Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Codf1977 (talk | contribs) at 10:40, 16 October 2010 (→‎Time to try this out?: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Define "Non-disruptive" if possible.

It currently reads:

Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made on user pages, as they are relevant to the current and future operation of the project.

What exactly qualifies as disruptive? Anyone who disagrees with you can be labeled disruptive. A user should be able to state what they feel is wrong with Wikipedia, and mention what should be done to change it, without some vague term accusation of being disruptive tossed around. Dream Focus 20:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think in this case it would mean 'civil and reasonable'. The two things we want to avoid in policy discussions are blatant attacks on particular editors (which serve only to inflame tempers, not to improve poicy), and wild aspersions against the project as a whole (there's just no productive purpose to someone spouting a diatribe about how W is a crypto-fascist regime dedicated to spawning propaganda and misinformation).--Ludwigs2 21:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't the rule against personal attacks already cover that? Dream Focus 21:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
that would be part of it, but not all of it. Crazy rants are not personal attacks, but are still pointlessly disruptive. --Ludwigs2 22:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attention, not size

About the footnote I added: WP:ORG gets someone a couple of times a year who thinks that WP:NOTADVERTISING doesn't apply to their organization because it's not (in their opinion) "very small" or "garage" org -- and that consequently, it's just fine to have an article based exclusively (or primarily) on the business's own website. In fact, WP:ORG and WP:N are size-indiscriminate. If a large business manages to avoid all forms of publicity, then it doesn't get an article -- and if a one-person consulting shop gets lots of press, then it is notable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support addition. Those seem like reasonable clarifications. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support that; should be helpful. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Against addition. If an organization gets mentioned and quoted from, that should be enough. Major news sources believe it notable enough to publish stats from, but there isn't enough to write an entire article about them. The current discussion started at the AFD for The Alliance for Safe Children, then spilled over to the talk page of WP:ORG [1] Dream Focus 21:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont think the addition adds to the text, I think it would better just to remove so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable as it is making pre-judgements based on size and not WP:V. MilborneOne (talk) 22:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Milborne, I thought about proposing that, since it's technically true. However, I decided that the existing language might be practical, since these are far and away the businesses most likely to be affected by it, and someone running a one-person tiny business (=by far, the most common kind of business on the planet) is likely to recognize themselves in that description. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support addition. WP:V insists that articles be based on third-party sources, even though inclusion of other material is permitted. How can an article be based on third-party sources if none exist?—Kww(talk) 22:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose addition, as worded. While well-meant, this addition acts to make notability guideline policy... and that has never had consensus. Further, it unneccessaily confuses due to it directly contradicting the current instructions and caveats at WP:V... which instruct that information be verifiable, but not that information must absolutely be based on third-party sources... indeed, WP:V explains how other sources might sometimes be worth consideration for use in sourcing. Whether or not or how corporations, organizations, events, products, and businesses might meet inclusion criteria is already covered in the various notability guidelines. Verifiability is not the same as notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But WP:V says that the article must be based on third-party sources. I agree that it allows a mix of source types, but how can an article without third-party sources be based on third-party sources?—Kww(talk) 00:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Without any specific examples, I might posit that if Organization XYZ is listed on some municipality's tax rolls, or listed in some Federal register, that listing is a "third-party" source that verifies existance. And then based upon that verified existance, an editor might use other sources from which to then attempt building an article. A different concern is then determining notability (or lack) to allow (or not) inclusion of the article... and THAT is a whole different bowl of soup, as verifiability is not the same as notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So your definition of "based on" requires only a solitary fact, after which the vast majority of content can be derived from other things? I think you are stretching things beyond reason.—Kww(talk) 01:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    [ec] You gave no examples that could be looked at and so I posited a simple hypothetical of how a verifiable fact might "inspire" the creation of an article. I am not arguing that one verified fact can source content for an entire article. I am not arguing that a verified fact is a promise or guarantee of inclusion, as naturally... content and sourcing of notability assertions requires reliable sources... and the more, the better. But my point is that THAT requirement is already well-covered in guideline. To borrow your term... it is the adding of notability criteria to a policy page is what can be considered a "stretch", specially when it may have been done in order to post-facto support arguments made at an ongoing AFD. Simply put, policy WP:V requires and instructs that facts need be verified in a reliable source... but THAT verifiability is not the same as guideline's demand for significant coverage... which is what notability criteria are set up to determine and gauge. And that's where his modifications belong... in those various notability guidelines... as again, verifiability is not the same as notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Kww: An 20-paragraph article is not "based on" third-party facts if only one sentence is actually supported by a third-party source, and the other 19.6 paragraphs are all supported by the organization's own website. You can use first-party sources (e.g., what Microsoft says about Microsoft) to fill in holes, but they should not form the basis of either the article's existence or its content/outline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not expect you to disagree with someone who agreed with you. :) Your trying to add specific guideline criteria to policy pages belongs in the various guideline pages, not in policy. Better to have discussion on the guideline pages. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The guidelines have said this for years, almost word-for-word. See, e.g., the first sentence of WP:N and the first paragraph at WP:ORG. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes... and that's what guidelines are for. But guideline is NOT policy, and it needs far more than 6 editors in an unofficial RFC to decide that what might exist as common sense in guideline should now become the absolute mandate in policy. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But the addition is a natural consequence of WP:V in any plain reading, since WP:V says that articles need to be based on "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". WP:N as a guideline is actually fairly redundant: anything it would require is already covered by WP:V. That's one of the reasons I've always wondered why people get so excited about WP:N: not only is it common sense, it doesn't create any new requirements.