On its own, it wouldn't meet notability levels, but episode lists' notability are rightly that of the programme, and thus the domain of the programme's article - which should then rightly be transferred. In other cases also, this proposal should indeed - with the above caveat that sources are still obviously required in some form - be form the baseline from which (as User:Nsk92 notes, below) articles can then still be considered on a case-by-case basis. Doesn't the proposal merely say that sub-articles (essentially split from the parent) be considered part of the parent. Which is what they were before they were split (likely for reasons of length alone). It doesn't say that any-old source-less article can be created, merely that spun-off sections don't require new notability inquisitions. So (if I understand it rightly) the proposal simply allows for the preservation of useful information despite concerns of length.
   It is reasonable to assume (since common sense and 'good faith' must be the fundamental tenets of Wikipedia work) that : a) An article contains sources and that b) Sourced sections within that article are of worth. Logicially it follows then, that the only consideration is that of length, and that the information is important and sourced. So, if it is notable-as-part-of-the-parent-article, then it is notable on its own, with notability absolutely transferrable to a split/sub-article, as proposed.
   The rationale currently says "It is not desirable to delete sub articles with a lack of appropriate sources." That implies (and should explicitly say) that there are still sources, merely not enough to independantly meet some interpretations of notability criteria. In that case - sources nonetheless being present in some form - it's reasonable not to consider a sub-article independant, and thus to transfer the use of the extra-sources-that-prove-notability from the parent article.
   Plus, while User:Simetrical's blanket statement is perhaps going too far, the often-petty-minded deletions and information-losing-mergers are absolutely against the spirit of a LIMITLESS Encyclopedia of all knowledge, which Wikipedia should be. Frankly, I would rather support the removal of length requirements, but this is probably the next best thing. ntnon (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Support' with the same caveat as Ntnon gives--there must be some adequate reliable source appropriate to the subject. Otherwise its a free-for-all. I don't think anyway is really proposing to eliminate WP:RS. The point of this is that the division into "articles" is inherently arbitrary. There is no intrinsic difference between a part of an article and a subarticle except the header and screen display. I look forward to a new Wikpedia 2.0 where the material is a a truly modular atomic database, and material can be present without regard to "articles" But we're still trying to look like a paper encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Qualified support (if rewritten, plus further caveat) Rewrite to address concerns of DGG, et al. It cannot reasonably go forward in a way that can be misinterpreted as "WP:RS does not apply", only "WP:N does not apply to this sub-article separately, only to the summary-style article and its legitimate progeny as a whole". The further caveat: It also must not undermine the concept that many subarticles are perfectly valid targets of AFDs that merge them back into their parent articles. This is very important, as many topics are subject to incredibly excessive fanwankery (cf. the now-ancient Pokemon issue, with articles for every minor character). Nothing about this draft clarification should interfere with the ability of AFD (or editors in general acting boldly and with common sense) to merge wanky articles back into main articles (including with a loss of "information" if necessary - many such selectees for merge operations are full of blathery trivia that serves no encyclopedic purpose). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

   I'd go one further. For the vast majority of sub-articles, merging upward in case of cruft should be able to be done without need for AfD, and the subsequently orphaned sub-articles can readily be speedied if they remain blanked and orphaned for a reasonable amount of time without rancor. If anything, a proposal along these lines should make the removal of cruft and fanwank faster and more efficient. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

5. Support in principle, although like other respondents more thought needs to be given to how this would work in practise. Certainly if we agreed on a word limit for plot summary we may have a better step on the road. Hiding T 15:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Strong support per common sense. We are a papeless encyclopedia after all and the "sum of human knowledge." --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose A.1

1. Oppose Spin-out articles should be treated rather cautiously since they often constitute WP:content forks and, on occasion, WP:POV forks. These issues need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis and, as necessary and appropriate, covered by specialized notability guidelines. The point is, notability is not the only consideration in deciding whether or not a particular topic merits a separate article. Nsk92 (talk) 05:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

   of course it isnt, but notability is what we'reconsidering. In practice, spin out articles of the sort being discussed here ar rarely content forks--they are usually more in the nature of subarticles. DGG (talk) 00:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

   Probably correct, but even for subarticles I believe it is important to be able to prove their notability in a way independent of the parent article. This does not mean that the subject of a subarticle necessarily needs to receive coverage that is quite independent from the subject of the parent article. But it does mean that one needs to be able to demonstrate notability of the subject of a subarticle as if the parent article did not exist. Otherwise one can easily have a wild prolifiration of subarticles corresponding to minor and fairly insignificant components of wider subjects. For example, say we are talking about some reasonably famous film that clearly is notable in its own right. Does that mean that the topic of special effects in this film is sufficiently notable for its own article? Or costume design? Or sound work? Or the work of a particular stunt-man in this film? Or perhaps some particular event that happened during the shooting of the film? (e.g. the two lead actors getting into a fight). If one accepts that all spin-outs are notable, then the answers to all these questions are always "yes", assuming there is enough data to pass WP:V (which there often is, e.g. from the special features section on the DVD of the film in question). In reality the answers should depend on particular circumstances. For films like Star Wars and LoTR the topic of special effects there is notable enough for a separate article. For most other films it probably is not. Things of this nature should be hashed out in SNGs which can and should define in greater detail how notability for subtopics is to be established, but accepting the principle that all spin-outs are notable would be very counter-productive. Nsk92 (talk) 01:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

   Also, can be used to violate the "notability is not inherited" principle, which is one of the cornerstones of WP:N and all the other notability guidelines. Nsk92 (talk) 11:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

   In what way is that phrase a cornerstone? Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

   • It is a cornerstone in the sense that if no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Articles cannot tailgate or cling too each others coattails; they have to prove their worth by complying with WP:N.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose I agree with Nsk92, as the opportunity to create spinout articles which utilise the same content is almost limitless. An example of a POV/Content fork where this has already happened is The Terminator: current forks are Terminator (character), Terminator (character concept) and Terminator (franchise). Basically all these articles cover the same ground, but from different angles. It may be obvious to an "expert" which article is the true Terminator article, but Wikipedia is not the place for expert opinion, rather it is the citation of reliable secondary sources that provides evidence that the subject is notable rather than a POV/content fork. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

   That is a problem with NPOV on those articles. This proposal makes no effort to supplant NPOV. Those articles would be valid merge/delete targets under this proposal. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

   How do you know these articles are based on NPOV? They all cite primary and secondary sources. You say that the various Terminator articles would be valid merge/delete targets, but what criteria would you use? If every spinout is notable, then you do not have any rationale to merge or delete any of them. If you have come up with inclusion criteria that could be used to merge or delete spin-out articles that are different to WP:N, then you should state them. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

   I think that's a major misinterpretation of the proposal. That it can be misinterpreted and needs revision is a major part of my theme at my qualified support !vote above (#4). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

   • It is not a misrepresentation at all. The issue of identifying what topics deserve their own article is addressed by the inclusion criteria set out in GNG. Since any topic can be sliced and diced into any number of articles and sub-articles, the problem (illustrated by the Terminator example given above) of which ones to include, and which one to merge or discard won't go away, in fact sub-articles would make it worse if they are all deemed to be notable. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose A bucket with a logic hole. Almost any modern-day TV show XYZ can serve as an example; they obviously deserve a wiki article. Most editors will also agree that List of XYZ episodes is a suitable article ("list") for wikipedia, and that it (or its lead) can be expanded with dozens of third-party sources. So, if this proposal gets accepted, this means all its dozens and sometimes hundreds of episodes (sub-articles of the List of episodes) get a wildcard for their own article and can be as plotty, crufty and ORish as fans wish even though no producer commentary or third-party sources exists *at all*. No, thanks. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

   Untrue. This proposal merely says that the standards for the length of plot description and the like should be based on our consideration of the overall topic, and use our content policies. If a section is OR or violates WP:PLOT it can still be shortened and removed, and if it is shortened and removed such that it is no longer substantial enough for its own article, it can and should be merged with a parent article. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

   Right, untrue, you are assuming the answer to the problem. The question is whether many characters--perhaps 5,000 or 50,000 of the possible 5 million or so counting all forms of classic and contemporary fiction, do in fact warrant separate articles to provide adequate coverage, and whether we should consequently define our article standards in such a way as to include them. There's a difference in episodes too, between whether its Star Trek or [insert your own example of the worst garbage here]. DGG (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

   See the caveats in my qualified support !vote above (#4) for how to resolve this issue. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

4. Too broad. Protonk (talk) 13:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose Far too broad. I think we need to institutionalize "List of episodes" and "List of characters" as a compromise, and stop there.Kww (talk) 14:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

   That still savages our coverage of areas, delivering a big "fuck you" to those who actually use the encyclopedia in these areas. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

   Only in the sense that Encyclopedia Brittanica has delivered a big "fuck you" to TV Guide subscribers.Kww (talk) 16:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

   I was unaware of a past period where the Encyclopedia Brittanica provided coverage of this area, and where articles on fictional subjects were a major part of its coverage and formed several of its most popular articles. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

6. Oppose Goes too far. Davewild (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose Per Dave. It only invites abuse. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 18:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

   So we write a policy that prevents such abuse. I don't think this proposal says that the text above is all that will ever be said on the matter. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

8. Oppose Notability is not inherited. Virtually every detail from an article can be split out into its own article. The only reasonable-objective criterion that prevents this is the requirement for non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

   The inherited notability aspect is really misleading. The proposal is better understood as "Our limits on article length, which come from screen readability and browser limits, should not be hard limits on the depth of coverage of a subject. Topics should be covered in the depth that they would be covered if there were no article length limits, and then intelligent decisions should be made about how to split up the coverage." So the operative policies become the ones that govern what does and doesn't get covered in a single article. Which is something that, looking at the articles we have, we do an OK job with. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

9. Oppose per Gavin. Deamon138 (talk) 00:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
10. Oppose This would just be too imprecise. Virtually any article can attach itself to another article. We need something much more specific, or else we open the floodgates to millions of non-notable, unverifiable articles. Randomran (talk) 02:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

    I am appalled by this. You of all people know the difference between the proposal I offered and the one described here. You know full well that this is a more specific proposal that you cut down to RFC size. To oppose it because of lack of specificity when you are the one who stripped the specificity out is appalling, and speaks to the degree to which this RFC is a meaningless charade. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

    The meaning between this proposal and yours are essentially the same. And judging by the lack of support, I doubt people are opposing this on some kind of technical wording issue. The spirit of this proposal is just fundamentally flawed: allowing notability to be inherited between articles is going to open the floodgates. Randomran (talk) 04:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

    No, the meanings are not the same. Phil asked that the article length not be taken into account when writing it, that certain logical breaks be observed when deciding how to distribute the article over several pages. That has been turned into an unsupportable "inherited notability" prop that doesn't mention base articles or length or sufficient sources. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 14:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

    And making article length a non-factor in producing new sub-articles... that would change the opinions of those who are opposed to creating an indefinite number of poorly sourced sub-articles? I sincerely doubt it. Randomran (talk) 14:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

    Those sub-articles would be even easier to deal with under this proposal - remove poorly sourced crufty material outright. Since the pages would be treated as sections of a larger article, to my mind blanking them if they are crap is wholly acceptable. No AfD necessary - any more than an AfD is needed to remove a fanwanky in-universe section in an existing article. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

    A technical difference that doesn't fix the problem of huge pages with zero reliable third-party sources. Listen... There's literally nothing stopping you from proposing your own compromise at WT:N once this RFC is done (or even before the RFC if you're self-righteous enough to disrupt other efforts to compromise). And if this proposal of notable subarticles were gaining a decent amount of support, I might even recommend it. You'd be perfectly within your right, and why would anyone stop you? But from one Wikipedian to another, I advise you to not waste your effort. If the opposition continues to be as strong as it is, I doubt you're going to sway a sudden consensus with one or two technical changes. Randomran (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

    Ignoring all philosophical differences between the subarticle described in this proposal and Phil's suggested approach, the primary difference is that Phil's suggested method has some type of clear visual indicator that the subarticle belongs to a larger topic (either though the "/" sub-article method, leading templates, or some other means. That actually is a significant difference in the sense that a new user, unaware of how WP:N came to be but that it exists, might avoid tagging a sub-article under Phil's scheme since it has been visually shown to be something else. It is technically not the same, though potentially the same facets of problems come into play. --MASEM 14:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

