Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise/B.1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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


Rationale: This proposal would clarify that every article must pass the general notability guideline. It would also prevent individual projects from writing guidelines that favor inclusion of their material.
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Support B.1[edit]

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

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

    WP:MUSIC does not say that most singles should not have an independent article. WP:MUSIC#Songs says most songs should not have independent articles, which is quite true, as very few songs ever get released as singles, much less become notable charting singles -- Foetusized (talk) 16:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support The subject specific guidelines can delineate article topics that normally have sufficient sourcing to meet the GNG - but if challenged, the authors of the article need to either demonstrate that they are using such sources or admit that they are violating WP:NOR and/or WP:V by excessive use of primary sources or by including unsourcable material. No local consensus anywhere can abrogate WP:NOR and/or WP:V. GRBerry 04:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. WP:N is essentially a distillation of core policies verifiabilitiy, [[WP::OR|no original research]] and neutral point of view. This policies should always be met, and WP:N should provide the minimum standards that a topic must meet to have an article. Subject-specific guidelines should build on those minimum guidelines to meet subject-specific issues. Otherwise, if every group can create specific guidelines for their own pet project that ignore any minimum guidelines, then why have a central notabilit guideline at all? Karanacs (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support In my view, WP:N exists as an inclusion criteria because, where there are sufficient independent sources on a particular topic to satisfy the content principles of Wikipedia, then that is best criteria by which it can be judged whether or not to have an article on a particular topic. For example, the stub Ashley Fernee has virtually no content, which sugests to me that the a presumption of notability under WP:BIO#athletes cannot be substantiated. In my view, the stub will be deleted or merged as without reliable secondary sources it fails WP:NOT#DIR. Such stubs should not be created unless they meet both GNG and SNGs; it is far better to include topics that are not covered by reliable secondary sources under more notable subjects. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support fr33kman (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - in the sense that SNGs can limit the type of coverage that is considered "substantial". See below. --B. Wolterding (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support The general notability guideline is much more uniform than others, there cannot be different standards for notability for books than music, for example. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support the SNGs should never be weaker than WP:N and should not give exceptions to the GNG basic tenets. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - GNG must have its authority restored. SNGs are disrespecting and distorting the notability criteria in order to satisfy the interests of private groups. For example, the SNG WP:Athlete is currently being used to protect over 30,000 low quality non-notable soccer player articles, those SNGs are so lenient that over 100,000 retired athletes are entitled to their own Wikipedia article. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 05:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong Support per Collectonian above - The notion that some fancruft is relevant and others aren't because seems spurious at best. Per my comments above WP:MUSIC warrants a complete rewrite. WP:BIO could also be tightened up - there are radically lower bars for some categories of award recipients than for others in the current document, and the text for professional athletes is so vague and broad as to be all-inclusive. The latter might even warrant export to a new wikia, to get rid of sports-fancruft. I've seen and supported deletion of several TV character's NN bios that were about far more popular topics than many a minor league cricketer that currently gets covered. MrZaiustalk 09:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Weak Support. I would rather see everything covered with a single guideline. However, I can see the strength of having topic-specific guidelines that spell out common misconceptions such as "my band is notable because me and my friends blog about it." Binksternet (talk) 09:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Weak support -- I'd see the subject specific guidelines as being useful sources for defining probable notability in their field to reuse my example of an Olympic Gold medallist, I'd say it's fair to say that that athlete would be in multiple sources even if it's not demonstrated in an article; As such the SNG can give that as criteria of probable notability, until general notability is demonstrated. -- ratarsed (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strongest possible support. The SNGs are merely clarifications of the GNG as applied to specific subjects, not blanket exceptions. The GNG is so broad (it only requires that there is enough reliable information to actually write an article about the subject) that the SNGs can only expand this by allowing articles to exist where there is no reliable, independent information on the subject. Why would Wikipedia want to start including articles that contain information that cannot be independently verified?!? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. This sums up the function of the subject specific guidelines. They support and add extra clarity, rather than over ride or trump the main guideline. SilkTork *YES! 18:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support SNGs are generally controlled by WikiProjects for their own benefits. The GNG should always trump SNGs. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, even the best written GNG around cannot suit all possible kinds of articles and related subjects. SNGs are necessary, and should be encouraged when in possess of a broad consensus to do so, and made as a mandatory constraint to be passed in order to establish notability. --Angelo (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support, sourcing is not optional. As below, we need substantial amounts of secondary reliable source material to ensure verifiability, neutrality, and that the article does not contain its authors' original thoughts or ideas. Without substantial amounts of independent material, it is impossible to maintain these core values. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support, as long as it is clear that WP:N always controls. The specific guidelines can only restrict inclusion, not expand it.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 14:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support, we can't have individual projects defining their own inclusive notabilities. That said, it may be that WP:N should be eventually refined to be broader. (But not to violate WP:V) JRP (talk) 21:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Otherwise we open the floodgates. The concessions on notability requirements proposed elsewhere in this RfC are palliatives that carry similar risks but do not address the real problems - over-academic definition of WP:RS and over-deletionist phrasing of WP:N. -- Philcha (talk) 10:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. The specialist notability guidelines should assist, not supercede, the main guideline. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support specific guidelines can guide on which sources are not acceptable for showing notability on certain fields --Enric Naval (talk) 14:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support This is what we have now for WP:BAND, which raises the floor on notability for musical groups. It lets us resolve the endless flood of incoming garage-band articles without much trouble. --John Nagle (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. WikiProjects, which generally establish the SNGs, cannot supercede the policies/guidelines of the community as a whole. Doing so is putting the cart before the horse. I honestly don't see this as a big issue, as nearly all of the SNGs I've read clearly state that their guidelines are to be considered a subset of the GNG anyway. They may be more specific, but they don't supercede or contradict the GNG most of the time. Any that do can probably be easily fixed. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - As SNGs should reflect the current philosophy of the GNG. They should not contradict each other.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose B.1[edit]

  1. Oppose An exceptionally poor idea. The notability guidelines should be treated as independent and not subordinate to each other. The reality is that as Wikipedia expands and more subjects are covered, more detailed notability guidelines are needed and the utility of the general notability guideline, WP:N is inevitably decreasing. Yes, this has the unfortunate effect of instruction creep, but it is unavoidable and should be embraced and managed appropriately, rather than avoided. The general principles of WP:N, such as adherence to coverage by independent reliable sources and "notability is not inherited" are very good principles and they are in fact utilized by specialized notability guidelines. However, various attempts at imposing "one size fits all" requirements in WP:N regarding the numbers of sources required, and the like, are very counterproductive, if we start imposing them across the board with no exceptions. There are way too many differences, too many special cases, too many de facto consensus conventions that cannot possibly fit into one general WP:N formula. For example, geographic settlements are generally considered inherently notable, once basic WP:V requirements are satisfied, even if there are no independent reliable sources covering them in depth. There are a few other things that appear to be considered inherently notable (e.g. accredited colleges and universities), although consensus there is still developing and remains to be hashed out. Lots of exceptions exist (and do need to exist) in other cases. E.g., under WP:BIO, an olympic medalist in some fairly obscure sport is considered notable even if there is not a lot of independent coverage available. In music and fiction standards are still being worked out, and probably notability guidelines for things like streets and places will have to be worked out too. It is reasonable and necessary to have specific and different notability standards, with their own sets of exceptions, for very different things, such as, say, movie actors, books and academics. Imposing a single across-the-board standard in terms of notability by making all the other notability guidelines subordinate to WP:N may sound good in theory but would be extremely counterproductive in practice. Nsk92 (talk) 04:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no evidence to support the presumption that a geographic settlement (or any other topic for that matter) is "inherently notable", becuase notablity cannot be inherited, presumed or acknowledged. In the absence of any coverage, let alone reliable secondary sources, how can we say that a village like Abbey Mead is notable without having to rely on so called "expert opinion" (or expert opinion dressed up as consensus)?