—Kww(talk) 04:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You both make my point. In recognizing that common sense instructions are already included in guideline, there is no need to have guideline then CREEP into policy without a far wider consensus than that of the 6 editors in this unofficial "RFC"... specially as guideline does allow and encourage common sense by the heading on each of their pages... and policy pages pointedly do not include the "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply" caution which heads each guideline. And if guideline WP:N is now declared as redundent to policy WP:V, then it is time for an RFC to demote WP:N to essay or historical... but not to have creep it into policy without a far, far wider consensus. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that WP:N's purpose is not to support WP:V, WP:NOR, or the like. It is an inclusion metric to make sure that the topics that are included in the work are encyclopedic and not just someone's pet project or vanity page or similar. The GNG part of WP:N, requiring "significant coverage in secondary sources", just happens to overlap with meeting WP:V, WP:NOR, and other policies, but it is not designed as a duplicate means to these policies. And it's a guideline for the very specific reason that there are some topics that consensus has considered to include without meeting WP:N / GNG but still meeting V, NOR, and the like (such as many many small settlement articles). There are some that would love WP:N to be policy, but as long as WP is more than just an encyclopedia, we need to keep an open mind about what should be included.
  • To the topic at hand, it is definitely the case that size doesn't matter. If a one-man business attracted third sources to talk about his business, while another 500-man company hasn't been reported on at all, we're still doing our job of an encyclopedia to be summarizing sources. Anyone can write primary sources, which is why WP:V does not allow articles based on these alone. --MASEM (t) 05:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)WP:N is important in defining what is valid for an article. WP:V relates to all content. If WP:V is talking about article validity, then that troubles me - it is far better to have a distinct guideline (although, I'm in the 'should be policy' camp) that EXTENDS other policy to set out what is entitled to it's own article. On to my main point - WP:NOT also applies to ALL encyclopaedia content (including the existence or otherwise of an article) - I am resistant to any further complication of NOT by stuff that relates to articles specifically. "consequently, it's just fine to have an article based" leaps out to me to suggest the issue here is about articles - and that therefore WP:NOT is perhaps the wrong place to address the concern. Maybe we need a WP:NOT that is about article topics specifically (nb: we do, it's called WP:N) ‒ Jaymax✍ 05:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Reading Masem above - I would modify my comments to say it's no so much that I think WP:N should be policy, but their should be a distinct policy that defines what topics are entitled to their own article, that encompasses the exceptions to WP:N Masem mentions. This should be distinct from WP:V, which should be precisely about making sure the information in WP can be verified. ‒ Jaymax✍ 05:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My thoughts on this:
  1. WP:N is not policy and should not be policy. Quite apart from content which is not articles, there are a variety of types of articles we have, such as some type of lists, where WP:N is not applicable because they are meant to deal with situations where the individual; parts are not individually appropriate for an article. Elevating WP:N to policy is a matter that would need very long discussion at very widespread approval--and an exceptionally large supermajority which I do not think would be forthcoming. Various equivalents of it have been repeatedly rejected (e.g. WP:ATT)
  2. I rarely disagree with MASEM about topics like this , but I strongly disagree with him here. WP:V does not require secondary independent sources. It requires reliable sources. The official reports or web pages of a responsible organization are reliable sources for the activities of the organization and provide in many cases all the WP:V that is necessary for a basic description. If these pages show the lements of notability in either the technical or common sense of the word, then WP:N is met also.
  3. WP:N as an inclusion guideline is obsolete. It is overly reliant upon the accidents of sourcing. With the increasing growth of the Googles, an incredible number of topics that can not be considered encyclopedia-worthy in all sorts of fields will become qualified under the GNG. One example is high school athletes. If we're going to exclude them, we will have to exclude them on the basis of other guidelines than the GNG. Similarly for non fiction books, it will increasingly be possible to find 2 RSs for about half the books published. If we exclude them we will have to do so on the basis of other considerations that the GNG--probably by quibbling about whether local sources are indiscriminate. So far the GNG and the concept of notability have been used mainly for exclusion of material, and the inclusionists have needed to try to fit the necessary content in--with increasing success. In the very near future it will be the reverse: the GNG will permit nearly anything, way beyond what almost any inclusionist here is prepared to support, and we will all join in finding a better way to decide.
  4. I agree with Jaymax that what we need is inclusion guidelines. The difficulty is that there will be no consensus on it. It will need to be expressed on objective criteria, and there is no agreement on them in most areas. In some areas there is compromise--at least for the moment--we are for example agreed that all high schools are included, but not lower schools except in unusual cases. We are agreed that academic journals in major indexes are to be included, and we have rough agreement what indexes count for the purpose. We are agreed that performers with recordings that chart are to be included, & we have rough compromise what charts count for the purpose. But I don't think we have even rough consensus about what politicians or porn stars, or association football players are to be included. The only inclusion policy that actually works is the basic policy that what the community wants to include will be included.
  5. MQS's "common sense" is a difficult criterion. Of course I and all of us agree with it, but there is a relative small subset where everyone;'s common sense is in agreement.
  6. What we need is consistency: We are no longer experimental; we now are the overwhelmingly dominant online encyclopedia and for many people the only reference source that they use. This gives us a certain responsibility. Institutions as well as people find themselves--however unwillingly--forced into greater responsibility as they mature. One of the signs of majority is our growing insistence on good sourcing. Another should be our efforts towards consistency. People expect to find things here, on the basis of what they usually find here. We exist to serve them. We're not making an online free encyclopedia as a demonstration project or a game; we're making one for use. We need standards that we can agree to follow. There should be very little need for AfD, if we have them. DGG ( talk ) 07:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear on #2, I didn't say WP:V needed secondary sources - but that is something that is needed to satisfy WP:NOR/WP:NPOV if there are non-factual statements being made. I agree with what you're saying. --MASEM (t) 13:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You two are muddling "secondary" and "independent" again. The text is reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Independence is required, but it can be an independent primary account (a census would probably meet the standard of being independent with a reputation for fact checking, for example). I don't see how a company's website would ever qualify to be the basis of an article.—Kww(talk) 16:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back on track

If I can re-focus your attention: The question here is only whether we want to preserve this misleading "size discrimination" idea in WP:NOTADVERTISING. There are basically two possible solutions—either we explain in a footnote, or we remove the bit about small businesses altogether:

Footnote Current text Shorten
Article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable.

