Wikipedia talk:Notability

Daniela Tablante

Daniela Tablante; born 12 December 1995 is a Venezuelan and Spanish television host, producer, and actress who currently works in the media in the United States of America.

Tablante started her career as a news reporter in Univision Orlando, where she delivered daily news, politics and stories that impacted the hispanic community . Afterwards she hosted the morning show, Despierta Orlando, where she spoke about Central Florida public events, weather and highlights of the main news shows of the day. Also, she broadcasted daily news stories in one of the main Spanish radio stations in the Orlando area, Salsa 98.1.

Daniela got her first degree in Mass Communications in Lindenwood University in St Charles, Missouri before working in Orlando's television and radio station. Right after she graduated, she was selected to work on an internship in NBC-affiliated television station KSDK in the city of St. Louis.

After graduating from college and working for Univision Orlando for a year, Tablante decided to pursue her graduate education in the city of Miami where she graduated for the second time with a masters degree in Mass Communications and Media Business with a mention in Hispanic media from Florida International University. While she was studying her masters, Tablante worked in the scientific and media research department of the university and also she was simultaneously studying acting in Miami Dade College.

On Tablante’s last semester of graduate school, she started to film an independent documentary which is now streaming on Amazon Prime Video and Apple TV.

In the last years, Daniela Tablante has worked as a freelance reporter for Univision and Azteca of SouthWest Florida. Also, she has been involved in the production of several film and documentary projects in the United States and Mexico.

In 2018, she registered her company in the state of Florida, Daniela Tablante Communications LLC where she serves as CEO and Creative Director. Also that year, she participated on her first runway as a model of Miami Swim Week fashion show Descalzos. Next year, she walked the runway of Miami Swim Week for Art Hearts Fashion, a fashion production company that owns some of the biggest shows of Miami Swim Week. In 2019, Tablante walked the runway for brands like Carmen Steffens. Also she participated in her first New York Fashion Week later that year where she walked the runway for Carmen Steffens for the second time and other fashion brands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Latinogang (talk • contribs) 07:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

We need sources, to establish notability.Slatersteven (talk) 07:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Software notability guidelines

Please weigh in: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Software#Software_notability_guidelines. fgnievinski (talk) 02:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Sources that cover a topic in its entirety

Would I be correct in assuming that in order for a topic to be notable, reliable sources need to cover the topic in its entirety? For example, at Talk:Superstitions_in_Muslim_societies#RfC_Superstitions_in_Muslim_societies_related_questions I argued that while topics like "Superstition in Iran" and "Superstition in Pakistan" were clearly notable in their own right, we could not use sources for those topics to establish the notability of "Superstition in Muslim societies". For that we'd actually need a source that ties in superstitions in various Muslim countries together. Is my understanding correct? VR _talk 04:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Not necessarily, we don't need the whole breadth of a topic to be covered wholly by one or more sources, but we don't want a topic so segmented across multiple sources that it appears that its coverage on WP looks like synthesis. Where this line is drawn is hard to tell. So yes, if you had topics about Pakistan or Iran superstitions and had some that pointed to other superstititions in other Muslim societies, a "Superstitutions in Muslin societies" would be a possible fair topic to cover them all, but you still want to be careful and ideally look for sourced that discuss the larger concept even if not in depth to any particular society. --Masem (t) 04:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

If there isn't even a single source that covers the topic in its entirety, won't the article always suffer from WP:SYNTH? In this particular case, one could stitch together superstitions in Iran and Pakistan into a "Superstitions in Muslim societies" article, or into "Superstitions in Asia" or "Superstitions in the developing world" or an even more arbitrary combination. If we restricted it to topics covered by reliable sources in their entirety we wouldn't have such an issue.VR _talk 04:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Not necessarily, but the grouping has to make logical sense. As you say, there's ways you could "group" just those two topics into a possible synth and that would be something to watch for. But we are talking about grouping by faith related to a topic closely related by faith, so this isn't that much of a stretch, and a 2-minute Google search show the idea is possibly there to at least write a lead paragraph about before going into the individual divisions. --Masem (t) 04:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Masem Is it not WP:SYNTH to say "Pakistan is Muslim-majority" and "Pakistanis believe black cat is bad luck", therefore "unluckiness of bad cats is related to Islam". The superstitions in Pakistan could be due to many factors, including folk culture and pseudoscience. So which superstitions are "closely related by faith" and which are not? If we had reliable sources that covered the topic in its entirety it would be easier to tell.VR _talk 09:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