11. Oppose This is a minor fig leaf papering over a proposed policy allowing everything under the sun. GRBerry 03:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
12. Oppose; notability is not transitive, and this just invites parasitic "notability justifications" for fancruft. — Coren ^(talk) 12:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
13. Oppose. For information to be split out into a separate article, it should be verifiable, meaning it comes from multiple reliable sources. If reliable independent sources don't discuss the topic, it does not need to be a separate article. If the section is too big in the parent article, then per WP:WEIGHT it should be trimmed to fit, based on what the reliable independent sources say. Karanacs (talk) 15:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
14. Oppose. This simply goes too far. Giving "spin-off" articles carte blanche will result in a plethora of articles with problems such as (lack of) verifiability, original research, and non-neutral point of view. I'm not saying that every spin-off will have all these problems, but if there is no set limit, many such articles will invariably appear. I think most of us agree that there needs to be some sort of line drawn, and we merely disagree on where that line should stand. This appears to be a "no-line" proposal. Something more moderate is needed. Pagrashtak 04:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
15. Oppose - every article is in a sense a spinout; giving spinouts an exemption from notability requirements would remove notability as a criterion from every article. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
16. Oppose - effective notability guidelines are necessary to prevent cruft. PhilKnight (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
17. Oppose In this form it is equivalent to abandoning WP:N (a different question altogether), for anything imaginable can be reached by stream of consciousness from something notable. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
18. Oppose - Current criteria are fine and work well. Anyone who is having problems reaching WP:NN concensus can always nominate the article for AfD and see what the community thinks. Usually the best way to deal with notability. fr33kman (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutral on A.1

1. Comment - I started a topic a few days ago in VP (tech) about creating sub-articles (separated by a slash) that may make "spin-off" articles more feasable. You might want to take a look at it. SharkD (talk) 04:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Comment As I feared when the RFC was being proposed, the poor and overly general phrasing of this proposal is attracting opposition that, in practice, is dealt with and thought through by those actually advocating thinking about spin-out articles. I repeat my request that this proposal be removed from the RFC so that an actual thoughtful proposal on the issue of spin-out articles does not get itself bludgeoned by the fact that it has supposedly "already been rejected." Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

   I think you are confusing poor phasing of the RFC with the fact that your proposal for spin-out articles was silent on the need for some type of inclusion criteria that would be used to regulate sub-articles. What this RFC is attempting to do is to fill in this ommission. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

3. Comment As mentioned above I think the proposal is poorly phrased, it is widely accepted by the community that all information contained in articles has to be reliably sourced. The main issues I have generally come across with "spin-off" articles is whether that sourcing deals directly with the spin-off itself or mentions it in the context of the parent topic. When - and only when - there is enough reliably sourced information available on a subsection of a topic, I think how much space to dedicate to it and whether it should be spun of for reasons of size or presentation are editorial decisions that don't have much to do with notability guidelines. Guest9999 (talk) 12:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Comment I think the issue here is, notability is our primary mechanism for answering the question, "How much is too much?" WP:WAF is good but people ignore it as "just an MoS/content guideline" in AfD and merge discussions, even when the amount of appreciable content (i.e. not mere plot summary) approaches zero. Nifboy (talk) 14:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

   Perhaps we should encourage administrators to ignore arguments that rely on the disregarding of important and well thought out pages as "just a content guideline" instead of making substantive arguments about the content. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

5. Comment - Something workable may be possible, but we haven't figured out what yet. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal A.2: Every spin-out must prove notability

Proposal: The notability requirement applies to every article, every time, and sub-articles must assert notability of their own subject. If they can't, and the parent article is becoming bloated with information about it, it's time to trim, not to split.


Rationale: Our notability guidelines are essential to maintain all of Wikipedia's high standards. An article with zero reliable third-party sources cannot meet our policy on verifiability, which says that "if no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Without reliable third-party sources, an article may also violate other policies about what Wikipedia is not.

Support A.2

1. Support with the caveat that notability through third-party sources needs not be immediately (time of article creation) but eventually be demonstrated (a week, a month, or on demand). The overuse of primary sources calls for a trim and potential merge per WP:UNDUE, but is not necessarily a sign that a spin-out article should be deleted in its entirety. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Support: if over time, a subsection of an article gets too long, then either it is a notable subject in itself, and can get its own article, or it is a case of undue weight on a non notable subtopic and should get trimmed. The only exception I can see is with lists where none of the subsections are notable enough for an article, but the main list gets too long anyway. An example would be a list of episodes which gets split in to season lists. But this should only be done when the number of subsections gets too high, not when the individual subsections get too big. Fram (talk) 12:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Support. Reflects the best current practices, although the specifics of what this means should be worked out in SNGs and elsewhere. I would say that the formulation of A2 is not quite sufficient. One also needs to look at whether the subtopic is sufficiently coherent as a subtopic to be suitable for a stand-alone article and if it has sufficiently wide coverage as a subtopic, and sometimes sufficient independent notability. Some of these issues need to be worked out in SNGs (e.g. WP:MUSIC specifies that band members should demonstrate sufficient independent notability from the band to merit a separate article). Some of these issues probably do not belong in notability guidelines at all but rather in general style guidelines or in other policies (such as WP:BLP1E, issues of content and POV forking, article length, etc). I actually disagree with the caveat mentioned by Sgeureka above. An article needs to be able to survive an AfD at the moment of its creation. That is, the requisite sources proving notability should, at the very least, be producible on demand. This is consistent with the WP:V spirit and requirements. Saying that one may need to wait a month or some undetermined amount of time before the necessary sources may materialize is not sufficient. Nsk92 (talk) 12:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

   (Are we allowed to comment to each other?) Being able to survive AfD is not equivalent with assertion of notability. E.g. the articles of Daniel Jackson and Jack Shephard, created in 2004 and 2005, lacked and still lack any demonstration of (independent) notability (the few bits of real-world info were just added recently), and serious attempts to AfD or merge them would either result in speedy-keeps (without any improvements to the articles) or topic-bans by arbcom. Add-third-party-sources-now-or-die approaches are simply not well developed at en.wiki yet, but the word "eventually" helps us until we get there (de.wiki already has a seven days AfD-!vote option, which I quite like). – sgeureka ^t•c 13:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

   I think we are allowed to comment on each other's endorsements, I don't see a problem here. What I mean is that an article needs to be able to survive an AfD at the moment of creation and that, if pressed, the article's creator needs to be able to establish requisite notability in such an AfD and not have to appeal to WP:CRYSTAL type arguments. This does not mean that an article actually needs to have all the requisite sources in it at the moment of creation (although it is desirable) or even sometime later. But it should be possible to make a convincing contemporaneous keep case if pressed. Certain types of sources are not in fact appropriate for inclusion in the article, such as, say, hundreds of citations of the work of some academic used to establish notability of such an academic. But it is important that they exist and be producible in an AfD if necessary. Nsk92 (talk) 13:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

4. Support: I think we need to institutionalize "List of episodes" and "List of characters" as exceptions, and stop there.Kww (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
5. Support. This is a great idea, and should help reduce the flood of trivial spinoff articles (many of which end up in AFD). RobJ1981 (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Support, with the caveat that notability guidelines should not apply to lists (of any kind, not just lists of characters and episodes). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Support. Fram echoes my thoughts about undue weight. Lists are trickier but I'm wary of green-lighting any kind of subarticle at the moment. Nifboy (talk) 01:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
8. Weak support Having seen all sides of the argument, I'm sympathetic to people who find this too strict. Perhaps we can make some exceptions. But honestly, this wouldn't be that bad. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect every article to have coverage in two reliable third-party sources. It's actually pretty lax, and lets in a lot of low quality articles as is. It's a pretty basic standard. Randomran (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
9. Imperfect but close to right support. GRBerry 04:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
10. Support Like Randomran, I can understand why many editors find notability a burdensome guideline at times, but there is such a vast quanity of reliable secondary sources just waiting to be harvested (more and more of which is being put online all the time by the likes of Google Books) that it is really not that difficult guideline to comply with. I agree with GRBerry that it is close to being "close to right" in the sense that it does not require "expert opinion" to determine what subjects are or are not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, which makes WP:N a very democratic guideline in a way. Furthermore WP:N dovetails so well with other Wikipedia policies and guidelines (particularly WP:V and WP:OR), which regulate article content in such a way that it encourages good quality artilces. If someone could table an alternative set of inclusion criteria that work just as well as General Notability Guideline, then I would seriously consider changing my vote, but in all the years it has existed, no one has proposed an alternative set of inclusion criteria that work without expert intervention. It is far bettter to stand on the shoulders of giants than on a mountain of spam & cruft. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
11. Support; although I'm not sure we need to be overly zealous with the trim ax either. — Coren ^(talk) 12:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
12. Support, primarily per User:Fram. WP:WEIGHT instructs us to elaborate pieces of the topic depending on its coverage in reliable independent sources; if there is only minimal coverage in those sources, then WP should likewise have only minimal coverage. I do believe, however, that a separate guideline may need to be created for lists. Karanacs (talk) 16:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
13. Support. Black Falcon, GRBerry and Randomran express my reservations. Otherwise, I think the idea presented here is spot on. We need to have sufficient sources to craft an article that is of decent quality, in line with our basic content rules and well clear of what Wikipedia is not. Vassyana (talk) 17:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
14. Support Yes, notability covers topics, not articles; but spinout articles have spinout topics and those topics should be held to the same standards as normal. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
15. Support - this is necessary to prevent cruft. PhilKnight (talk) 13:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
16. Support the spirit of this. Without prejudice to how notability is defined or how flexible it should be, every article should stand on its own two feet. Creating a separate class of articles (I do not mean lists) is a cure worse than the disease. Would we put a context box on the page saying "Gentle reader: Be advised this subject is deemed to lack notability when considered in isolation, and should be understood in the context of main article" or more succinct words to that effect? ~ Ningauble (talk) 00:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
17. Support fr33kman (talk) 22:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose A.2

1. Oppose until you better define notability. WP:V calls for a reliable third party source. WP:N calls for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The guidance contradicts policy, and the tail is wagging the dog. yes, we need to be able to source information, but there are instances when we can source minimal content on someone or something which merits coverage by dint of achievement. We need to reflect that this process is not black and white. Minimal coverage can be reflected in a small article. Our minimal coverage may inspire people to seek more facts and publish more material we can summarise. We are beholden to writing neutrally. This should mean more care is taken in deciding what we write about by avoiding as much prejudice as possible in what we summarise. This means we should take care to not limit ourselves to subjects on which a propensity of material has been published only. This isn't to say we should cover anything and everything; however, we purport to be a comprehensive encyclopedia. We should not compromise that position based on elitism. I for one would rather have a stub or a redirect on an obscure 19th century Olympic medallist than no coverage of that person at all. If that means opposing the GNG in principle to improve Wikipedia, so-be-it. Hiding T 12:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose - What happened to the idea of WP:Summary style, and splitting articles? The biggest problem I see with this idea are things which are types of lists. The list may be an inherent part of an article, but since it's a list it's sometimes better to split it to a separate page. But that doesn't mean that the list itself should need to determine "extra-notability", I would presume? Episode or Cast lists for a TV series, for example. I think that this "all-or-nothing" approach may not be the best idea. - jc37 12:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Goes a bit too far, agree if there are no reliable sources third party sources, we should not have an article however this is not the same as establishing notability where exceptions in particular instances can and should exist. Davewild (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose Exceptions are needed, and this, like allowing all, would only be used as an excuse. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 18:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose because I oppose notability requirements in general. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose. The logical extension of this is that the depth of coverage we can provide on a given area of a topic is constrained by the notability guideline. This is not an acceptable outcome. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose per Phil Sandifer. Hobit (talk) 16:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
8. Oppose under the logic and examples given by User:Hiding and User:Phil Sandifer. Added to which, "reliable" is as open to debate as anything else, and rigorous enforcement of this guideline would allow inaccurate information to be used as a source for an inaccurate fact - so long as the information is in a "reliable" publication; while disallowing wholesale some sources which contain vital information and coverage but are sometimes arbitrarily declared to not be "reliable" - for example, interviews with long-dead-but-notable individuals which were carried out by interested individuals and self-published in minor publications. (N.B. There is an implicit implication in debates over sources generally that a self-published interview is taboo, but that if that same interview is used as the source for an article in a respectible publication, the information becomes valid on that logic alone. That's clearly a nonsense argument.) Plus also, Hiding's excellent and well-made point:
   "Minimal coverage can be reflected in a small article. Our minimal coverage may inspire people to seek more facts and publish more material we can summarise."
   Stubs and lists are not inherently bad, and - I thought - both stubs are redlinks are actively encouraged by Wikipedia, even if they are sometimes frowned upon by individual users. ntnon (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
9. Oppose The wording of this proposal is far too strong. Under IAR, I keep my mind open to the possibility that an article or list has encyclopedic value without passing any notability criterion (but still being verifiable). Even if this has never actually been the case, the issue should never be approached in a completely inflexible manner. And although IAR renders all guidelines flexible, too many editors ignore it (ironically) for inflexible wording to be a good idea. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
10. Oppose - Hard fast rule that doesn't always apply. Some editor discretion is needed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
11. Oppose and clarifying observation: As phrased, this goes too way far, and harms the ability of editors to follow WP:SUMMARY and keep articles readable. That said, it strikes me as almost blindingly obvious, if you read all of this and step back, that many of the opinions expressed here, both pro and con for both proposals, are not in fact in true conflict at all, but rather most of the debaters here are simply misinterpreting each other. I think it should be feasible to come up with a compromise solution. I also have to add that there isn't any reason that something split out into a subarticle could not be merged back into the main one by AFD (or otherwise), as a non-useful split. The final wording should explicitly account for this. I think what scares people about this second proposal here is it sounds like "If information is split out of a large article into a smaller subarticle, and doesn't have reliable independent sources as to its independent notability, AFD will just delete it, even if every fact in the subarticle is reliably sourced, and we don't give a damn if that results in loss of encyclopedic information." See my very qualified support of the first proposal, for specific caveats that run the opposite direction - no such proposal will be workable if it permits the willy-nilly creation of wanky articles, like one article for every character on 24 or one article for every 10-minute episode of Tom & Jerry. No one is seriously proposing that, just like no one is seriously proposing nuking sourced, useful information the instant it moves into a subarticle. I think we all need to quit focusing on the flaws in the exact wording of the two proposals and figure out what the principles are underlying both of them and how to merge those principles into a balanced and coherent consensus. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