<ref>If there are no third-party reliable sources writing about a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it. This standard applies to equally to larger organizations as well as smaller ones.</ref>

Article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. Article topics must be third-party verifiable.

Personally, I thought that the footnote was the smaller change, but I'm open to either approach. Which do you prefer? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles based on company websites or promotional material are unacceptable"? Isn't that really the problem you are trying to solve?—Kww(talk) 20:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer removal of the bit about small businesses, which I think Kww suggested. Kww's wording just above would be good too if it had "articles solely based on" (bolding mine) and better wording of the first phrase. Otherwise I prefer column C - IMO we shouldn't be introducing notability criteria directly into this policy, as DGG points out, they are constantly evolving, whereas a policy page should ideally stay fairly static. Franamax (talk) 20:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No strong opposition to "solely", although I would prefer "primarily". I didn't have anything to do with the "garage" text in the first place, Franamax ... I'm not sure who you are thinking of.—Kww(talk) 21:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Franamax meant that you had proposed the "shorten" approach, not that you had written the existing text. (The shortened text was actually MilborneOne's idea.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
^^ Wut them sez. :) Franamax (talk) 22:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would aprove of the shorter "Article topics must be third-party verifiable", as it is simple, clean, sensible, and fully suported by current policy.. and as a simplification also removes any conflicts with existing notability guidelines. Organization size should never be made an exclusionary criteria, as even small companies might indeed have the wisespread coverage and impact that could merit inclusion. I'm reminded of TOMS Shoes... a small local company that has had global impact and coverage. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the shorter version works, but I would consider adding something to the effect that "A company or organization's own material, such as brochures or websites, are considered first-party sources, and can only be used in conjunction with third-party sources." Take out the issue on size, but stress that those that post "hey, we have a website, here's our information on WP!" aren't going to be kept. --MASEM (t) 22:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe there is any need to add such a caveat, as guideline already instructs when and how an SPS might be used, and stresses that an SPS does not add to notability. Again, no need to make guideline into policy. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the outcome, if the text is changed, it should move away from focussing on article TOPICS. NOTADVERTISING should apply equally to a section or other content in a related article. Also, since this is NOT, I would advocate for text that says what should not be. (ie: logically negate the point) ‒ Jaymax✍ 22:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No one is suggesting converting a guideline into policy, Michael. Since the need for articles to be based on third-party sourcing already is policy, and experienced editors don't seem to fully grasp that, the caveat seems quite necessary.—Kww(talk) 22:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, I'm not sure what the intended difference is between your long statement and my short one (modified to include "primarily" as discussed above). What is it?—Kww(talk) 22:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "not based solely" establishes that other sources are required... and that is fine. "Not based primarily" invokes a need to begin counting words and sources, as "primarily" will become a subjective as with editors quibble over how many sources were used for just what content... "Solely" is objective. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Solely" is easily gameable though. One one-sentence mention in a third-party source, and a 4000 line article based on the company's website would be argued to be acceptable.—Kww(talk) 23:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same issue with NOT:PLOT and dealt with in the same way - applying UNDUE and appropriate editing to clean that up. If the mention by the third-party is enough to establish the company, then it doesn't matter if someone spams the article with copyedit from the company's webiste - that's a content issue to be cleaned up but not an inclusion issue that this policy is attempting to address. But that's why I suggest the additional line to make sure that small amounts of source directly from the company is appropriate to add. --MASEM (t) 00:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's worked so well before. The more places that drive home the fact that articles can't be derived from dependent sources, the better, because too many people are intent on using tiny bits of info to coatrack enormous articles, and then the same people that claim WP:N is only a guideline will act as if WP:N mandates the inclusion of every topic that ever got mentioned in two different sources in order to keep the article. Articles that are primarily derived from corporate websites or press releases need to be deleted or userfied until someone can improve them, not kept as advertising waiting for the day that someone will bother to improve it. This is WP:NOT, after all, a place to list what is not acceptable.—Kww(talk) 03:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your short version gets the point across, but I worry that people will say "but this company has a website and all that and all that's published", or worse, that the material in question is prepared by or hosted by another entity hired to do that ("third-party" though far from independent). Clearly establishing that you can't just use press copy for a company to build an article is important but at the same time, once it has been established, press copy can be a useful contribution to the article. It's not absolutely necessary, but in the semi-informal tone NOT takes I think it is fair to address this issue at this point. --MASEM (t) 23:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well... no matter what sources might have inspired the creation of an article, and no matter what sources are used to build its content, the article would still have to answer to the more specific and detailed instructions at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Fail that guideline and the article is deleted. Pass those guidelines and the article might be kept. There is no need to move parts of those more specific notability guidelines into policy. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, if the subject fail ORG and you fail GNG and editors dislike the subject (e.g., alt med products are out, but charities are in), then it might be deleted.
If, on the other hand, you list lots of essentially irrelevant references that mention the subject only once in passing, if that much (e.g., see the actual contents of the named sources in The Alliance for Safe Children, which survived AFD despite failing ORG, GNG, and NOT), then there are good odds that a bunch of editors will say, "Wow! Nineteen sources! I didn't look at any of them, but let's keep such an amply sourced article!"
If an article contains more than half a dozen inline citations to third-party sources, then it's actually quite difficult to get it deleted, no matter what the contents of the sources are. A sufficient proportion of AfD respondents simply ignore the "significant coverage" standards, and simply count up the number of sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And we're back to the incident-specific reason you decided to modify policy. If you're frustrated by how that AFD was closed, or feel that it was closed incorrectly and that a closing admin ignored existing policy and/or guideline, then your recourse is to take the issue to DRV. This is not the forum to re-argue that AFD. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 12:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite legitimate to look at an AFD and believe the reason that it went wrong is because the !voters didn't comprehend policy and the existing policy needs clarification. Most policy revisions are made for precisely that kind of reason. You act as if Whatamidoing is trying to modify the underlying policy in some way, and he is not: the changes suggested so far have done nothing but clarify what existing policy is.—Kww(talk) 16:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A well-respected Wikipedia bureaucrat[2] not comprehending policy before offering an opinion? Err.. not the first thing I would have ever thought.
I have a concern about any editor choosing to "clarify" a policy[3] during the course of an AFD to then have that policy more "clearly" support his arguments made[4] at that AFD... specially when such instruction and clarifications are already well-covered in the pertinant notability guideline.
And now that the AFD has closed against his opinion,[5] the editor voices continued disagreement with the opinions of editors at that AFD... and these opinions include those by admins and a well-respected bureaucrat. If he thinks the close was wrong, he has recourse other than "clarifying" policy to make it fit his interpretation of what policy might "better" be in a post-facto support of his argument at an AFD that closed against his interest. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That Rlevse doesn't always research every aspect of policy pertaining to an article before expressing an opinion wouldn't make him unique. It's certainly true that the AFD closed against Whatamidoing's opinion, but you haven't demonstrated any portion of his proposed change that would actually change policy as opposed to expressing it more clearly.—Kww(talk) 21:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that when a Crat steps away from the tasks involved with wielding the mop to speak up at an AFD, we might have a far more reasonable expectation that he has indeed done his homework... and not an unfounded presumption of the opposite. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And getting back to track on the size issue, beyond some simply wanting guideline caveats placed into policy, it has not been demonstrated that the inclusion of guideline instruction into policy here improves it. If it already stated elsewhere, it does not need to be ipso-facto included into every other policy page. Again, I find the far simpler "Article topics must be third-party verifiable." as offered above, to be far simpler, far cleaner, and less subject to abuse of policy... acting instead to then send editors then to the appropriate notability guidelines themselves... contrary opinion notwithstanding. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think that the closer was incorrect in his interpretation of the local consensus. Editors at an AFD are permitted to WP:IGNORE notability guidelines whenever they choose to, and closers may choose consensus according to policy and guidelines, or the more limited (but perhaps more appropriate) consensus at AFD.
But this change really didn't have anything to do with that AFD, and absolutely would not have affected its outcome. It's only that quoting this section reminded me that I'd been thinking about addressing NOT's somewhat misleading claims of size discrimination for months now. (See, e.g., here.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well.... that was the impression I received from your statement where you spoke of the AFD, as a closer has the responsibility to weigh the arguments made by various editors and NOT count votes. And if editors might opine and ignore guideline, they do so at their own risk, for if their arguments are spurious, a closer has the responsibility to ignore them and close per application of guideline and policy. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Issues of organization size belong in the appropriate guideline and not in policy... which is why I support the removal of the phrase "so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable", and acceptance of the shortened and cleaner version above. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, issues of organization size don't actually belong anywhere, because we don't actually care how big the organization is. We care how much attention it has received.
As a practical matter, very small orgs are less likely to have received sufficient coverage than very large orgs, but it's the coverage, not the size, that matters. Half the point of the clarification is to indicate that articles on "very small" orgs might well be perfectly acceptable (if they received lots of coverage). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then yes, that mention of size affecting notability does not belong in policy. Its clarification would seem better addressed, if at all, over at WP:Notability (organizations and companies). And, as that guideline already begins with and stresses coverage, and does not include any unrealistic limitation on notability due to "small size", there is no need to saddle WP:NOTADVERTISING with a notability limitation that guideline does not. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a journalistic product