The various notability criteria relating to notability-establishing sources have the baggage that these sources need to be substantial and independent of the subject, a criterion that goes beyond verifiability and is really to do with ensuring that we can have balanced coverage. To avoid SYNTH, we don't need this safeguard: if we have reliable sources that are not notability-establishing that fill out the claim that the topic is coherent, that is enough. I guess this is clear enough to you, but sometimes in AfDs we see people defending delete arguments saying: "I'll change my vote if you can find two sources each satisfying {long list of requirements}" - I'd rather avoid that these lists become longer. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Chalst So in the example that I gave what kind of sources would establish that the topic is coherent? And how would we limit the article to only coherent topics? VR _talk 09:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Notability of Referees

Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Notability Agenda for Football (Soccer) Match Official (Referees) where this subject is now being discussed. A formal RfC has been suggested, but not yet drafted much less opened. Input from interested editors would be welcome. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Need clearer consensus interpretation of significant coverage and audience.

Companies and organizations; and biography articles are especially subject to notability argument. Although WP:NCORP currently places stronger emphasis on quality of sources, the guidelines only define the two extremes of "a passing mention" as trivial; and and a reliably published book written entirely on the history of IBM on the very extreme end of "significant coverage". To better resist gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals; and connected contributors, it would be very useful to have the shades in between better defined.

Presently, NORG requires multiple significant, independent, reliable, secondary coverage with one of the sources passing broad circulation, and at the absolute minimum, one of it must be national, regional or international. This is often read as a page or two in daily regional paper, plus a cluster of local alternative weekly coverage. This had lead to proliferation of articles about neighborhood restaurants, event venues, book stores and such being ruled "notable", because of a one page coverage in the regional daily paper about something that happened at the place at one point, plus a cluster of local press. How do we interpret notability building effect of "a page or two about the article subject person/organization/company" in a highly specialized books about the discipline (i.e. graffiti art) as opposed to the same amount of coverage in People's Magazine, or Reader's Digest?

WP:AUD could benefit from building consensus on what's considered "limited interest" coverage; as well as "regional coverage".

This AfD failed.

These were the sources used to argue SIRS and AUD requirements:

• https://doi.org/10.1080/15551393.2013.801277

• https://books.google.ca/books?id=KyNVOzSbTGkC&pg=PA38&dq=%22united+graffiti+artists%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj6vpfM66zrAhXnkHIEHSjXC_EQ6AEwAnoECAQQAg#v=onepage&q=%22united%20graffiti%20artists%22&f=false

One of them was a book specializing in graffiti. I personally define things like this as relatively trivial coverage and "limited interest" because it is something you would only see if you specifically go looking for a book on the subject; and a specialized book that is dedicated to a narrowly defined book is bound to have more details about obscure subjects and organizations. Currently, WP:AUD offers no guidance on how to apply "broad audience" vs "limited audience" on highly specialized academic journals or books.