    Comment Well, I'm pretty sure you are wrong about one thing: Phil Sandifer certainly is proposing that there would be an article about each an every episode and character of 24. He hasn't explicitly addressed the topic of theatrical shorts, but I can't think of anything he has ever said that would make me think that he isn't in favor of an independent article for every Tom and Jerry short every made. BTW, there already is a separate article for every single Tom and Jerry cartoon ... that horse already escaped when you didn't even realize the barn door was open.Kww (talk) 02:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

12. Oppose also per common sense, i.e. needlessly restrictive for a paperless encyclopedia. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutral on A.2

1. Comment (Enter comments here and remember to sign your user name.)

Proposal A.3: Some spin-outs are notable

Proposal: Specific notability guidelines such as WP:Notability (people) or WP:Notability (music) can define what subtopics inherit notability from a main topic. A specific topic can inherit notability from a larger topic under clearly defined conditions. That is, in clearly defined special cases, notability can be inherited in the absence of reliable third-party sources.


Rationale: This would clarify the existing relationship between the general notability guideline (GNG) and other subject specific notability guidelines (SNGs). Our current SNGs declare specific cases where an article without reliable third-party sources can inherit notability from another notable article. For example, WP:Notability (people) suggests that an entertainer may be notable if they have a significant role in multiple notable productions. Also, WP:Notability (music) suggests that an album may be notable if the artist who produced it is notable. Thus, SNGs should continue to to define specific cases where a sub-article of a notable article can be considered notable.

Support A.3

1. Support This is the thrust of our policies, guidance and practises. Article topics need to referenced in a reliable third party source, per WP:V, but the extension of this to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable" or however it reads this week is harmful and counter-productive. We may be able to find one short article on an Oscar winner; this should not prevent us having an article on this Oscar winner. Subject specific guidance allows us to better delineate this practise. The GNG does not. Hiding T 12:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Support - This is what I was just commenting on in A.2, above. This should presumably allow for splitting where appropriate. - jc37 12:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
3. These conditions need to be defined, yes, but the basic concept is where were are going. Protonk (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Broadly think this is reasonable, so long as the subguidelines are agreed globally and not just by, for example a wikiproject. Davewild (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
5. Support This is the kind of balance that is needed. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 18:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Support Seems reasonable. Hobit (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Support I think this is a fair compromise. Rather than opening the floodgates to literally any article that can show some parent-child relationship, we expect specific exceptions. If a consensus of wikipedians agree that a city can inherit notability from a country, or that a list of episodes can inherit notability from a notable TV series, then we allow it. In all other cases, articles need appropriate sources. Randomran (talk) 02:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
8. Support; yes, specific and explicit exceptions are the way to go. — Coren ^(talk) 12:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
9. Support of course some spinout topics are notable; every article is in a sense a spinout and some articles' topics are notable. If a spinout topic is notable, judged according to the GNC or an SNC, then the article is notable, irrespective of whether it is a spinout. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
10. Support This makes control of notability hinge on the subject of note. In other words, this separates "TV show" notability from "City" notability from "Music" notability. To try and define a single criterion, or even a set of criteria, that everything will meet is foolhardy and impossible. And those that argue that notability can't be inherited has obviously never seen the child's toy section at your local Wal-Mart. The media and television use one form of notability to bolster the notability of other articles all the time. A specific example, Degree anti-persperant is counting on inheriting notability from the TV show Eureka. If notability isn't inherited than sponsors have been wasting their time and money for decades. Do you really think the X-Men movies were popular because they are good? NO! They have a huge fanbase, and that caused the movie to gross enormous profits, which made the movie notable. If that's not inheriting notability, I don't know what is. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

    Those who argue that notability cannot be inherited (probably) mean that not enough notability can ever be automatically inherited to support a separate article while still failing the GNC. Or does Degree (deodorant) automatically deserve an article because it inherites notability from Eureka (TV series), or vice versa? – sgeureka ^t•c 13:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

    (I think my X-Men example is better)The point being the catch-all "Notability is not inheritable" is false. The entire PR industry hinges on notability being inheritable. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 15:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

    Notability is a term of art on Wikipedia. Taking usages from other arenas and trying to directly apply them to Wikipedia's usage is a logical fallacy. Your ultimate point may or may not be correct, but your method of getting there is faulty.Kww (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

    Then, by lack of definition notability can be inheritable, if I need it to be. And therein lay the biggest problem with this entire guideline - Notability, as used in Wikipedia, is a made-up term that means whatever the loudest, most persistent editor at the AfD says it means. Until we have an objective measure to qualify against this is silly. We can't put rules on a swiftly shifting morass of nothing. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 18:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

11. Support - Describes current practice regardign towns, athletes, politicians, and many more. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
12. Support as notability is inherited. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
13. Support fr33kman (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose A.3

1. Oppose as the current consensus is that notability cannot be inherited/presumed/acknowledged. Although subject notability guidelines such as WP:BIO currently include criteria that support a reasonable presumption that reliable sources may exist, I think these criteria are flawed because there are no generally accepted criteria or rule set which support the idea that notability can be inherited/presumed/acknowledged across every subject area, and these unsubstantiated claims of notability are based on subjective "expert" opinion which can only be applied in unique circumstances. Therefore the view that some spin-outs are notable in the an absence of reliable secondary sources is not supported by objective evidence, and any assertion to the contrary is unsubstantiated opinion. For example, the stub Ashley Fernee is considered notable in accordance with WP:BIO#athletes, but the stub has virtually no content, which sugests to me that the a presumption of notability cannot be substantiated. Although many editors will assert that WP:BIO#athletes makes the subject notable, the reader of this article cannot see any objective verifiable evidence of notability, and it is the readers perception, not "expert" opinion that counts at the end of the day. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

   Then that is a subject to broach within WP:BIO#athletes, not an anomaly to be used to win arguments.padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose per Gavin, and also I think WP:IAR is a good enough exception should the need arise to have an spinout without sources. Deamon138 (talk) 00:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

   But WP:IAR is always refuted with a hearty "That what all losers invoke when they can't think of a good argument". I have never seen IAR used and the opposing side accept that it has merit. When you are being opposed the other side doesn't like to be told "I win because I want to". As far as I've seen WP:IAR is worthless. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose There is too much process creep in the notability framework as it stands, inviting more is not the way forward. Taemyr (talk) 03:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose See WP:NOTINHERITED. Either a topic has valid and useful sources to support it or it does not. See the GNG. GRBerry 04:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Meaningless statement. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose. I believe this opens the door to a potential gutting of the notability guidelines. All it takes is a consensus among a few involved editors that their pet project needs more lax requirements for inclusion, and then another pet project does the same thing, and we eventually end up with a big mess. Karanacs (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Yes, spin-outs can be notable but only if they can be shown to be notable in their own right. I view WP:NOTINHERITED as a cornerstone principle of all notability guidelines. Nsk92 (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
8. Oppose - at least for this wording. Agree with GRBerry and Nsk92 about WP:NOTINHERITED being an important principle of notability guidelines. PhilKnight (talk) 13:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutral on A.3

1. Comment It needs to be clarified what "absence of reliable third-party sources" means - absense in the article, or absense as in "likely non-existence". The first may be fixable through time and effort, the latter has no guarantee to be ever fixable. Accordingly, I am fine with allowing a certain inheritance of notability for the former case (depends on the article type), but never for the latter. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

   I would suggest that the phrase "Absence of reliable third-party sources" means that the reader of an article can't see them, and therefore has reason to doubt the notability of the subject of an article, even if "expert opinion" swears otherwise.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

2. Comment As noted above, I favor institutionalizing the "List of Characters" and "List of episodes" exclusions, and I can see how that may be viewed as an inheritance of notability. I truly dislike any claims of inherited or inherent notability, and don't want to get those concepts included in any policy or guideline.Kww (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

   I can live with that as an exception. Hiding T 15:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

3. I essentially agree with Kww, except I think we should exclude all lists from notability considerations. Lists are largely navigational devices, so notability guidelines for articles don't apply well to them. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
4. I agree that notability considerations (as what we're discussing here) should not apply to lists. They either serve as navigational aids per Black Falcon, combine perma-stubs in suitable ways, and (particularly in the fields of fiction) serve as a middle ground between inclusionists and deletionists. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
5. While I can see where lists would come into play here, I believe there's a not-easily-definable difference between a list of plot-critical characters and/or episodes and, for example, a list of stereotypical punching bags for the main character to beat up. Nifboy (talk) 02:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Neutral: See my "A1" qualified support and "A2" qualified oppose for a different way of looking at all of this. I agree in principle that the primary purpose of SNGs or whatever we are calling them should be what we are talking about here, but the bare fact is that many of them are virtually WP:OWNed by a handful of WikiProject people and often conflict with WP:N's plain wording, and are routinely applied as substitutes for WP:N at AFD simply because they're more specific. Very few of them seem to me to genuinely reflect WP-wide consensus, but only the consensus of some subset of people in the related WikiProjects who care to get involved in policy squabbles. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal A.4: Lists may be exempted from the GNG

Proposal: A spin-out article in the form of a list can be considered exempt from the GNG, relying instead on primary source material and also secondary sources normally considered of trivial nature. Such lists should either present: a list of episodes; a cast list; a character list; another facet specifically suited to list-form presentation (e.g.) list of countries. If a parent article is supported by reliable third-party sources, then list-form sub-articles do not need reliable third-party sources to qualify for inclusion.


Rationale: Lists of characters and episodes are informative for readers, but often can grow too large for a parent article as they gain in comprehensiveness. It is not desirable to delete such list-form sub articles with a lack of appropriate sources. It makes more sense to treat those articles as extended components of their parent articles. Splitting content from an article into list-form sub-articles is a practice recommended by the recommended length of articles and summary style approach. By allowing list-form articles to be considered a part of the main article with relevant information grouped in a more accessible manner, space is allowed for more detail to be covered in the parent article, and the readers needs are still met.