You could add that Wikipedia is not a journalistic product. Some users seem to believe that reader attractiveness and viewer numbers is more important than relevance or correctness, adding fun trivia information and irrelevant photos (like in a place article, a better looking photo of a similar place). --BIL (talk) 09:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS vs WP:EVENT

I know this has been discussed before but I think it needs to be looked at again,.

Over the last few weeks, I have been involved in a number of AfD's and DRV's that have boiled down in essence to WP:NOTNEWS vs WP:EVENT.

Here are a few examples

From my reading of the WP:NOTNEWS section of this policy, it is there to stop the Encyclopaedia being filled up with news stories that show no "enduring notability" to that end just because an event get's widespread coverage at the time, that does not mean we should have an article on it, take for example 12 September 2008 Dujail bombing all the refs are from the 24 hours after the event with nothing to show that the event has that enduring notability. Please read the essay WP:Recentism for some helpful perspective on this problem.


Note : I have waited until the end of the process on all of the above to avoid even the appearance of canvassing.

So my questions are :

Is the WP:NOTNEWS policy meant to limit articles on any event that are widely reported at the time, but with no lasting effect or enduring notability ?
and if so, should the WP:NOTNEWS policy take precedence over the WP:EVENT guideline and should both pages be updated to reflect that.

Codf1977 (talk) 11:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is important to keep in mind that NOTNEWS (as part of NOT) applies equally (or should be applied equally) to both article content, and article existence. To argue under NOT that an article should not exist, is to argue that the content of the article would be equally inappropriate as part of an article on a broader topic. NOT should not define what are, or are not, appropriate article topics; it operates at a more holistic level. While NOT has precedence as policy, when it comes to 'should this be an article or not' the appropriate guidance is WP:EVENT, which should (and to my mind does) fully consider and comply with WP:NOTNEWS ‒ Jaymax✍ 12:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ironically, the article (AFD) used as an example of an event that "is just the news" was the only one of these I punched "keep". In my defense my brain was almost melted :) after parsing this AFD. In hindsite the "keep" votes in the Dujail AFD weren't stronger then the others but all of the "delete" !votes were basically "per noms".--Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are supposed to work together; neither conflict with the other. What appears to be the problem is how one defines routine coverage or wide international coverage. What I'm seeing in these articles are the same news story, told in different ways from different wire sources or newspapers. Repetition of what happened at an event without additional analysis usually in the 24hr after the event is routine coverage even if the event is deadly and/or life threatening. EVENT suggests this, but it's not 100% clear on the issue, while this really isn't addressed in NOTNEWS, or at least it should be mentioned in routine coverage. I agree on the general consensus that if you can't find sources that are outside a 24-48hr window of an event, it has no long-term coverage and is not notable and thus should be moved to Wikinews. (I wonder what the chances are of getting a CSD criteria in place for events within their first 24-48hr save for ones that are clearly obviously notable like major passenger jet crashes). --MASEM (t) 13:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There was debate around this while EVENT was being developed. There is a strong (IMHO) argument for NOT deleting an article that gets created within the first couple of days, because during that time a solid and quality basis for an article can be developed while editor input is heavy. An article can easily be deleted after (say) two weeks (or two months) with no downside to the encyclopaedia - the effort/contributions made by editors during the early period is lost if the article is deleted because as admin determines the topic is not "clearly obviously notable" (an extremely subjective criterion) ‒ Jaymax✍ 13:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing is that we need discourage on the spot writing and instead direct those that want to write on the spot articles to Wikinews which easily can accept that. When the event has "matured" to the point of having clear notability, it can be moved into Wikipedia proper. I'm not a big fan of the creation of an article and deleting later if the article doesn't prove out to be notable. You get, well, exactly what all these AFDs are showing. --MASEM (t) 13:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree that we need to discourage them, nor that Wikinews is actually useful for this purpose. Wikinews allows OR, Wikipedia does not. Jclemens (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if WNews allows for OR, that simply means in my scheme that when the article is ready to return to WP because the event is notable, it needs to be stripped of OR before or shortly being added. Of course, the other alternative is to encourage userpage construction of event articles until they are notable to be in mainspace. --MASEM (t) 21:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fundamental problem is that NOTNEWS says what it means, ("For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia.") but some editors and administrators are misapplying NOTNEWS to e.g. the incidents above that have received international coverage. NOTNEWS should be renamed NOTROUTINENEWS, but what some editors are expecting it to be is NOTEVENMAJORINTERNATIONALNEWS. Jclemens (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The point that needs to be made is that there are some events that get worldwide coverage simply being on several different newswires and are never discussed again, which gives the appearance of wide coverage but realistically is simple reiteration of facts without analysis. That does not a good event article make. --MASEM (t) 21:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If an event is covered in multiple reliable sources, we presume it worthy of an article, per GNG. If NOTNEWS is going to be an exception on such a basis, it needs to be a lot clearer on this point. Furthermore, if an event article is insufficient on its own, the proper question isn't "Do we keep this info or not" (given that it's already been covered in multiple RSes) but rather "How can we best present this information in an encyclopedic fashion?" In the case of several of the above articles, the obvious solution is to merge into lists... yet that option gets overshadowed in much of the partisan bickering. Jclemens (talk) 22:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is meant as an exception as it is a policy and not a guideline. I agree however in most cases a mention in a suitable other article is warranted, just not an article on it's own. Codf1977 (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) If you take the sentence prior to the one you quote which says "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." so how does being widely reported, even if it is on every news broadcast in the world, make something "enduring" - Something can't be said to have enduring notability (as in the 12 September 2008 Dujail bombing) if the event is not discussed in at least some detail in the weeks and months after it in reliable sources. The problem I have with the interpretation of the policy you are suggesting is it seems to over look that first part of the paragraph, that of the requirement to look for "enduring notability". Codf1977 (talk) 22:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue, then, is that the section of NOTNEWS is at odds with itself! The examples given do not match what the first sentence is being interpreted to mean. On the other hand, I agree--most newsworthy items aren't notable. But "most" can mean anything from 55% to 99.99%, with most people probably agreeing that reality falls somewhere in the 70-90% range. But those NN news examples given in the next sentences themselves comprise most of the news! So if "most" is interpreted reasonably, there's neither any conflict between the two, nor any call to exclude the "major news story of the day". Jclemens (talk) 22:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see it, or more specifically, we are not including the fact that international reporting from wire services that go into no analysis of the event is just as unaccepted as the "routine" coverage of sports and celebrities. Coverage for event notability has many dimensions, which include breadth (the number of sources reporting it, and the non-locality of such sources), depth (the amount of detail and analysis they go into the topic), and longevity (how far out from the event are the sources appearing). NOTNEWS does fail to go significantly into the details here but the term "enduring coverage" captures a lot of that easily. --MASEM (t) 22:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting myself from back when EVENT was being developed:

Encyclopaedic applicability or purpose wrt a notable breaking news event is no different to applicability wrt any other notable event. In the case of Balloon Boy it was dragging together in one place encyclopaedic facts that provided background, context, understanding. I totally agree that people should not be turning to WP to get their news - but if you want to look up some background that has long (relatively) dropped out of the current news, or research the topic - having an article is no bad thing.