Graywalls (talk) 10:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Books that narrowly cover a specific topic are still acceptable sources (so the "limited interest" is not a valid argument - they are still available to anyone to access, while local sources are only to a local geographic area), like that graffiti book, but it still required the topic to be covered in depth in that, and that's where there's debate that's hard to define , as any definition will lead to gaming the rules. A brief mention in passing is not sufficient, clearly, but do we need a paragraph? a page? a chapter? It's the combination of what all sources give about the topic, in essence. Unfortunately the book preview does not show me what the text is so I can't judge that here. --Masem (t) 13:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Masem, I don't view the WP:AUD thing as "who it's available to", but more from a Conditional probability point of view: Given that the source covers X, what is the probability that it will include coverage of Y? So, let's say you've got four books: one about visual arts, one about painting, one about graffiti, and one about New York graffiti of the 1980's. Each one is covering a progressively narrower topic, and is thus more likely a-priori, to include any specific topic that fall under its umbrella, and thus a weaker signal that the topic is notable. A similar thing happens with geographic audience. The NY Times is, in general, a good source. But, its coverage of local NY topics is not as strong a signal of their notability as coverage by a similar stature newspaper in Chicago, or London, or Beijing. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I understand the concern that you can slice a topic area into more narrow and narrow segments to a point where you have an extremely narrow segment that might have a very limited audience, which IS a fair concern. But, at the same time, some subjects do have a reasonable degree where there is finer and finer level of coverage that we would not question a reasonably narrow-focused book. For example, there are plenty of texts in math that are on extremely limited interest subjects, but if you look at the material as you step up from that into broader fields, you'll field works that segment the field like an inverted pyramid, lots and lots of broad math books, and fewer on more narrower subjects. Whereas I can see the problem that if you have broad coverage at one level, and then the next level down, there's nearly next to nothing but one or two books at that fine resolution, so that inverted pyramid concept is gone and its just a spike, that's more like a AUD problem. But that's really really hard to prove. The other factor to make judgement calls on this is how many times other fields look into this; math here is a good example since many other scientific fields typically hang on complex math problems so their results are important even if they aren't worried about how the narrowest problems are solved, they will still talk about them. But in the case where a really narrow area gets coverage but no other field reaches into that, that might be a problem - that was the case a few years back with professional mixed-martial arts which was found to be a walled-garden type thing. I have no idea if graffiti art is similar but knowing the little of the art world I do, I suspect its not that closed. --Masem (t) 02:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• I doubt this is something that can get to hard black-letter standards. Take the "significant coverage" element of the GNG to which Masem alludes. My own take is that we're talking at least 250 words to satisfy: about a page. But ask ten editors and I wager you get at least five different answers. Heck, I've seen certain editors advocate that a sentence is enough, despite the explicit guidance in WP:N that it is not. A consensus on what these things exactly mean just will not happen. Ravenswing 18:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
• I would agree with Ravenswing that it's too difficult, if not impossible, to get any bright-line consensus on this. Wikipedia works reasonably well when people concentrate on the specific rather than the general. There are too many "ifs" and "buts" about specific cases for us to come to any general agreement. My own preference is to concentrate on academic books and papers when it comes to sourcing, rather than news reports or popular "broad audience" web sites, because I believe that they are more reliable, but others seem to disagree. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2020 (UTC) And I would say that it's more like fifteen different answers from ten editors. Very few people are consistent about such things.
• While the previous statement of the gudieline was not clear, the current practical consensus at AfD over the interpretation of the present version of NCORP seems clear enough. There will always be isolated disagreements and erratic decisions. Myself I do not look at thephysical extent of the coverage, but what is actually written. promotionalism extended to book length is still promotionalism . DGG ( talk ) 21:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
• The difficulty interpreting WP:SIRS is kind of unsurprising that is so if you reflect on how the criterion came about: it is essentially the treaty that brought peace to the great inclusio-deletionist war and it describes one of the borders of the territory that the inclusionists were able to defend. I don't like the criterion - not so much because it is not a bright line but because it allows problematic content to stay and excludes some reference-quality material - but the fact that we can work with it is a huge point in its favour. — Charles Stewart (talk) 05:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• The OP has got it backwards. Our policy WP:NOTLAW explains that "the written rules themselves do not set accepted practice. Rather, they document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected." If an AfD establishes that a topic such as United_Graffiti_Artists is ok, as it did, then our guideline should reflect this rather than being altered in opposition to the established consensus. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:16, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Guidelines and policies, and the outcome of their discussions over the course of time represent community consensus on a wider scale which shouldn't be overridden by local consensus. In AfD's, decisions are rendered all the time based on local consensus that goes against wider consensus, for example series of coverage by the same publication or same journalists getting counted as "multiple sources", even though they're supposed to be counted as one, and hit counts from Newspapers.com and Google search being used as reason for "keep". Graywalls (talk) 06:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

So, the topic is borderline on GNG (does not meet it rigorously, but is borderline on the "common practice" GNG standard) and fails Ncorp. Structurally this makes Ncorp irrelevant in this case. Plus nobody argued that it met Ncorp so it's not pointing to needing a change in ncorp. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Notability is Wikipedia's Achilles heel.