Support A.4

1. Support I added this proposal based on a number of comments to earlier proposals, which indicate this may be a useful talking point. The idea is as follows: A list usually groups information which would be perfectly acceptable to present in a parent article, yet for both space considerations and presentation, they are usually better served presented on their own in list format. It therefore makes sense that list-form articles be allowed to source from trivial sources such as television listings and fan guides, as well as from the work itself. The list itself is merely another way of presenting information about a topic already deemed notable given an article exists. The topic of the list is typically the work itself, a work which will be demonstrably notable through reliable sources. Therefore this isn't really an exemption. Hiding T 16:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Strong support due to encyclopedic and almanacic nature of lists to organize and clarify textual information. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Qualified support I think we need to hash out a little bit more explicit guidelines to prevent articles like Weapons carried by blonde cyborgs in the Ballpeen Hammer 70000 video game series, but the concept here is agreeable.Kww (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

   Fully agree. I was going to limit to characters, cast and episodes, but I thought there may be other needs as well, I could perhaps see location lists as something that could be of merit, but certainly we should not be listing trivial characteristics. I would think we should only have lists which sit as a supporting part of a main article, rather than seeking to group obscure elements. I think there's scope for consensus here, if we can get the right guidance we should even be able to address most of Gavin's concerns. Hiding T 19:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

4. Support with some strong qualifiers The guidelines "exempting" lists should be clear, concise and readily applicable. We should not write a guideline that allows us to spin out content (which isn't covered by WP:N) arbitrarily into lists (which under this proposal would still not be covered). WP:SYN should be primary in the writing of this guideline. HOWEVER, I agree with Kww that the general concept is agreeable. Protonk (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

   Fully agree. See response to Kww. Hiding T 19:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

5. Support fr33kman (talk) 22:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose A.4

1. Oppose This proposal is virtually the same in effect as Proposal A.1: Every spin-out is notable, as GNG would no longer apply to lists, which in the case of episodes lists with plot summaries, is more or less a type of spin-out. There are no agreed rules or mechanism that exempts lsits from WP:N at present, but WP:LISTS states that they not exempt from any other Wikipedia content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others. Since the rationale for a list must originate from a particular source, ideally a reliable secondary source, then lists are for all intents and purposes governed by WP:N. Those lists that are based on a synthesis of primary sources are of doubtful provenance, since there is no way of knowing they are either comprehensive or correct. Lists that are not based on criteria that are widely agreed upon (i.e. they are not notable), or are based on invented criteria that cannot be verified tend to become deletion candidates e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of nations finishing at the top of the medals tables at the Summer Olympic Games. I cannot agree to this proposal as it would open the flood gates to list cruft.--Gavin Collins (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose. I believe that the criteria should be somewhat looser for lists, in that items in a list can be added based on trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources. For example, I think we should allow lists of episodes in season 1 of XXX show IF those episodes each had coverage in independent, reliable sources. However, I do not believe that using primary sources to create a list should be allowed. That fails WP:V and potentially WP:OR. Karanacs (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

   It doesn't actually breach WP:V or WP:OR. WP:OR allows primary source material to be used for sourcing in this manner, so there is no issue there. It wouldn't breach WP:V either; the topic is the work itself; if we have no sources on the work, we have no article; therefore no list. Hiding T 19:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

   This is a very, very important point. Primary sources for plot summary are not a problem for any policy other than WP:N. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

   A few key points: there is no way that we will be able to encode exceptions to the list notability ONLY for fiction (and the proposal doesn't appear to try to do so). And, while a list may contain a plot summary, it is not a plot summary itself, or should not be. Therefore, we should be able to have independent, reliable sources that mention the items in the list (at least trivially). We could then use primary sources to supplement particular list items, but we should not rely solely on the primary source to establish whether an item belongs in the list. Otherwise, this proposal allows the List of episodes in which Homer Simpson said "D'oh! - after all, that's a plot point that we could easily cull from the primary source, and, after all, The Simpsons has proved notability and the List of Simpsons episodes has as well. Karanacs (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

   Actually, any article which relies on primary sources violates WP:V as well, as it states Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Any article which is a list of plot summaries can't be said to be in accordance with that statement. I think that having an exemption is necessary to keep the peace, but it isn't isolated to WP:N.Kww (talk) 20:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

   I think that any claim that a plot summary is unverifiable has fallen so far into a rabbit hole of terms of art that it is no longer meaningfully discussing reality. At best that sentence in WP:V can be read as a restatement of WP:N and of WP:NPOV, which demands that we address all perspectives on a topic (which by necessity involves going beyond the primary sources). But given the degree to which, throughout our policies, a carefully worked through (if, to my mind, often flawed) policy on primary sources exists, that line of WP:V becomes incongruous if treated, as you seem to be treating it, as an even stronger version of WP:N. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

   I just read the words, Phil. That's a pretty straightforward statement, and not one that is subject to a lot of interpretation.Kww (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

   That you just read the words of policy pages without considering their implications for the project, their logic, or how they interact with other policy pages explains, I think, why your view of policy is so characterized by a destructive dogmatism that treats the actual end goal of serving our readers as, at best, an afterthought.

   Quite the contrary, the statement is not at all straightforward, and is subject to a great deal of interpretation. First of all, "should rely" is a strangely vague formulation. What normative force is it intended to carry? It was, presumably, chosen over stronger formulations - must rely, for instance, or "Articles should not rely on" the opposite. Furthermore, the formulation "reliable, third-party published sources" is a strange awkwardness - why not just use the more familiar phrasing "secondary sources?" The phrasing makes it more an attack on self-publishing than on primary sources. By no standards is a television show self-published. Furthermore, the idea that it doesn't require a lot of interpretation is ludicrous. For one thing, it requires the basic interpretation of figuring out what its practical weight is. What follows from that statement? The "should" clearly implies that many do not. What is the appropriate course of action there? What does "rely" mean, exactly? Other policies set up very careful discussions of how various types of sources should be used. Does "rely" simply mean "follows our other guidelines in this area," or does it impose some numerical percentage? Is this sentence a restatement of other policies? Or does it carry new weight separate from similar policies? In what way does it differ from WP:N or WP:NOR? None of this is answered clearly by the sentence. All of it comes from a careful process of interpretation. So do not try to tell me that the sentence is clear, interprets itself, and presents an unambiguous duty. No amount of policy magically makes writing articles, organizing content, and selecting the depth of coverage for a topic easy, clear, or doable by simple and reflexive reference to a user's manual. Writing an encyclopedia is hard, and requires careful, nuanced thought. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

   I certainly do consider the meanings of policies, and consider their implications. It is a very good thing that every article be based on material derived from third-party sources. It is a very good thing that articles are not derived from primary sources, and, just to be clear, it is a very good thing that we don't have articles about TV episodes derived from watching those TV episodes. Don't accuse me of not thinking it through. There are gray cases where deciding whether or not an article relies on third-party sources is a judgment call, but a list of plot summaries derived from watching the episodes is not one of them. To follow WP:V, each and every article must contain material from third-party sources, and must do so in a way that it can be said to rely on it. An article derived solely from primary sources fails WP:V, plain and simple.Kww (talk) 22:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

   I think it may be fair to state WP:V is open to interpretation on this matter, because I certainly interpret the following to mean something a little different: Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources. I take this to mean that articles should rely on third party sources, and this is especially important when claims are of an extra-ordinary or exceptional nature. Where the claims are mundane, the need for exacting standards to be applied to sourcing is not so burdensome; where something is listing episodes in a series, the bones of contention are going to be over episode names; the best source in this instance is going to be official releases, or primary source. I'm not getting into the issue of plot summary here, I don't really think there should be much more than a paragraph of plot per episode, in all honesty. But my reading of WP:V, when taken as a whole, is that if you're proposing a theory of everything you need citations on every word. If you're claiming the sky is blue, ignore the trolls. I know this is an old debate and a cite for the sky being blue was found, but I hope you get my drift. It's the exceptionalness which determines the sources required. I think a grouping of blonde gun-wielding characters in Western fiction needs at least a reference to an academic study on the topic to show the notability of such a grouping, but I think a grouping of episodes per series/season is not a definition of exceptionable content; TV listings, dvd releases and fan guides are enough to cover on this basis. That's my take on it. Hiding T 23:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

   I'm not arguing that an exemption shouldn't be granted for lists, I'm simply arguing that modifying WP:N alone isn't sufficient to permit them.Kww (talk) 00:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

   If you're trying to write guidance which will stop List of episodes in which Homer Simpson said "D'oh! but allow List of Simpsons episodes, why not state that the list should not be seeking to group trivial characteristics. We could pretty much draw up a decent set of lists which would be useful in scope, and allow AFD to take care of the slippage, with IAR when and if needed for plausible exemptions we can't seek to catch. Guidance isn't supposed to be a locked barn door; it's meant to be a net. If it was a locked barn door we wouldn't have AFD; we'd just have CSD. Lists of episodes by series: Good Lists of episodes in which: bad. Lists of characters in: Good. Lists of characters with blonde hair in: Bad. Let's face it, lists are probably the area we can afford to relax somewhat; it's pretty straightforward to spot any funny business in them. Hiding T 21:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

3. Weak Oppose per WP:LISTS, which says that "lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies". Lists of notable articles are notable, but then they'll also be appropriately sourcable. Lists of non-notable material would not be notable. A bunch of trivial mentions might support a list where a notable article would not be possible (e.g.: "road X exists, road Y exists, road Z exists"), but I worry this would open the flood gates to significant coverage of topics without reliable third-party sources. Randomran (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

   You've missed the flaw in your argument, unless you are suggesting WP:N applies to paragraphs. As to worrying about flood gates, I would suggest that is actually a myth. We're not actually that flooded at present, and there is not a lot preventing people creating such articles as we speak. WP:N is not a bar to article creation; bad articles get created regardless of policies and guidance. Ever since the pokemon poll this has been the very spirit of consensus; to remove this plank from Wikipedia is to effectively strand the project in the sea. Hiding T 23:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

   Writing an actual article is definitely a separate concern. I'm all for making exceptions to notability for certain classes of articles, especially lists. But they have to be somewhat specific. The way I read this, virtually any list would be exempt from the notability requirement. I'm definitely sensitive to instruction creep and being overly prescriptive, but I'm just as sensitive to making blanket exceptions that open up a lot of unexpected results. I think a far better compromise is to make exceptions for certain kinds of lists on a case by case basis in the SNGs, rather than creating a general exception for lists. Randomran (talk) 00:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutral A.4

1. Comment (Enter comments here and remember to sign your user name.)

Additional comments on issue A

Please add any additional comments on this issue here that fall outside the above proposals.

1. I am sad to see that my fears regarding this RFC were, in fact, wholly justified. The poor phrasing of A.1, which doesn't even come close to the proposal I advanced on WT:N that gained significant support, has, indeed, alienated people by virtue of its phrasing.
   