For a notable event a year ago, one can either trawl through hundreds of online news articles, most of which repeat the same thing, frequently incorrectly, or one can come to Wikipedia. For a notable event a day ago, one can either trawl through hundreds of online news articles, most of which repeat the same thing, frequently incorrectly, or one should be able to come to Wikipedia - for exactly the same reasons - it's got nothing to do with the latest news, it's about being a complete encyclopaedia, not just ignoring something notable until it's a bit dusty. All of this is consistent with being a tertiary source - all of this is consistent with being an encyclopaedia. The only reasons it's not 'traditional' for an encyclopaedia to attempt to be current, have to do with paper, printing, logistics and cost (in terms of paying writers). --Jaymax (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Agree completely w/JClemens, including renaming NOTNEWS as NOTROUTINENEWS. That would be a great help.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the two would be in harmony, if people would just read the entirety of WP:EVENT and actually apply the whole thing, rather than one selective part of one sentence. The allegedly policy-based defense for keeping most news stories to me is "it was covered widely in lots of different countries and news sources." That's great, but that's not enough, even per WP:EVENT. The line that refers to international coverage actually states, "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below)" (emphasis added). That line clearly states that being covered in diverse sources is not enough--the event has to rise to the level of having widespread national or international impact. WP:EVENT goes on to say, "Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions below provide guidance to assess the event," which requires that we actually then wade into the details of the story itself rather than just saying "200 hits on Google News, in 3 different countries, Keep." Furthermore, a few people above mentioned that just having reliable sources means the article meets WP:GNG. Well, yes, it's true that having multiple reliable, independent sources with significant does mean the topic satisfies GNG, but note that GNG itself explicitly and clearly states, "significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not." That is, just meeting GNG is not enough to overcome WP:NOT. I saw someone else who described the various core policies as a set of hurdles--each of them needs to be met independently to guarantee inclusion as a stand-alone article; meeting one is not enough. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’m glad someone had the chutzpah to turn over this slimy rock to see what’s underneath. This issue has been in the back of my mind for a while. I got a simple solution: Don’t allow articles on events to be created on Wikipedia unless it’s been at least six months since the event first unfolded. That will cut down on this *Newspaper* articles because someone will have to remember the details: (“I think it had to do with someone who was from—like—the Middle East or North Africa or something like that blowing up something.”) It’s a lot easier to do if the issue is still in the papers. In most cases, someone who was all hot & bothered to start an article the day after something happens is going to be busy on something else six months later and won’t have the motivation. The only exception would be exceedingly notable events where there is no question at all (when using a modicum of WP:COMMONSENSE). Greg L (talk) 00:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • So if we had this policy back on 9/11/2001 we should have had to wait 6 months before writing an article about the attack? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • No fair speed-reading and then commenting. Read the last sentence, too. Greg L (talk) 23:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Six months is far too long, but I strongly agree that event articles, even those that are immediately obvious to any causal reader that will be notable, should not be created for a period of X after the occurrence of the event. X to me is at least 48 hrs to a week, which is enough time for details to become accurate, for weekly periodicals to take detailed stab at it, and so forth. Again,I would not be hesitant to have a CSD for event articles created before X is up (with a push to Wikinews or userspace as a possible result), unless that event is truly important. More often than note, breaking events likely can be put into a larger topic in the interim before the event clearly has shown to be notable. --MASEM (t) 00:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree strongly with GregL, as I disagree w/any delay on reporting news that is not routine news. Just look at the number of hits on breaking news that a wp article on current events receives -- why deprive readers of the benefit of the nascent wikipedia article? And while we afg, we sadly cannot ASSUMECOMMONSENSE, as those who participate in AfDs can attest.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter whether or not we agree whether news articles should or should not be created soon after the event. Absent a fundamental shift in Wikipedia's rules for article creation, they will be created, and any proposed solution which ignores this reality is doomed to fail. Jclemens (talk) 00:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    CSD and PROD exists to step problems of bad article creation like vanity and hoaxes. No reason we can't incorporate just-happened events as well. --MASEM (t) 00:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So that's the proposal? Since CSD and PROD are each only for uncontroversial deletions, neither would be effective without substantial modifications, which puts us back in the everything-recent-is-at-AfD-but-kept-eventually status quo... except they might get deleted. Jclemens (talk) 01:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, no, it's not as simple as that. It is getting consensus in the first place that we shouldn't be creating event articles immediately after they happen. Then we can talk about a CSD/PROD case. --MASEM (t) 01:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'm not sure whether it will help, but I'll add my name to vote for a rule to not create an article immediately after an event. Maybe something arbitrary like a 3-day or 7-day rule to say that no sourcing is reliable unless the item has been in existence for at least that time. That combined with the ability to delete articles without reliable sources might solve the problem. Dingo1729 (talk) 02:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