There are so many double standards, contradictions, loopholes and gaming that being "notable" can either be p-easy to gain in the case of sports or Iranian villages or almost impossible when it comes to cryptocurrencies or fictional characters. I have had so many "last straws" for Wikipedia so often that I don't bother in most cases, but AFD has p-ed me off more than usual. Wikipedia's 20 year test is coming up soon, and people and donators will soon write more about the big gaps of knowledge deleted by Wikipedia. Second generation wikis that are more inclusionist will soon overtake Wikipedia (even Wikimedia's own Wikidata has more coverage), and Wikipedia will be considered non notable by future encyclopedists. 94.175.6.205 (talk) 14:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Or they become by words for inanity. And today on EvertyhingPedia our featured article is "Lord of the rings characters featured in discussions down the Stoat and whilst, Waterford".Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

It's a confusing kludge that has problems but mostly works. Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works right now. Someday we could create a grand unified guideline which would simplify and fix. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Riiiight, because the world measures encyclopedias by the number of comprehensive articles about ephemeral soap opera characters, one-shot obscure mangas, rural elementary schools, and bands of which no one besides their 50-person fan base have heard. Seems like a classic example of Ravenswing's Law in action. In any event, what makes you think that your "second generation wikis" will make you any happier? As with Wikipedia, they would certainly operate under rules and guidelines that would majorly piss you off in one way or another ... or if one conforms to your prejudices in every particular, you'd be the one writing a heated defense against the naysayers loudly proclaiming that YourFavoriteWiki has garbage standards and rules. Ravenswing 19:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

:-)  :-) North8000 (talk) 20:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

(The non-sardonic answer I have is this: Wikipedia operates on consensus. That consensus is imperfectly wrought over the better part of two decades, and is heavily influenced by precedent. In effect, a handful of loudmouths 15 or more years ago set in stone a bunch of shibboleths that will never be overturned. Significant institutional change is extremely difficult, because there's always (a) a large claque who like the status quo just fine, and (b) an equally large claque certain that such change will open the floodgates to all manner of craziness.)

(But what other system could succeed? A professionally-run online outfit like Encarta or Britannica? With a fiftieth of Wikipedia's content, they're all in the dustbin. A strictly moderated site with editorial oversight curated by "experts," as with Citizendium? That effort's been moribund for a decade, with less than a ten-thousandth Wikipedia's content. Wikipedia probably won't be any more eternal than Britannica was, but what's going to replace it isn't going to be Same-As-WP-Only-With-Rules-I-Like.) Ravenswing 05:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

One of the beauties of Wikipedia is that the people who create and own the content are not the people who own the web site, so if you want to create an encyclopedia about cryptocurrencies and fictional characters you are welcome to do so, and you can use the content that has been created on Wikipedia as long as you acknowledge the writers. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Generally, notability's larger problem right now is how we deal with "modern" topics that haven't had the nature of academic analysis, which is basically most any contemporary topic. It's still something we're learning how to do. We found people and companies tried to play the allowances for businesses and organizations, so we had to tighten down the notability guidelines for businesses. We had to significantly tighten those down for cybercurrency when we found there was very little "independent" coverage of that field. We also know that we probably have excessive coverage of sports that could probably be trimmed, but again, that's a learning process. We know its not perfect and that there's no universal rule here. --Masem (t) 20:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