   I repeat my request that this portion of the RFC be shut down and that an actual developed and careful policy proposal in this direction be considered, as opposed to a poorly phrased sentence that seems almost designed to generate opposition. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
   • In fairness I don't seem to remember that Phil's proposal for sub-articles included any inclusion criteria that could be used as a replacement for WP:N per se. In the absence of alternatives, I thinkw we would have to assume that either WP:N would still apply, or it would not. If you have thought of alternative criteria, make them known at WT:N. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
     • I agree ... I went around and around with him on that point, and he never provided an inclusion criteria beyond his view of what constituted proper encyclopedic coverage.Kww (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
       • My proposal suggested that instead of thinking about it as an inclusion issue vis-a-vis notability, for sub-coverage of notable topics we would think about it as an inclusion issue vis-a-vis NPOV, which demands a level of thoroughness and rigor. The central question, in my proposal, is "If we did not cap article length for readability and browser functionality purposes, how much detail would we go into on this area?" And then, once we've answered that question, deal with the question of how to split the information up into individual pages. Which is to say, content decisions before organizational decisions. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
         • You say your proposal was "instead of an inclusion issue", but what you didn't say is what constitutes a notable topic for inclusion as a sub-article. Is is WP:N or no? Is it so called "expert opinion" or expert opinion dressed up as consensus of like-minded editors? Your proposal did not spell this out, and that is what we are trying to work out here.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
           • Bear with me - I really am answering the question. What is the criteria for inclusion for, picking a random article, the "Rudder era" section of History of Texas A&M University? Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
             • I actually wrote much of History of Texas A&M University. The information included in that article reflects what is found in reliable sources. There are actually a number of reliable, independent sources that specifically discuss the effect that James Earl Rudder had on Texas A&M University during his tenure as president (I'm talking whole newspaper articles and chapters of books on this topic). There are other presidents of Texas A&M that are not mentioned in the article at all - and that is because the reliable, independent sources glossed over them at best, so it would be undue weight to include more information in this WP article. Yes, I could find a source to say that "so-and-so" was the university president for these five years. But if the sources don't mention what the person did as president or how that impacted the history of the university (the article's topic), then that information does not belong in the article. Karanacs (talk) 16:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
               • OK, but that approach, if extrapolated, in conflict with WP:RS and WP:NOR, which spell out areas where primary sources are fine to use. Also, I suspect you're committing an error of scale. I'm sure the Rudder information is easier to find than some Presidents, but if Texas A&M has a school newspaper, its library surely has archives of that newspaper that could be browsed to add secondary information on any era of the school's history. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
   • I know Randoman asked for input several times before this was finalized, but also know we planned for the addition of other suggestions. Please feel free in the section above this to add any other proposals that fit along this line to get input on. --MASEM 15:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
     • I expressed my displeasure with the wording of A1, and was shot down. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
   • Phil, don't you think it is possible that we are hearing from a spectrum of editors who disagree with a statement like "The logical extension of this is that the depth of coverage we can provide on a given area of a topic is constrained by the notability guideline. This is not an acceptable outcome." (your comment in opposition to A2) I think that you should be able to make whatever proposal you want about notability, but we can't keep calling do-overs if the consensus is that the GNG basically applies and should apply to articles. Protonk (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

   I am unwilling to make any conclusions about what editors think about a proposal that has not actually been put before them. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

   I will go so far as to say "The logical extension of this is that the depth of coverage we can provide on a given area of a topic is constrained by the notability guideline. This is as it should be." I certainly was exposed to the full range of Phil's proposal. I found it unacceptable then, and it didn't win a lot of support when he first put it forward. It isn't surprising at all to me that he failed to convince other editors to put it forth verbatim, and I hope that we don't get stuck in a loop of do-overs because that didn't happen.Kww (talk) 03:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

   The end point of that line of thought is the replacing of WP:V with WP:N. I am wholly unable to believe that view has any grounding in consensus or in policy as normally interpreted. It is more of a fringe view than the most radically inclusionist views. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

   WP:V is a content policy. WP:N is an article guideline. Requiring that articles have secondary sourcing does not in any way lead to the demand that all claims must be sourced from secondary sources. Protonk (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

   The problem is that "article" on Wikipedia is based in part on an arbitrary technical standard that caps an article somewhere in the 60-100k range. Whereas an article on EB can hit 1.1 megs in pure text. A page in the mainspace is not equivalent to an article in practice - technical guidelines cause us to split what any other encyclopedia would consider an article over multiple pages. Which is the problem that leads to the WP:N dispute - because demanding that WP:N expand to cover the question of how to organize coverage of a topic that cannot be covered in 60k is functionality creep - WP:N was designed to kill articles on garage bands, not handle the delicate splitting of complex and detailed topics into multiple pages. We absolutely need a policy to handle the task of figuring out what areas of a topic to cover, in what depth, and how to organize those areas. But WP:N was never designed to be that policy, and it does a shit job of being that policy. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

   Well, I would argue that 100k of text is a sensible restriction not in technical terms but in terms of what the brain may handle in chunks. further, if the largest discrete chunks are 100k in size, notability shouldn't be an issue. We honestly shouldn't be writing ~100k about something that doesn't have a single secondary source on the subject. Protonk (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

   Well, but that's a web function more than anything - an artifact of our medium. We do smaller chunks of info than EB because screen reading is a different experience than paper reading. The question is, how does that affect our organization. And here's where the Britannica comparison becomes tricky - they use a peer review and credentialism system instead of a secondary sourcing system. They are also limited by page count and by a concept of notability that is more... culturally based than ours. So it's difficult to take our cues on this issue directly from them. Further aggravating the situation is the fact that, pre-Internet, publishing a secondary source is a financial decision. The reason that there isn't a published episode guide for every TV series ever is not that they're insignificant, but that the mechanics of publishing are such that it's not always profitable. The degree to which that translates to unworthy of coverage is... tenuous at best.

   My point here is simply that organization of these subjects is actually a tricky task. It's not obvious how they should be organized, and it's not obvious that page and topic are equivalent in this case. We have no problem, with a short story, using two paragraphs of space to summarize the plot. But expand to an extended serial work - a 100+ hour television series - and providing the same thoroughness takes up a huge amount of space. That fact is unrelated in principle to the fact of our 60k limit on article size. They're just not related matters. That's not to say there aren't issues to deal with in terms of depth of plot summary and sourcing and coverage. It's just to say that WP:N was not written to handle that task, did not evolve from processes designed to handle that task, and is ill suited to handling that task.

   Which is why I'm so frustrated at this RFC - because that point - that WP:N is not even the correct guideline to be using here, and that we need to actually look at the issue of organization of large topics for what it is instead of shoehorning it into a guideline that was designed to kill garage bands, not organize complex topics - has somehow been collapsed in this RFC to "notability is inherited." Which isn't what I've said at all, and it certainly isn't what most of the people on this RFC have been discussing.

   Nobody has gone to greater lengths to try to formulate good policy in approaching plot summaries than I have. Nobody has been a stronger supporter of pulling out fan speculation and reducing bloat in fictional articles. I am not your enemy on this topic. I oppose a policy that will get abused to lead to massive amounts of in-universe spam that cannot be contained. But I also oppose handling the organization of complex topics with a blunt instrument that was designed for other purposes. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

   Don't compare to other encyclopedias when it's convenient, and reject them when it's not. EB doesn't have the problem of editors that believe that the plot, casting, and production credits of every episode of every TV show ever made needs to be included. That is really the problem being fought here: there isn't a reasonable inclusion criterion that would permit that to happen, yet that is your goal. As a result, you struggle against inclusion criteria.Kww (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

   I'm happy to compare consistently to other encyclopedias. I have no desire to reject them in any context. Britannica's coverage is limited by financial concerns and paper - Wikipedia is not, and we cover more subjects and in more depth. However, because screen-reading and paper-reading are different experiences, we also chunk our information in smaller bits than EB. What I see no explanation for is why a page-sized chunk - a unit that exists for technical reasons, and is an artifact of a desire to have Wikipedia be editable on browsers that couldn't handle more than 32kb at a time - is being equated with a topic. They are completely separate concepts. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

   • People aren't opposing the wording. They're opposing the spirit of a proposal which would lead to virtually endless coverage of minutiae for a single topic, with no verification in reliable secondary sources. I doubt that a re-wording would change the fundamental problem. Randomran (talk) 13:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

   • In answer to Phil, I don't think you realise the effect of having sub-articles without inclusion criteria. You say that WP:N was designed to kill articles on garage bands, but your proposal would resurrect them as sub-articles! Even if they were exempted from GNG, you would still have to devise inclusion criteria as a way of avoiding duplication and content forks. If you cannot propose alternative inclusion criteria that would apply to spinouts, then this RFC outlines the existing choices in A1,2 & 3.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

   • Which is why I didn't want this proposal on the RFC in the first place, and asked Randomran to take it off! Because it's not a finished proposal. But unfortunately people are too hung up on either seeing me as the enemy despite my long-standing support for reigning in coverage of fictional topics, or on fighting over how best to apply WP:N to a task it was never designed for that there's been an alarming lack of willingness to step back and actually think about the question of how to organize complex topics and what policies do or do not govern the organization of complex topics. Now if somebody wants to start an open RFC on the question of article structure and organization and where the overall shape of our coverage comes from, that's an RFC I'd love to have. Because it would be a hell of a lot more applicable to the problem than this one, and it wouldn't be full of bastardizations of serious proposals that serve to kill discussions in the cradle instead of having them. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

   1. Nobody here owns a proposal, and there was support for a proposal like this outside of your preferred modifications. Enough to put it to the wider community.
   2. Calling this RFC unproductive and calling for a completely different RFC is akin to walking into a gay bar and complaining that it's too gay, and demanding it become a straight bar. In other words, you might yourself be in the wrong place, rather than the problem being the rest of us.
   3. You might want to keep track of the opposition to this proposal. If it continues to be this strong, it's safe to say that people aren't opposed to it on some technical basis. They're outright opposed to an indefinite number of pages on a single topic without appropriate sources. That's my advice to you, which you can ignore at the risk of wasting your time. But maybe I'm wrong. Randomran (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

   • In response to Phil, I think you are a bit cheeky by objecting to this RFC on the basis that your proposal for sub-articles is not finished. Assuming good faith, I would say that to finish it, you will still need to come up with inclusion criteria to regulate sub-articles in order to address some of the issues raised in this RFC, such as how you deal with content forks and and article duplication. However, in the absence of alternative inclusion criteria, we still have to consider how sub-articles could work within the context of existing policies and guidelines. The reason is that every structure or system of organization for sub-articles must be regulated by some sort inclusion criteria that are consistent and explicit. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Issue B: Relationship between GNG and SNGss

Issue: Wikipedians dispute the relationship between the general notability guideline and the specific notability guidelines such as WP:Notability (music) and WP:Notability (people). This depends on the flexibility of the GNG, and whether SNGs can extend notability to a wider range of articles.

Proposal B.1: Articles must meet the GNG and SNGs

Proposal: An article is notable if it meets the general notability guideline. Additional guidelines which may prevent a topic from being considered notable are listed in the specific notability guidelines such as WP:Notability (music) and WP:Notability (people)?


Rationale: This proposal would clarify that every article must pass the general notability guideline. It would also prevent individual projects from writing guidelines that favor inclusion of their material.

Support B.1

1. Support No guideline can be less strict than the general notability guideline, which represents the broad consensus of Wikipedia aeditors, not the consensus between a lesser number of topic-oriented editors. A number of very specofoc guidelines in the past have tried to reason that X has inherent notability, which probably represented the opinion of those editors specifically interested in X, but not the general consensus (which has usually been that anything but geographic names / locations are not inherently notable). Specific guidelines explaining what kind of sources are considered reliable and notable enough and so on for specific subject types can be very useful as an addition to the general notability guideline, but never to replace it. Fram (talk) 12:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Support This is the crux of the problem. People have come to view the specific guidelines as a Get out of jail free card. Can't find sources? Declare your topic inherently notable. I've seen such absolutely ludicrous arguments as If someone bothered to name a bridge, that bridge must be notable. The GNG should be policy, and enforced: if multiple, independent, reliable sources that treat the topic directly and in detail cannot be found, the article needs to be merged somewhere. The purpose of the subordinate guidelines is to document exclusions. Nearly every local band can be sourced: they all wind up with listings and little reviews in their local papers. WP:MUSIC says that we can't include them because they simply aren't important enough to list. Every released single in the course of history has a few sources about it, but WP:MUSIC says that most singles should never have an independent article. In practical fact, if someone could find an article that asserted that it met WP:MUSIC but did not meet WP:N, that article would probably be deleted as a hoax. How could it be verified to meet WP:MUSIC without multiple, independent, third-party sources?