are you saying that NYT articles gain authority if they age a few days, or are you using "reliability" is some way that has no relationship to the ordinary meaning of the term? DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A NYT article written a few days after an event is more significant indication of the event's enduring notability than a NYT article written on the day of the event. --MASEM (t) 04:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we writing for ourselves? or to prove a theory about how encyclopedias should be written? or to enforce the distinctions we have ourselves made up? or to match the habits of conventional publications? In the paper era, only a daily or weekly publication could be current; the best an almanac or encyclopedia could do is catch up at the end of the year. But Wikipedia is not paper, and their distinctions are obsolete. TTheu true purpose of Wikipedia is to provide the information people want, and the justification for dividing it between projects is only if these projects can do better divided up, or if people prefer to see them that way. I think it's pretty obvious that we can do just as well here with most stories as they can do a wikinews, and it's also true that many more people come here. The true distinction between Wikipedia and Wikinews is that Wikinews can rely on original reporting, and Wikipedia only on secondary sources. Thus, Wikinews can engage in analysis. which Wikipedia cannot. Otherwise, I see no difference. This may be enough to keep Wikinews as an auxiliary project, but otherwise I think we should just delete the rule NOT NEWS. We should still limit ourselves to significant news of more than purely local and ephemeral interest, but we do that with all articles. For example, we'd keep the rules on BLP and on NOT TABLOID. I'm not sure we have any need of ONEEVENT except with respect to negative BLOP, either. otherwise, either. encyclopedias are for use. DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can be current, but we should be careful of editing problems and the problem with false or mistaken information that comes from today's on the spot reporting. Once news coverage of an event has settled down after the initial occurrence, where the facts can be better judged and analysis starts to appear, we can understand the event in the larger picture of its encyclopedic nature; it is exception that we know in hours or even a day of an event of its impact. Also, Wikipedia's purpose is not to provide what people want - it's to build an education free content encyclopedic resource; we can use input of readers and the like to judge how that should be built, but if we went strictly by what readers use it for, we're be a fanguide for every contemporary show, a catalog of every garage band, and, here, coverage of every local event. We need filters to keep the work relevant and usable and not succumb to the "average" desires of what they think WP should be. --MASEM (t) 04:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I am saying that newspaper articles gain authority if they age a few days. I've seen plenty of newspaper articles which give a false impression and then are significantly modified by later information. I'm not going to fight over this point. If people enjoy an all-against-all riot with quotes and information thrown in while the ink is still wet on the newspaper then so be it. I just think it produces unbalanced and unreliable copy. Dingo1729 (talk) 04:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So how about a moratorium on NOTNEWS-based AfD nominations until a week has passed? Rather than assuming something will NOT be notable in the long term, why not keep it around for a minimum of a week, during which time a clearer sense of the notability will have developed, and it can be better seen whether a standalone article, merge into another article, or deletion is most appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 05:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An alternative that is geared towards retaining appropriate events but removing those that have little is to tag newly created event pages, that basically puts the article on a 7-day period; unless it fails another CSD criteria (eg obvious hoax), it should be left untouched for deletion tagging. Within 7-days, the article will be evaluated per EVENT in a CSD-type manner (eg an admin). If it is clear the event clearly hasn't gained any more coverage from its onset, it should be readily deleted/moved to Wikinews or something like that. Otherwise, it should be left untouched. Of course, if the event clearly has passed EVENT/NOTNEWS within that time, the tag can be removed prematurely. --MASEM (t) 05:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Read page 7, of the 2008–2009 Wikimedia Foundation Annual Report. That's what I think of, when notnews comes up.
    Well worth a look, but quoting a chunk here for the lazy... ‒ Jaymax✍ 08:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    making the news new At 10:30 a.m. on November 26, 2008, the Indian city of Mumbai began to experience a set of coordinated bombings and shootings, later determined to have been carried out by Islamic extremists from Pakistan. The attacks continued for three days, and resulted in more than 300 casualties, including 173 deaths. Within hours of the first shots and explosions, Wikipedians around the world began to use emerging media reports to build a comprehensive, authoritative article. It rapidly grew to include eyewitness photos and quotes, links to media accounts, maps, diagrams and related articles. A year after the attacks, the English Wikipedia now features nearly 43,000 words on what is known today as the 2008 Mumbai Attacks.
  2. We last discussed this in September, archived at /Archive 34#NOTNEWS. So please also read that, so that we don't all have to repeat ourselves :) HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 05:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • When we were working on WP:EVENT we explicitly included the "Duration of coverage" subsection because we wanted to discourage articles on topics that were covered only during one or two 24 hour news cycles. It sounds like the guideline is being misapplied in a way that makes it seem to conflict with WP:NOTNEWS. In the end it is not about the content (routine coverage refers to the nature of the coverage not the nature of the event) but about the sources. In order to write an encyclopedia article you need sources that provide analysis of and context for events. This sort of coverage is rarely found in day of or day after event newspaper articles, wire service blurbs, and TV news stories. So I don't think an article that cites only news articles that appear within 24 or 48 hours of the event can claim protection from WP:EVENT. Unfortunately, depending on who bothers to pay attention on a particular day, my experience is that guidelines are rarely applied consistently at different AfDs. Rusty Cashman (talk) 05:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I quite like Masem's compromise approach above - a CSD that can be applied, but only after an article has existed for 10 days (I prefer metric to lunar-phases). The 'current event' tag could possibly incorporate this. To take the classic