IP, I for one am thrilled that we have so many articles about sports and villages and relatively fewer articles about scam cryptocurrencies and fictional characters usually better covered in articles about the works of fiction. It is exactly as it should be. As for your predictions about the future, let me remind you that you do not own a magic crytal ball, and that false predictions of Wikipedia's demise are almost as old as the project. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Are there any non-scam cryptocurrencies? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I would think the original Bitcoin is one of the few legit ones, but it is itself one foot in a pile of self-promotional manure of other crypto that taints its reputation. We'd still want more non-crypto-related third-party coverage of Bitcoin to talk about it. --Masem (t) 20:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The excessive number of articles we have in certain areas don't bother our readers because they never see them (except on disam pages). Readers only see what they click on a link for. Something those who obsess about gender %s etc should remember. Equally, given how low the views are for the bottom, say, 15% of articles we do have, it's hard to argue there's a widespread unmet need. Johnbod (talk) 23:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Original poster here, I think my ideas are right. Cryptocurrencies are one of the most controversial topics in the field of finance and have been linked to many crimes and scams even threating to destroy twitter. But they also changed peoples riches and many people have become millionaires and many countries like Venezuela have been improved by having cryptocurrency. The topic deserves to be notable and documented. Fictional characters also influence our lives by giving people common stories and references to share, so should be notable through that way. The notability debate has gone on for too long, too many Wikipedians have left the project after having all their articles destroyed by deletionism. I am an ex Wikipedian my self who left years ago but still sometimes makes a few edits. But no matter what happens to Wikipedia, inclusionism will always win in the end because people want to know and if Wikipedia won't provide it, somewhere else will. 94.175.6.205 (talk) 12:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

We do cover Cryptocurrency. We do cover Petro (cryptocurrency). So what is it you think we are missing?Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

And come now. Every subject and topic has a constituency whose lives they can claim are thereby enlivened, and have common stories and references to share. The most obscure athletes played for teams that had fans who cared. The most obscure porn actresses had fans who were, well, "enlivened." But ... there are reasons we have notability standards. Include every athlete and every porn performer and every thing that claims to be a cryptocurrency, and we not only have no idea whether the information presented is accurate, but it's impossible to police. Wikipedia seeks to be accurate, so that we're not a joke like Urban Dictionary and the like. So ... unless the situation is that it's not really that you disagree that there should be standards, or that articles need to be cited to reliable sources, then what your real beef is -- because you've been very vague on details -- is that the standards are tighter in your pet topic than you'd like. That's the price of doing business in a consensus-driven environment.

I'd certainly make a bunch of changes if I were appointed Dictator of Wikipedia. But I'm not, nor going to be. Not even Jimbo's that, these days. I put in my two cents' worth, and there are notability guidelines out there I'm proud to have created. And beyond that, I live with the compromises, and accept that a lot of editors don't agree with me on this or that. If I couldn't accept that, I'd walk. But beyond that? I figure on taking the chance that there are only a handful of people butthurt enough to flip Wikipedia the bird because their pet obscure athlete or ephemeral minor porn star or -- say -- fly-by-night cryptocurrency that no one ever wrote a news piece about don't have an article. Ravenswing 05:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I am not really interested in cryptocurrencies and fictional characters, but I must say, that I understand the IP and I agree that the Notability policy is the Achilles hell of Wikipedia. I mean for instance my favourite football club is deemed not notable, my favourite band is deemed not notable etc. (I have no personal connection to the any of them of course) and many local topics I would be interested in to read also. I find it very sad that a huge part of human knowledge is not available to the users. I do not want to sound pathetic but I believe, that most posters here do not have a slightest clue, how it is, when the topics you are most interested in are not allowed to be included in the encyclopedia. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 09:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

And I would say you are wrong, I have even had articles deleted as not notable (such as my local games club). Hell I have even voted delete on things I own, because they did not meet any reasonable notability requirement.Slatersteven (talk) 09:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

And I'll play devil's advocate. It's more than likely that I don't give a damn about your favorite football club, nor about your favorite band, nor about topics local to you. Nor would I wager that you care much about mine. I've had an article in my user space about a man I revere, a professor of music at my university for nearly half a century. Even with my intense personal bias I can't shake the fact that he just falls short of the relevant notability standards, and he's running out of time to pass them. And likely no one in your country has ever heard of him. So where do we draw the line? Unless you believe that there should be NO standards, and that everyone should have an article, and that reliable sourcing should not be required, then you believe there should be some standards. And what would those standards be? Ravenswing 06:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

If he was professor at YOUR university there could be problems with COI and PROMO. Otherwise I would have no problems with it. You are aksing abour standards? As long as editors aren't personally involved or paid and information is true and verifiable and no personal data regulation is violated then I see no problem if there is an article about something. Yeah, I don't give a damn about your favourite band but I allow an article about it. Your favourite band has an article and mine does not, that is the main point here. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 10:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