   Another purpose of sub-notability guidelines is to provide guidance on the treatment of sources. There was a lot of debate on the geographic locations guideline as to the treatment of censuses and atlases. That was a valuable discussion, and its results deserve to be summarized in a guideline. Nonsense like named locations are inherently notable does not, and, if some special interest group all gets together to attempt to make inclusion criterion that violate the GNG, those inclusion criterion need to be recognized as invalid on their face.Kww (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

3. Support The subject specific guidelines can delineate article topics that normally have sufficient sourcing to meet the GNG - but if challenged, the authors of the article need to either demonstrate that they are using such sources or admit that they are violating WP:NOR and/or WP:V by excessive use of primary sources or by including unsourcable material. No local consensus anywhere can abrogate WP:NOR and/or WP:V. GRBerry 04:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Support. WP:N is essentially a distillation of core policies verifiabilitiy, [[WP::OR|no original research]] and neutral point of view. This policies should always be met, and WP:N should provide the minimum standards that a topic must meet to have an article. Subject-specific guidelines should build on those minimum guidelines to meet subject-specific issues. Otherwise, if every group can create specific guidelines for their own pet project that ignore any minimum guidelines, then why have a central notabilit guideline at all? Karanacs (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
5. Support In my view, WP:N exists as an inclusion criteria because, where there are sufficient independent sources on a particular topic to satisfy the content principles of Wikipedia, then that is best criteria by which it can be judged whether or not to have an article on a particular topic. For example, the stub Ashley Fernee has virtually no content, which sugests to me that the a presumption of notability under WP:BIO#athletes cannot be substantiated. In my view, the stub will be deleted or merged as without reliable secondary sources it fails WP:NOT#DIR. Such stubs should not be created unless they meet both GNG and SNGs; it is far better to include topics that are not covered by reliable secondary sources under more notable subjects. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Support fr33kman (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose B.1

1. Oppose An exceptionally poor idea. The notability guidelines should be treated as independent and not subordinate to each other. The reality is that as Wikipedia expands and more subjects are covered, more detailed notability guidelines are needed and the utility of the general notability guideline, WP:N is inevitably decreasing. Yes, this has the unfortunate effect of instruction creep, but it is unavoidable and should be embraced and managed appropriately, rather than avoided. The general principles of WP:N, such as adherence to coverage by independent reliable sources and "notability is not inherited" are very good principles and they are in fact utilized by specialized notability guidelines. However, various attempts at imposing "one size fits all" requirements in WP:N regarding the numbers of sources required, and the like, are very counterproductive, if we start imposing them across the board with no exceptions. There are way too many differences, too many special cases, too many de facto consensus conventions that cannot possibly fit into one general WP:N formula. For example, geographic settlements are generally considered inherently notable, once basic WP:V requirements are satisfied, even if there are no independent reliable sources covering them in depth. There are a few other things that appear to be considered inherently notable (e.g. accredited colleges and universities), although consensus there is still developing and remains to be hashed out. Lots of exceptions exist (and do need to exist) in other cases. E.g., under WP:BIO, an olympic medalist in some fairly obscure sport is considered notable even if there is not a lot of independent coverage available. In music and fiction standards are still being worked out, and probably notability guidelines for things like streets and places will have to be worked out too. It is reasonable and necessary to have specific and different notability standards, with their own sets of exceptions, for very different things, such as, say, movie actors, books and academics. Imposing a single across-the-board standard in terms of notability by making all the other notability guidelines subordinate to WP:N may sound good in theory but would be extremely counterproductive in practice. Nsk92 (talk) 04:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

   There is no evidence to support the presumption that a geographic settlement (or any other topic for that matter) is "inherently notable", becuase notablity cannot be inherited, presumed or acknowledged. In the absence of any coverage, let alone reliable secondary sources, how can we say that a village like Abbey Mead is notable without having to rely on so called "expert opinion" (or expert opinion dressed up as consensus)?--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose per Nsk92 and my own comments above. Hiding T 12:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Oppose - per the two above. - jc37 12:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Nope. Notability guidelines are written to be inclusive (Rather than the NFCC, which are exclusive). It is unlikely that a subject will meet a daughter guideline and not meet the GNG, but if it does, we could still argue to keep the article. Protonk (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose for two reasons, first disagree that subguidelines should prevent articles from being considered notable. If an article meets the GNG and does not fail any policy such as WP:NOT then we should have an article and subguidelines should not stop this. Secondly, where a subguideline has been agreed globally, and the GNG can be met for a large majority of the cases the subguideline covers, it is better to have an article on all the cases including the few that would not meet the GNG to maintain consistency even if they can only ever be quite short, so long as what content is there is verifiable. Davewild (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose as per Nsk92. Hobit (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose - I'd prefer for us to do away with most of the details in the SNGs and merge what remains into the GNG, but as long as both exist, articles should be required to meet only one, not both. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
8. Oppose because I oppose notability requirements in general. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
9. Oppose I think this is harsh. I know it's simple, and avoids contradictions between guidelines. But I think we can let Wikipedians write SNGs that are a bit looser, so long as we offer some guideline as to how loose. See the proposals below. Randomran (talk) 02:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
10. Oppose; it is reasonable that in certain fields of endeavor the bar for notability be lower. Not the bar on verifiability mind you. — Coren ^(talk) 12:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
11. Oppose. There's a happy (perhaps theoretical, hopefully practical) middle-ground whereby simple common sense comes into play. Some things are notable to the world in general; some are notable to one field in particular. Individual guidelines are therefore sometimes important, since not everything can be notable and have an impact on the entire world, even though there are in-and-of-themselves notable, and can be proven to be so. ntnon (talk) 21:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
12. Oppose. "Additional guidelines which may prevent a topic from being considered notable are listed" is a very awkward way of stating the obvious: namely, that SNG's contain explicit exclusion criteria. What is the difference between notable and considered notable anyway? patsw (talk) 02:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
13. Oppose this runs contrary to all existing guidance. The GNC is a catch-all criterion, and the SNCs provide subject-focused criteria. I'm not opposed to SNCs putting restraints on the sort of coverage that applies for the GNC; but the SNCs should not be prevented from offering alternatives to the GNC. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
14. Oppose I've heard of editors treating the SNGs as exclusionary tools, but it never made any sense. Every notable subject fails some criteria, and some may fail all. The former case demonstrates the abject silliness of nixing an article for failing an SNG, and any case of the latter merely shows that not enough SNGs have been written, or that the subject is simply too unique to fall into any typical category. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
15. Oppose This removes any significance the SNG would have. SNG's would only have the opportunity to be more restrictive and eliminate more of the information that wasn't taken into account in the GNG. No single standard can possibly define such a wide range of media and circumstances, remember we are talking about nothing less than EVERYTHING. No one can encompass that without exception. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
16. Oppose. I don't think that we can have the skill to make a GNC that would give satisfactory results on every field on the encyclopedia. Nor on enough fields to do more good than harm. --Kizor 18:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
17. Oppose - WP:NOT already does all the exclusion we need beyond the GNG. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
18. Strong oppose; see example alternatives: The SNGs are too inconsistent, to WP:OWNishly managed in many cases, too nitpicky, and too open to interpretation. An analogy would be if every WikiProject or other group of one-topic-focused editors got to create their own style guideline that conflicted with WP:MOS (d'oh! that's actually been happening!) or their own topical copyright policy or topical guideline on what constitutes civility or topical guideline on what verifiability and reliable sourcing is. The SNGs need to all be rewritten to be interpretations of the Wikipedia-wide WP:N guideline as applicable to the topic they cover, and nothing more. The minute one of them makes a "rule" that says "this article can be deleted as non-notable even though it satisfies WP:N, because it failed to fulfill our additional requirent" (that doesn't apply anywhere else and which a few editors just kind of pulled out of their butts one day), it has gone too far, does not represent community consensus, and is in direct conflict with a stable WP-wide guideline that is so well-accepted now it might as well be tagged with {{Policy}}. I say all this as someone who founded a topical WikiProject and has written draft guidelines for both notability and style for that project with a particular eye to never conflicting with WP:N and WP:MOS respectively. They are still in draft form, but I think they are pointers to how topical notability and style guidelines should be (re)created. PS: The proposal does not prevent SNGs from favoring a particular topic (WP:N does that); what the proposal does is allow SNGs to set willy-nilly "standards" that disfavor particular topics (or more accurately disfavor the ability of editors at large to create articles on topics that self-declared experts/specialists would rather denigrate because of personal biases as to what constitutes "important" in their topical area of focus. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
19. Oppose as "notability" is subjective and not a logical manner of deciding what a paperless encyclopedia should and should not include. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutral on B.1

1. Comment I think it's important that an editor uninvolved in the relevant field be allowed to ask, "Where's the beef?" That said, I think there's a lot of justifiable use of WP:IAR in regards to this rule that prevents me from saying the rules apply absolutely 100% of the time, which is the tone of the proposal. Nifboy (talk) 14:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal B.2: SNGs can outline sources that assert notability

Proposal: Specific notability guidelines such as WP:Notability (music) and WP:Notability (people) should be allowed to clarify the kinds of sources that can assert notability for specific areas of interest.


Rationale: This reflects and cements the current practice. The general notability guideline requires that any topic have significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. When we think of sources, we think of journals, books, academic articles, and so on. But we also have WP:Notability (music) that says notability can be asserted from "sources" such as having a certified gold record in one country, or charting a hit on a national music chart. These provide an alternative objectively verifiable standard to show notability, other than research from reliable third-party sources. This would clarify the relationship between the general notability guideline and specific notability guidelines, which is not explicitly stated as of yet.

Support B.2

1. Support Goes without saying and reflects the current practice, so that it is largely a moot point. SNGs need to (and they do), on occasion specify what kind of weight to assign to what kind of sources and possibly to exclude certain kinds of sources. For politicians coverage only in local newspapers in usually not enough; for academics self-published and non-refereed publications are usually discounted, as are local, university level and graduate.postdoctoral level awards; for notability of criminal acts the standards are still being developed, but in practice some coverage beyond local coverage is required; etc. Nsk92 (talk) 05:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Support, but... when these guidelines and the general notability guideline give different results, the general notability guideline should have precedence. An article on charted record should usually be kept, because in general, records that hit the charts also receive enough attention from reliable sources. If however an article meets a specific guideline but fails the notability guideline (not only "fails in its current state", but "gives the impression of not being able to meet the notability guideline"), then the article should be deleted (after due discussion and so on). If such exceptions happen regularly, the specific guideline should be changed to address this. Fram (talk) 12:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Support per Nsk92 and own comments above. Hiding T 12:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Support - common practice. And it would seem to make sense, as each WikiProject would likely have a better, or at least a decent, idea about how reliable references are, and what would constitute GNG for articles under their purview. - jc37 12:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
5. Support. I didn't know this was current practice, but it's a good idea, presuming that it is policed tightly. Protonk (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Support Although some Wikipedians would disagree that this is the current practice, I think this is a fair compromise. The wording needs a LOT of work. But I think this would let people write a more relaxed SNG that still hits some measurable, semi-precise standard. Randomran (talk) 03:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Support However, meeting such conditions does not open the floodgates to allow original research; articles should be written primarily from secondary sources independent of the subject. For the offered example, if no other decent sources can be found, we may not be able to write more than Song X by artist/band Y charted at Z on the ABC chart. GRBerry 04:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

   Adjusted/expanded following Vassayana's oppose comment below. Indeed, the criteria in the music and other SSGs like the examples used above are not sources. Sources are needed to demonstrate that the criteria are met! What they are rules of thumb that function as quick tests for whether or not more useful sources are likely to exist. If the rule of thumb is met, then it probably is not worth spending time on discussing such an article, unless an editor has put significant effort into trying to improve the article and come up dry. But this function only works if the SSGs are written based on actual experience of finding such sources when looking for them.

   The other thing an SSG can do is say that a particular source, such as say the Dictionary of National Biography is both a valid and useful source and a viable indicator that there are also other valid and useful sources. GRBerry 18:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

   Such dictionaries are tertiary sources, and notability can't be presumed from a mention in one in the absence of reliable secondary sources.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

8. Support. Seems reasonable enough, as long as the individual guidelines are themselves subject to consensus and scrutiny. ntnon (talk) 21:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
9. Support - in either sense; they should be able to specify which sorts of source are appropriate for the GNC, or specify sources that establish notability outside the GNC. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
10. SupportAlthough I think the reference to "sources" be rephrased as "indicators". SNGs can determine what indicates notability, apart from the rest of existence. Not everything in the world is going to have the same indicators for notability. By using a single, restrictive view of notability you are calling for the exclusion of everything that hasn't been noted to everyone. There are millions of facts, figures, dates names and places that are significant but have not achieved "notability". padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
    • As a side note, I think "indicators" would be much better phrasing, and would be a better description of the spirit of this proposal. Randomran (talk) 13:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
11. Support - Not all subjects are the same. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
12. Qualified support: Agree with most of the !votes here, but within the constraints of my "strong oppose" to B1 (which covers a bit more ground that B1 exclusively), and with the further caveat that it be clarified that SNGs cannot countermand WP:RS on what constitutes as reliable source to begin with, only what kinds of RS-defined sources can help establish notability. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
13. Conditional Support "...should be allowed to clarify the kinds of sources..." should be the literal, narrow, and rigid definition of an SSG. However, as written each of the SSGs attempt to: (A) paraphrase or tweak the GNC, (B) give specific "objective" criteria for inclusion or exclusion, and (C) typically ramble-on about justification for the guideline etc. I could support this concept if there was a mechanism to keep these on-point and succinct, and clearly stating their purpose as clarification rather than stand-alone. --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
14. Support Makes perfect sense fr33kman (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose B.2