example, the Balloon Boy hoax article would be much poorer had it not survived the early delete attempts. That is NOT to say it was a good article at the very outset, but well within 24 hours there was sufficient analysis etc to probably justify it. What is good for the encyclopaedia must drive our approach. NB: There is also scope to refine the AfD process - too much good content gets deleted, rather than merged - and this would certainly apply to current affairs articles. I would argue that properly sourced content from ANY article to be deleted for topic non-notability should be found a 'home' where-ever possible. NB2: It is not particularly surprising (given that most editors are human) that in the 'heat' more people (and the consensus) may be that the event has enduring notability, but that in 'cold' reflection, that consensus may no longer hold. ‒ Jaymax✍ 08:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I too would be inclined to accept Masem's approach as long as the evaluation at the end of that time period was mandatory. But, then again, this is because my fundamental belief is that no less than 90% of a new, news based article is not encyclopedic (at least, not as a separate article). Additionally, this would only work if WP:EVENT is actually applied as written; at the 7/14/21 day mark, articles can be kept or deleted based on enduring notability, but they cannot be kept simply because "Good story" or "People will come to Wikipedia searching for this" or "It was covered every day in the newspaper for 3 days" or "This is certain to fundamentally change the way people live their lives". I can see some quite devilish details that need to be hashed out with this idea, but the fundamental principle may be helpful. In fact, you could argue that it helps inclusionists, deletionists, and people who ride in the middle. Inclusionists get breathing space to work on the article without having to waste time defending against an (instantaneous) AfD, deletionists don't have the problem of having to surmount an early Keep result for an article that truly doesn't deserve coverage, and everyone else can work or not work on the articles that they believe will eventually meet notability without having to worry about wasting their time on an article that already seems to be in peril. The more I type this out, the better it sounds (again, this is as someone who thinks that most of these articles should be deleted). My gut feeling is the clock should be at about 14 days, because 7 days later, especially during the silly season, the (probably) non-notable story may still be "hot" just because there's nothing else to talk about in the news. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would be mandatory in that the articles would be listed on a rotating page similar to other admin tasks, even if the tag was removed (eg we would need bot help). After the set period (I agree, 14 might be better) an admin reviews and CSD's those where it is obviously not enduring; anything else after that point can face AFD if others feel it is. --MASEM (t) 13:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For me Masem's compromise concedes too much. The whole concept of enduring notability is IMO harmful to the encyclopaedia and should be rejected. Its contrary to our vision statement to delete well sourced information just because we the sources were written soon after the event. Per the fact large numbers of people want to create, work on and read these articles regardless of enduring coverage, we should probably downgrade both WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT to essays. Granted we ideally need sources that take a broad perspective and contextualise events, but theres no reason to destroy folks work and deprive readers of our best efforts to provide encyclopaedic coverage with the sources available. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If that's your reference, are you also willing to allow fancruft, directory information, or, for that matter, blatant advertising? All of those things also have their ardent supporters, and I don't want to see any of them any more than fleeting news stories. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that deletion is not the only option per my scheme. If there's a larger topic the article can fall into, great. If there's interest in users to move to Wikinews, great. If there's someone that thinks the event will take a while to be notable and wants a userified version, great. If it fails all these options, deletion is then the only approach. So it's not removal of information. --MASEM (t) 13:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please specifically address the issue with the Foundation reports of the Mumbai attacks, linked and pull-quoted above. Do you think the Foundation is incorrect? If not, explain how you would differentiate such a newsworthy event, on the day it begins under your proposed speedy criteria. Jclemens (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It completely fits within that, in fact the idea was partially inspired by that. As per that report, I understand the value that "within hours" we can have a starting article. In the case of the Mumbai attacks, it quickly grew well beyond a typical "news event". Thus, so if it was created and tagged with this pending EVENT review, at the end of that period (3-7-14 days), it was clearly a keeper. Tag gone, article could continue to grow. It would even be the type of case that the tag could be pulled quicker since it clearly met the bare minimum of NOTNEWS/EVENT within a day. Contrast these to the AFD articles listed above, and the type of articles this approach is designed to remove if there's no enduring coverage. So nothing is at odds with the Foundation's praise of the article on the Mumbai attacks and works harmoniously with it. --MASEM (t) 15:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There may be a misunderstanding here - the value of Masem's proposal is that it specifically removes the whole on the day it begins issue, protecting an event article for an embryonic period of several days. ‒ Jaymax✍ 15:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct--I'd overlooked that post. My apologies, and yes, I can live with a 7-day "probationary" period in mainspace of some sort. Jclemens (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Feyd raises some very sound points. I'll add -- I wouldn't mind our reflecting that the number of hits an article gets counts for something. The efforts to delete articles that are getting 5-10K or more hits a day, for example, are AfDs that simply waste the community's time. It would be better to free editors up for more productive matters.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree, somethings wrong if thousands of readers who obviously find an article useful or interesting dont get a say on deletion unless they descend to the scary and hard to fathom depths of AfD. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time to try this out?