My favorite band is an internationally celebrated group with a couple dozen Grammy awards, nine Top Ten hits, and are in the top twenty best selling musicians of all time. Its Wikipedia article has over four hundred cites. If the article on your favorite band had only two reliable cites providing significant coverage, it would be up here. If it isn't popular enough to have passed that rather pathetically low bar of coverage, and/or neither you nor any other of its fans are motivated enough to find such coverage, well. That is the main point here. Ravenswing 20:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• I have said it before and will say it again, if RS are not giving your favoured subject enough coverage to generate an article, contact them and complain. They are the ones at fault.Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
• Can anyone show me an article of any substance in any other mainstream general-purpose encyclopedia that has been deemed not notable for coverage in Wikipedia? I don't see how our notability standards present a problem if we are covering vastly more than everyone else covers. BD2412 T 15:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

There are numerous such articles just in other language Wikipedias with looser rules that are deemed not notable for the English Wikipedia. And of course you see no problem, you are an admin, so you have an access also to deleted articles so to the full knowledge. If WIkiepdia do not want to cover all topics it should at least be fair enough to change its motto. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 16:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I think you know that I was referring to non-Wikimedia collections. In any case, if there were no standards of notability, I could theoretically write an article on my toes, Toes of BD2412, detailing their length in millimeters, circumference, and relative sensitivity to various stimuli. Does the fact that our current standards prohibit that deprive the world of "full knowledge"? If I wrote such an article and it was deleted, would my ability to see it mean I have greater access to knowledge than others? I don't think so. I think there is a difference between information and knowledge, and that our lines usefully draw that distinction. BD2412 T 16:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Well wikipedia is still subjected to laws and there is General Data Protection Regulation, so the article might be deleted for that. But if you are okay with that information to be public, I certainly would not nominate it for deletion. So in one language something is knowledge and in the other the same thing is only worthless information, interesting... Ludost Mlačani (talk) 17:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense. What that is is one group of editors who have stricter standards, and one group of editors who have looser standards. Honestly, you and the IP are doing the same thing: complaining about the way things are without telling us what you would do differently, and how you would do it. 06:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I would not delete other people's work, if it is at least somewhat verifiable. I do not care if there is information I do not read. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 10:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Just to let you know i’m setting up my own wiki to cover encyclopedic topics discriminated against by the notability policy. Deletionists will be treated the same as vandals on this wiki. I’ve noticed other wikis do the same. Eventually the inclusionist wikis will win out in terms of coverage and deletionist wikis will be forgotten about. People have been arguing about notability for over 15 years, admit it is a failed and discriminatory policy. 94.175.6.205 (talk) 10:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Notability optimization

Basically COI editing combined with notable sources ala SEO but for notability. This will happen as new generations of notability policy aware COI editors work in conjunction with the media to get get their articles notability optimized on Wikipedia to avoid deletion. I could easily become "notable" enough with a few thousand dollars and do multiple events to get round the ONEEVENT policy. 77.96.44.212 (talk) 15:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

sadly yes, what do you suggest?Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

If some organization spends that much money to find a way to make themselves appear notable that NORG's restrictions on sourcing does not catch (that is, getting coverage beyond trade magazines and over a length of time) just so they have a Wikipedia article, well, congratulations to money well spent. There's a limit to what we can practically catch if an organization is this intent on "defeating" our notability requirements. We're trying to catch the cheap and easy SEO attempts that we can readily judge by the sourcing. --Masem (t) 15:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, yes: people have been famous for being famous, and paid large sums to gain the notice of the public, pretty much for the entirety of recorded history. They will continue to do so. I think we all have much better uses of our time than worrying over the bare handful of people who thirst so badly to have Wikipedia articles that they'll go that route ... never mind that there is nothing that would be more fatal to Wikipedia's principles and collegiality than to replace WP:V and WP:N with some amorphous concept to only give articles to the "deserving." Ravenswing 06:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

People hire public relations firms for a reason. You might be disappointed to find out how many truly notable things do have massive amounts of money to market them. That's capitalism for you. But the most brazen self-promotion doesn't usually get you more than a single news spike, and WP:ONEEVENT helps weed that out. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)