1. Oppose Language here is very bad, and logic is strained. Of course an SNG is used to clarify the nature of sources, but clarifying the nature of a source doesn't lead to it being allowed to claim that sources are unnecessary.Kww (talk) 15:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose. To be very blunt, asserting that a gold record award, Nobel Prize, etc are sources in and of themselves strains belief. Such a position would also run counter to the common understanding of "sources" and run contradictory to the meaning of "sources" in our content rules. They're certainly an indication that the real world considers the topic noteworthy, but they are not sources. Vassyana (talk) 16:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Opposed Again, this is obvious. SNG's can make their own distinctions between the inclusion criteria of an article subject (in the "Hall of Fame", earnings greater than $10 million, employs over 10,000 employees, etc.) and the sources which record these criteria without help from WP:N. patsw (talk) 02:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose I don't see that this is really needed. In addition to concerns about straining the concept of a source, there is the mere fact that the SNGs are what they are. Deciding on the philisophical meaning of an SNG can be bypassed merely by finding a consensus, yes or no, on proposal B3 Someguy1221 (talk) 10:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose. SNGs should not be able to define what is a source - that is the job of the verifiability policy and the reliable sources guideline. We could end up allowing everything that can be sourced to a primary source because that is what a particular group wants. Very OR. Karanacs (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose as we should delete all notability guidelines. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutral on B.2

1. Changed my mind on this one (from support) and become less sure as I completely disagree with Nsk's view that local sources are insufficient to establish notability. Significant coverage in reliable sources should almost always establish notability and merit an article (unless it fails a policy such as WP:NOT). I agree with the example in the rationale section however so am not opposing but am leaning that way. Davewild (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Prefer "SNGs can outline sources", full stop. See, for example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources, which is not an SNG at all, but rather a lot of "Is this a reliable source?" conversations we've had in the past. Focusing on notability misses the point by a wide margin. Nifboy (talk) 05:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal B.3: SNGs can define when sources probably exist

Proposal: Specific notability guidelines such as WP:Notability (music) and WP:Notability (people) can define objective evidence that would show that sufficient reliable third-party sources probably exist. However, every article still requires appropriate sources, and the presumption of notability can be refuted by evidence that sources do not exist.


Rationale: This reflects and cements the current practice. Many of the subguidelines for notability offer alternative criteria for articles that might not otherwise meet the general notability guideline. For example, WP:Notability (music) that says that any artist with a certified gold record may be notable. This simplifies the burden of finding reliable third-party sources to verify an article, while still requiring that all articles are properly verified.

Support B.3

1. Support but weakly. I don't like the phrasing, but this is really how things work. As above, if an article meets WP:MUSIC, it's going to meet the GNG as well. If someone could actually find an album that charted on multiple national charts that no one else had ever written about, there could be a problem, but that is a very unusual situation that approaches time for WP:IAR. If a sub-notability guideline is documenting reasonable criteria, then the GNG will be satisfied. It's only when people start making claims like All asteroids are inherently notable that there's a problem, and the lack of secondary sources should be enough to allow for deletion of the article.Kww (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Support as what is closest to my personal opinion: In my mind WP:MUSIC and WP:PEOPLE exist primarily as a sanity check when looking to see if an article meets WP:CSD#A7 or not. That shouldn't prevent them from being brought to AfD as an exception, and if we have a bunch of exceptions we should look at changing the rules to reflect that. Nifboy (talk) 01:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Support but needs different wording. As it stands it requires proving a negative. Taemyr (talk) 03:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Support This is how the SNGs were written long ago. By experienced AFD editors reviewing their institutional memory and coming up with rules of thumb about when an article would be viable. GRBerry 04:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
5. Support inasmuch as I am aware of what this is trying to say. Oppose inasmuch as every proposal on this RFC is badly phrased and the whole thing is a debacle. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

   Weak support. I really don't like the wording used here. I preferred a different wording and feel that this wording misses a significant part of the point. That said, I agree with GRBerry that this basically reflects the original formation and intent of the SNGs. Regarding some opposition, it seems more than a bit counterproductive to have a guideline setting the bar below sources sufficient to meet basic policy. Vassyana (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

   Support An important function of policy/guidelines in my view is the substantial limitation of subjective arguments in dispute resolution and deletion discussions. Allowing editors to form arbitrary concenses on inclusion criteria sets the precedent that the threshold for inclusion is merely finding enough editors who like the topic, and without a requisite subordination to the general criterion, disagreements on sub-criteria have no logical end. Contrasting at least one comment somewhere in this RFC, even under this proposal, notability does not equal verifiability. Verifiability describes itself; notability, rather, requires that the verifiability of the concept be in some manner substantial. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

6. Support - Most editors are not experts on compliance with WP:NN. As such, guidelines must be offered. It should be noted, however, that they are guidelines and not hard/fast rules. Consensus can still override fr33kman (talk) 22:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose B.3

1. Oppose Maybe I misunderstand this, but if I read this correctly, this certainly goes against the current practices and consensus. SNGs should be and are allowed to set sufficient conditions for notability, period (not because they indicate that some other sources may exist but because satisfying these conditions is, in and of itself, proof of notability). For example, winning an olympic medal is sufficient for proving notability even if you cannot find an article discussing the athlete's favorite toothpaste. Being an elected fellow of the Royal Society is sufficient proof of academic notability even if you can't find a biographical article about a scholar in question. Being a permanent settlement is sufficient proof of notability even if nobody has bothered to include the place in a guidebook. And so on. Nsk92 (talk) 05:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

   Question: I don't understand how what you have written is an "oppose" since you appear to be saying the same thing as B3, just less confusedly. Are you opposing the wording of B3, or the meaning it is trying to express? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

   Maybe I misunderstand what B3 is saying since the text is fairly confusing. If it says that SNGs cannot define sufficient conditions for proving notability (such as, say, having won an olympic medal) that do not require evidence of additional in-depth coverage (beyond WP:V verification that these conditions are met) for establishing notability, then I do oppose it, for reasons stated above. Nsk92 (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

   Comment. You say that passing an SNG should remove the need to find sources, and I was under the impression that this is what B3 was saying. In my first read, I thought it was saying that wherever an SNG is met, we can assume the GNG is met, removing the need to prove notability, but is still subject to simple verification (although if you can prove it meets an SNG, then it is necessarily verifiable). It should clarify the philosophical meaning of an SNG, and should also guide creation and deletion of SNGs themselves. And reading this again, it appears that your interpretation is actually the most accurate; this is disappointingly poorly worded Someguy1221 (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

   Oppose per Nsk92 and own comments above. Hiding T 12:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

2. No. the lord works in mysterious ways, as it were. We can't define beforehand where sources are likely to be. Protonk (talk) 13:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Oppose wording change (which I as aware of) causes me to have nothing here I actually agree with. SNG should override GNG because they should, not because SNG indicate the potential for notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit (talk • contribs)

   Comment: This !vote is unsigned. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

4. Oppose Although it is current practise for SNGs to define when sources probably exist (e.g. if a movie wins an Oscar), this argument is fatally flawed, as it is reliant on the opinion of so called "experts" (sometimes misleadling labeled as "consensus"). Such definitions are self-referencing, since they only be applied where reliable secondary sources can be cited to support the expert opinion. Presumptions of notability breakdown in the absence of reliable secondary sources, as such presumption may be based on spurious claims that cannot be substantiated (e.g. where an award is of dubious merit). SNGs currently contain inclusion criteria that are not supported by verifiable evidence and cannot be applied universally, and should there be dropped althogether, as reliance on "expert opinion" robs editors of their autonomy. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutral on B.3

1. I think that this one is too vague. Every time I read it, I interpret it differently : ) - jc37 12:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Not sure on this one as I am not sure what it means in practice. I agree all articles must be verifiable and if this is just saying that the subguidelines define cases where verifiability exists then it seems unnecessary, but harmless, as of course we should delete articles that cannot be verified at all. However if this is saying that SNGs define cases where the GNG will probably be met at some point, then I oppose this as per my comments on B.1 Davewild (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Comment I'm not sure if this is too harsh, or too loose. One part of me feels like it would make the GNG the center of the universe. The other part feels like it would essentially eradicate the GNG, since any sub-guideline could say that sources exist... and then how do you prove that they don't? You'd be able to always says "the sources are out there, the SNG says so, so keep looking". It's pretty imprecise. Randomran (talk) 03:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Comment Looks to me as if it clumsily, but broadly agrees with what User:Nsk92 wrote. That certain criteria (gold medals and discs, etc.) denote notability even without explicit sources. ntnon (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
5. Neutral. Upon further reflection, I simply cannot support this proposal with the current wording. The indication that this applies when "articles ... might not otherwise meet the general notability guideline" and bringing it down to verifiability are examples of the deep flaws in the rationale. As much as I support SNG = criteria indicating sufficient sources probably exist, I cannot endorse a proposal that appears to present SNGs as an exception or appears to state the position that notability equals verifiability. Vassyana (talk) 05:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Neutral: I agree with the principles of most of the "support" !voters, but have to also agree with the criticisms of the "oppose"rs that this is poorly written and confusing (while also sharply disagreeing with the "oppose" sentiment that SNGs should override the GNG; that way leads inexorably to utter chaos). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
7. I can't understand what this means. I think I might actually support it, given SMcCandlish's statements, but can't tell. So it's very poorly framed. May need re-proposing, since it seems as if this proposal may have legs somewhere in there. Hiding T 15:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
8. I've switched from support to neutral after reading Nsk92's comments in the oppose. I think the idea is right, but the last sentence should be removed. Completely agreeing with Nsk92, actually, verification that an SNG is satisfied should produce the assumption the GNG is satisfied, and "I can't find a source" should never be a valid reason to delete such an article unless someone is actually claiming it's a hoax. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal B.4: SNGs are not needed

Proposal: Specific notability guidelines such as WP:Notability (music) and WP:Notability (people) really serve no purpose beyond WP:N. One consistent and universal guideline will be sufficient.

Rationale: These subject specific guidelines generally evolved prior to the adoption of WP:N and are now obsolete. Most of these came to "consensus" when few people were paying attention. The problems are: (1) the methodology is inconsistent among the subject specific guidelines which leads to confusion, (2) topics overlap subject specific guidelines which creates further confusion, and (3) special interest groups can gain control over subject specific guidelines by dominating the discussion and claiming a local consensus. In all cases the benefit does not justify the harm to the project.

Support B.4

1. Moral Support We should be trying to eliminate instruction creep. So the GNG really is the primary, most important, and overriding notabiltiy criteria. If an article topic can't meet it, it really doesn't matter what the SNGs say. But the SNGs are useful for guiding newer editors or explaining to them why their garage band/grandmother/local church's secretary to the associate pastor really won't be able to have an article. GRBerry 04:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Underlying principle has merit. See my previous comments. I do not want to use the word "support" here, as I don't agree that that SNGs are worthless, only that they are too inconsistent and too often conflict with the GNG or try to override WP:N. Agree with GRBerry on what the purpose of SNGs really is (or as I phrased it elsewhere, they must limit themselves to being interpretations of how the GNG and WP:N apply to their topic, not vehicles for introducing additional restrictions no recognized by consensus as part of WP:N). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose B.4

1. Oppose. It is exactly the other way around: as Wikipedia develops, WP:N is becoming more obsolete and the SNGs are becoming more relevant. Having one notability guideline might sound good in theory but will not work in practice. There are too many genuine differences between how different topics and subject are covered, too many subject-specific perennial AfD questions and issues that need stable solutions, and that are not served well by a single "one size fits all" notability guideline. Nsk92 (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose for exactly opposite reasons of Nsk92. WP:N is far too inclusive of a guideline, and will permit inclusion of trivia once multiple trivia guides on the same topic are published. SNGs as lists of things which cannot be included, and lists of sources which cannot be treated as conveying notability have a purpose.Kww (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

   I actually agree with your reasoning too and I think it reflects a part of my concern about WP:N being too general and too vague to be practically useful. I too think that in many cases it is far too easy to use WP:N for overly inclusionist conclusions (and not just with trivia, but also with people, films, organizations, etc). There are other situations where applying WP:N can have the opposite effect (such as with permanent settlements). Nsk92 (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

   The "permanent settlements" thing is one that really gets to me. I see no reason to create articles on things that we can only document as a speck on a map with a population. If no one has ever written about a location, I don't see why we would have an article on it. I think that WP:N fits perfectly.Kww (talk) 16:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

3. stong oppose Daughter guidelines offer clear, bright line standards for specific subjects where the GNG would cause us to get into repetitive debate. WP:ATHLETE solves far more problems than it creates (for one example). Protonk (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose strongly but for the opposite reason as Kww above, subguidelines should be able to establish areas where the GNG can be met for a large majority of the articles the subguideline covers, it is better to have an article on all the cases, including the few that would not meet the GNG, to maintain consistency even if they can only ever be quite short, so long as what content is there is verifiable. However if an article meets the GNG and does not fail any other policy we should have an article regardless of what the subguideline says. An example would be where a footballer has not played in a fully professional league (thus failing the subguideline - WP:BIO) but has received strong coverage in reliable sources (easily meeting the GNG) we should have an article on that footballer. Davewild (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose, and note that the GNG is no stranger to local consensus issues either. Hiding T 22:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose; as Wikipedia grows, those guidelines are increasingly important. — Coren ^(talk) 23:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose - they serve a dual purpose: to help to interpret the GNC in a subject-specific way, and to show areas of notability within a subject that aren't covered by the GNC. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
8. Oppose There's no hope this will pass, but still to say, SNGs incredibly simplify the job of determining the notability of a topic. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
9. Oppose Although I am of the view that the GNG is the only inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article, I feel that the SNG are warranted on the grounds that they provide additional guidance that is useful to editors in the application of GNG to a specific subject area.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
10. Oppose You can't seriously think you can create a guideline that encompasses everything. That's not practical. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 13:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

    Comment That's a straw man argument; no one proposed any such guideline. Rather, the proposal is that WP:N adequately addresses the particular concept of "notability" as it applies to Wikipedia articles — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC).