I propose, based on the above discussion, we add some verbiage to {{current}}.

Current current: "This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses."
Proposed current: "This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses. After one week, this article will be assessed to verify whether it meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for news."
Comments, thoughts, etc? Jclemens (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking is a bit more complex. First I have to agree that 14 days seems to be the prudent number, as that assures that at least weekly newsmags (Sunday editions, Newsweek, Time, etc.) will have a chase to cover the story if it is significant, and ties with other processes on WP. Secondly, there would need to be a CSD-type uninvolved admin review , with only those clearly outside EVENT being deleted; if its questionable, it can stay though be tagged, and then of course now qualify for AFD review. We likely need a bot to manage this review process.
Also, I've seen people use current on articles that have existed for a while but have had recent updates (the Chilien miners, for example) I'd rather not prempt the {{current}} template to do this, but instead one specifically for events within their first 14 days since occurrence. --MASEM (t) 15:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I certainly agree to 14 days, and to use another template modeled on current, but I'm absolutely sure we don't want a speedy process--I'm perfectly fine with an auto-AfD bot, especially one that would DELSORT it to a current-events list, but speedy is for things that don't require review. Jclemens (talk) 23:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Will be assessed"? How are we guaranteeing that this will definitely happen on (or shortly after) the relevant date? Do we perhaps mean "somebody should" rather than "somebody will"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about... "After 14 days, an editor in good standing should assess the enduring notability of this article, remove this notice, and nominate this article for a deletion discussion if notability has not been established"? Jclemens (talk) 00:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a plausible idea. Are we saying that there would be some sort of corresponding related ban on the article being AfD'd on notability grounds within those 14 days? Like, any AfD could be speedy kept without discussion? If not, I'm not sure that just a tag will have the desired effect. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have been reading this with some interest, I think one solution to this could be something like BLP-PROD (NEWS-PROD or something like that) where news stories were PROD'ed if they did not have sources showing coverage outside that of just reporting the event, anyone could remove the PROD, but like BLP-PROD only if there were those sources. Codf1977 (talk) 10:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, wikipedia is not a reliable source.

I think that because Wikipedia can be edited by anybody, It should be noted on the Project page that we are not a reliable source of information. at my school, if we use Wikipedia on any paper or project, we get a zero. Therefore, It should be mentioned on the main page. 99.20.100.127 (talk) 02:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DISCLAIM. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 03:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, it is your school's responsibility to ensure that you are aware of your school's policies regarding Wikipedia, not ours.--greenrd (talk) 09:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not&oldid=391036210"