11. Oppose - One size doesn't fit all. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
12. Complete oppose - No, no, no no no! fr33kman (talk) 22:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutral on B.4

1. Comment Not sure why someone felt it necessary to add their own proposal that was obviously not going to generate much good will. Every other proposal was put forward to achieve some kind of balance and reach out to different viewpoints, and that's why they made it to this RFC. This is no better than the person who wanted to abolish WP:N, and will be no more successful than that one. Randomran (talk) 03:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Neutral. I am equally apt to second GRBerry's moral support or to oppose this extreme proposal. GRBerry and Randomran express both sides of my mixed feelings sufficiently. I would clearly fall to the side of support if abolishing the SNGs were married with some preservation of their purpose, such as with this proposal that failed to make it into the RfC. Vassyana (talk) 17:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

   • Amen! "Consolidate as many of the notability subguidelines as possible, into a single checklist to determine whether an article is notable or not. WP:Notability should be the only notability guideline, without the confusion of other sub-guidelines." --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

   • That might be the way to go in the future, but until you draft that checklist, it was not a good idea to add this proposal, which is effectively an arguement to throw the baby out with the bathwater.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

   Gavin, please don't equate proposing an alternate proposal with being a good or bad idea, as that is your subjective opinion -- to which you are entitled. This equally applies to Random's comment elsewhere' inplying some degree of bad faith. However, there was significant discussion of this concept among others about 18 months ago here at WP:N. Sadly there is greater energy and enthusiasm in the collective ranks from the subject specific crowd and enthusiasm for condensing to fewer or a single page has waned. If the concept of a list was interesting to enough people then we could quickly draft a proposal -- which comes first the chicken or the omelet? --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

   Concur with Kevin, though Gavin's underlying observation that the proposal wouldn't mean a whole lot without some idea what this checklist would look like also has teeth. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

3. Per Vassyana. I've already said above I feel the few really successful sub-guidelines are complements to CSDA7 (non-notable people/groups). I'd like to see more subject-specific resources for editors at all levels, not just AfD. Nifboy (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Additional comments on issue B

Please add any additional comments on this issue here that fall outside the above proposals.

1. I probably won't !vote on Proposal B as I am torn (I see an advantage of some SNGs but not all), but has it ever been considered to create a middle ground like de.wiki has achieved with de:Wikipedia:Relevanzkriterien (their version of WP:N)? One guideline for notability to explain the concept (i.e. instruction keep and redundancy is low), and it still lists indicators of notability per article type. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Like sgeureka, I do see value in having SNGs, but I think their role is to provide subject-specific guidance to editors as to how GNG should be applied, rather than providing additional inclusion criteria based on "expert" opinion. I used to believe that because real-world subjects can be observed and recorded (unlike elements of fiction), that notability could be presumed/acknowledged/inhertited, and this belief justified the creation of inclusion criteria that supplemented GNG. However, I realised that this belief is based on so called "expert" opinion, and that any presumption of notability cannot be taken at face value; notability must be evidenced by reliable secondary sources, and that GNG is the only reliable inclusion criteria, since it is based on verifiable evidence.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

   So you really think you can create a set of criteria that will encompass the notability of everything and not be so vague as to render itself useless (as the current "Stuff should be notable" has obviously done)? padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 15:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

   • I have not seen any proposal for inclusion criteria to better GNG so my answer would be no.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

3. I just realised I either opposed or went neutral on all the issue B options, none of them seem to express my viewpoint which I tried to best express in opposing option B.4 Would have prefered an option existed along the lines I tried to raise there. Davewild (talk) 19:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Additional comments

Please add any additional comments that involve notability that fall outside the scope of the above two issues here.

1. Voting is evil. --Carnildo (talk) 05:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
   • (With apologies) I never understood this. If voting is evil, why are dictators also evil? And what is consensus, if not voting with your feet. You think of all the time and effort people put into claiming that guns aren't evil, and no-one's ever bothered to counter this absurdism. We need ill-applied doggerel:
     
     

“ Voting may be evil,

but then life isn't fair.
If you don't express an opinion,
you don't get to care,
and when we make a decision,
you can stick it up there.

”

1. • Best, Hiding T 08:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Wikipedia is not paper. Notability guidelines are counterproductive. While I may be outnumbered on that ― at least as far as active Wikipedians go; if you count all readers I'm almost certain I'm in the majority ― I can at least lend my voice to the suggestions that weaken existing guidelines rather than expanding them. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
3. My weighing in on individual issues of this RFC should not be taken as accepting the outcome of it as a consensus. I believe that the RFC is poorly phrased to the point where it is not a useful implement of anything. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
   • I think you are mistaken in this view: this RFC actually covers a very wide range of views on notablity and your proposal for sub-articles is at the center of these discussions, and you should be proud that is its being used as a basis for discussion in this way.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

   Yes, my pleasure at a bastardized version of it that flatly contradicts things I said in proposing it is being used as a whipping boy ought know no bounds. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

   I am not sure this is the case, but I would ask to you clarify this issue at WT:N so we can make amends if necessary.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

4. Concur with everything Phil says here (as of my timestamp), including his disclaimer about the results of this being unlikely to represent any kind of consensus about changes (or no need for changes) to notability in Wikipedia. Gavin, I think you are missing that many people here find that this RFC represents lots and lots of nitpicks, a wide diversity of misstated positions, and a broad range of exaggerated, divisive, confusingly-written "proposals" that few can take seriously, pro or con. I see far more qualified and caveat-laden !votes, and strongly overreactive !votes, than is normal in an RFC or other similar discussion. This is a strong sign that all of the proposal language put forward is malformed, and that not nearly enough normal discussion and consensus building on the basics has taken place to develop something worth actually considering in poll fashion (if that is ever the case). I am strongly reminded of the WP:ATT fiasco with regard to the level of entrenchment that has resulted. We all (who were around then) remember how well that went. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
   • As I've mentioned elsewhere, this RFC is not considered the means to an end; it is meant to gauge how two aspects of notability - the issue of spinouts, and the relationship between GNG and SNG - are presently viewed. The proposed solutions are by no means meant to be perfect but should be thought of as a scale - such as the first one which questions if spinouts are unquestionably allows, never allowed, or in between. I don't expect one proposal to "win", and as noted, such as the first issue, if we were to stop the RFC now, we can judge that the issue of spinouts falls to limited cases of non-notable ones - a case not exactly covered by the given ones. This means that, say in the case of Phil's branched article piece, it can now be presented to align with this viewpoint. There will still be some fine tuning after all is said and done for a second RFC, this likely on a revamped version of N or maybe more exacting proposals. But at least armed with this survey of how notability is currently viewed, we can write a version of N that likely needs just fine tuning as opposed to what happened to FICT when I put it up (where we had a 25/50/25 split of votes). I still feel that if there is an aspect of an issue that should be included it should be added, and though I understand what Gavin says about avoiding adding too much to this, if people argue there is a viewpoint that really is missing then we should be adding it to gain input to that. --MASEM 04:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

<Thread moved to talk page>

Adding new proposoals?

In response to Phil's concern that the proposals given don't reflect his view, I attempted to added language to the instructions that people should feel free to add new proposals to gain input on relative to the issues at hand. Gavin reverted this, claiming sabotage, which is far from the case. The RFC text was developed among a relatively small number of people compared to the number of editors that notability will affect; it is very likely that the RFC does not fully capture every viewpoint. Thus, it seems perfectly reasonable to allow the addition of a new proposal, as long as it is on topic for that issue and doesn't overlap. We don't want 100's of proposals per topic, but I think its completely reasonable if a new viewpoint is set forth to get input on that. We want this RFC to be the last one in a long time on the subject of notability, so as much surveying should be done. --MASEM 15:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

An RFC can't "fully capture every viewpoint"; that is not the point at all. The point is to get all these viewpoints mingling beforehand until some consensus principles actually evolve, and then test that localized consensus against WP-wide consensus with an RFC. Holding an RFC on a matter with over a half-dozen conflicting proposals was self-sabotaging. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, at this point, and I don't mean this as taking my ball and going home, I'd rather develop the article branching proposal in detail and present it as a coherent proposal than attempt to capsule summary it here. I feel like the basic issues got hashed out well on WT:N, and like what needs to happen now is some careful work to get a proposal that deals with the stated issues and try to generate consensus for it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, from what I've seen of what you're doing, it encompasses style, content, and notability guidelines, so it's rather heavyweight to include fully. However, I would think it best to test the waters with the concept now by adding a new proposal that suggests what you are trying to do, in that you are asserting that subarticles that are clearly shown to be part of a branching article structure are appropriate for sake of WP:N (or something to that wording), including a link to the example pages you have shown already, but clearly stating that this is not the final appearance of them. If the propose gains some support, then you should definitely continue building it further, but if it clear that it is not going to fly, then you know its a dead end. --MASEM 15:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm really concerned that this RFC is turning toxic on a number of levels - I think my proposal has some real promise, based on input I've gotten on it thus far. I'd much prefer to simply note that there is a large difference between this RFC and my proposal and avoid being tied to it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The only toxicity I've noted comes from you.Kww (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

With apologies, I think your statement is an oxymoron. ;) Hiding T 15:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

After discussion on WT:N, new proposals should not be added to this page to avoid skewing results and making interpretation of the results more difficult; we can determine if something new is needed after this RFC is done. --MASEM 17:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Literally everyone has their own proposal. The idea is to present several overall "spirits" to pick from, rather than dozens of different rewordings of overall spirits (e.g.: "notability is inherited" versus "articles can be of endless size, and they are spread out over multiple branching sub-articles".) I suspect some people might feel strongly enough about wording issues that they would reject one proposal or another. But I doubt wording changes would result in a substantial change in support or opposition. Nothing would please me more than being proven wrong -- assuming that this RFC reaches no consensus. (Which would be a perfectly legitimate result: it reveals the nature of the dispute, and gives us evidence that the dispute needs a more authoritative resolution.) Randomran (talk) 04:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that none of these really are the spirits, but are just spooky and kooky apparitions, like Halloween ghosts compared to the soul. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD and Mergers and content decisions

SMcCandlish made a comment above that brings up a subject I think hits on why we are having this discussion in the first place. Ever since we were told by arbcom that article mergers are serious business (or, in less memetic terms, mergers require a consensus of editors, preferably beforehand), AfD has become the only practical means of resolving most kinds of article mergers, especially where unanimity is not present. And I for one would not like to see content discussions drowned out by "You can't merge/delete this, it's a spin-out article!". Nifboy (talk) 03:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Concur. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Tend to agree. I think maybe the Pokemon poll was the beginning rather than the end of this situation, because although there was a very strong consensus to merge, that was put aside so the articles could be improved. Hiding T 15:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)