--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per Nsk92 and my own comments above. Hiding T 12:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - per the two above. - jc37 12:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Nope. Notability guidelines are written to be inclusive (Rather than the NFCC, which are exclusive). It is unlikely that a subject will meet a daughter guideline and not meet the GNG, but if it does, we could still argue to keep the article. Protonk (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose for two reasons, first disagree that subguidelines should prevent articles from being considered notable. If an article meets the GNG and does not fail any policy such as WP:NOT then we should have an article and subguidelines should not stop this. Secondly, where a subguideline has been agreed globally, and the GNG can be met for a large majority of the cases the subguideline covers, it is better to have an article on all the cases including the few that would not meet the GNG to maintain consistency even if they can only ever be quite short, so long as what content is there is verifiable. Davewild (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose as per Nsk92. Hobit (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - I'd prefer for us to do away with most of the details in the SNGs and merge what remains into the GNG, but as long as both exist, articles should be required to meet only one, not both. –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose because I oppose notability requirements in general. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose I think this is harsh. I know it's simple, and avoids contradictions between guidelines. But I think we can let Wikipedians write SNGs that are a bit looser, so long as we offer some guideline as to how loose. See the proposals below. Randomran (talk) 02:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose; it is reasonable that in certain fields of endeavor the bar for notability be lower. Not the bar on verifiability mind you. — Coren (talk) 12:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. There's a happy (perhaps theoretical, hopefully practical) middle-ground whereby simple common sense comes into play. Some things are notable to the world in general; some are notable to one field in particular. Individual guidelines are therefore sometimes important, since not everything can be notable and have an impact on the entire world, even though there are in-and-of-themselves notable, and can be proven to be so. ntnon (talk) 21:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. "Additional guidelines which may prevent a topic from being considered notable are listed" is a very awkward way of stating the obvious: namely, that SNG's contain explicit exclusion criteria. What is the difference between notable and considered notable anyway? patsw (talk) 02:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose this runs contrary to all existing guidance. The GNC is a catch-all criterion, and the SNCs provide subject-focused criteria. I'm not opposed to SNCs putting restraints on the sort of coverage that applies for the GNC; but the SNCs should not be prevented from offering alternatives to the GNC. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose I've heard of editors treating the SNGs as exclusionary tools, but it never made any sense. Every notable subject fails some criteria, and some may fail all. The former case demonstrates the abject silliness of nixing an article for failing an SNG, and any case of the latter merely shows that not enough SNGs have been written, or that the subject is simply too unique to fall into any typical category. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose This removes any significance the SNG would have. SNG's would only have the opportunity to be more restrictive and eliminate more of the information that wasn't taken into account in the GNG. No single standard can possibly define such a wide range of media and circumstances, remember we are talking about nothing less than EVERYTHING. No one can encompass that without exception. padillaH (review me)(help me) 12:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose. I don't think that we can have the skill to make a GNC that would give satisfactory results on every field on the encyclopedia. Nor on enough fields to do more good than harm. --Kizor 18:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose - WP:NOT already does all the exclusion we need beyond the GNG. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong oppose; see example alternatives: The SNGs are too inconsistent, to WP:OWNishly managed in many cases, too nitpicky, and too open to interpretation. An analogy would be if every WikiProject or other group of one-topic-focused editors got to create their own style guideline that conflicted with WP:MOS (d'oh! that's actually been happening!) or their own topical copyright policy or topical guideline on what constitutes civility or topical guideline on what verifiability and reliable sourcing is. The SNGs need to all be rewritten to be interpretations of the Wikipedia-wide WP:N guideline as applicable to the topic they cover, and nothing more. The minute one of them makes a "rule" that says "this article can be deleted as non-notable even though it satisfies WP:N, because it failed to fulfill our additional requirent" (that doesn't apply anywhere else and which a few editors just kind of pulled out of their butts one day), it has gone too far, does not represent community consensus, and is in direct conflict with a stable WP-wide guideline that is so well-accepted now it might as well be tagged with {{Policy}}. I say all this as someone who founded a topical WikiProject and has written draft guidelines for both notability and style for that project with a particular eye to never conflicting with WP:N and WP:MOS respectively. They are still in draft form, but I think they are pointers to how topical notability and style guidelines should be (re)created. PS: The proposal does not prevent SNGs from favoring a particular topic (WP:N does that); what the proposal does is allow SNGs to set willy-nilly "standards" that disfavor particular topics (or more accurately disfavor the ability of editors at large to create articles on topics that self-declared experts/specialists would rather denigrate because of personal biases as to what constitutes "important" in their topical area of focus. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose as "notability" is subjective and not a logical manner of deciding what a paperless encyclopedia should and should not include. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose if a topic has received the necessary coverage by reliable sources I don't see why we shouldn't cover it too. Guest9999 (talk) 13:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose Contrary to existing guidelines and practice, where the SNG's are used to include rather than exclude.John Z (talk) 01:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose Second-level guidelines may not redefine (narrow or widen) the core policy. They are just instruments. NVO (talk) 12:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose. Words like "need to meet" and "guideline" don't fit well. Using strict reliance on notability guidelines to include useless stuff, or to exclude useful stuff, are both bad ideas. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose. This is a guideline; I think Sjakkalle had taken the words right out of my mouth. --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 02:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Strong oppose. The notability guidelines are only aides for judging an article's ability to meet the content requirements of V, NPOV, and NOR. The guidelines should only exist to support the core policies. If a sub-guideline is deemed helpful for a particular genre, it may be to show that what may not appear to meet WP:N, can still meet the core policies, or it may be to show the contrary. (Most of the sub-guidelines at this point, however, seem to be instruction creep.) DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose: The very existence of the additional guidelines indicates a weakness in the general guidelines as a catch-all for all subjects. Notability guidelines need to be able to provide the nuances appropriate for specific areas, and the areas covered by the SNGs are pretty major ones. Walkerma (talk) 04:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose. Looks to me as if this might promote WP:OSTRICH and stifle the ability of wikiprojects focused on a particular subject matter from thriving. Feels very exclusionary. 23skidoo (talk) 05:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose - Per above. Utan Vax (talk) 07:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose - As the guidelines have always (at least while I've been here) said, WP:N is at the top, the other SNG exist to bring in more subjects. These SNGs are still created by community consensus as guidelines (this does not include project guidelines that have not been promoted to a community guideline which should never, ever, ever, ever be mentioned in a AFD) and help to bring in articles where the standard WP:N may not work. For instance, GNG has a bias towards current people, WP:BIO helps overcome that by allowing for inclusion of all past people in the same political office. Specifically, it would be very difficult to locate sources for an 1830 state legislator compared to someone who is currently in office despite both having the same level of notability. Here WP:BIO steps in and levels the playing field for this time-bias. Then by allowing articles for the same position, it prevents a bias in coverage of certain political parties by allowing all of those in certain offices to have articles regardless of significant coverage in 3rd party RS. And lastly, it helps with country bias where a third world country's national legislators would fail BIO due to a lack of enough coverage, especially coverage available to most Wikipedians. Now, each guideline still requires a RS for verification, so hoaxes can be mitigated. But the sub-guidelines have always been designed to allow in more subjects, not less. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose per Aboutmovies. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 08:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. 'Oppose. The GNG is enough prescription. The SNG are just supplementary guidelines meant as heuristics, not as rules. --Itub (talk) 09:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose. If an article is relevant to multiple SNGs and meets the GNG and one of the SNGs (but not necessarily the others), then it should be kept. Under this proposal, it wouldn't be. Waggers (talk) 10:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose. I thought the SNG's were to help editors decide if an article should be included, even if it doesn't at first appear to be GAN? Most atheletes or politicians are not, imo, particularly notable, so the SNG help me understand why they should be included becasue of notability specific to a particular topic. This proposal seems to make it "more" difficult to judge notability during AfDs, unless one is an expert and project member.Yobmod (talk) 11:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose - Not flexible enough: the SNGs are for special notability needs often totally different from the GNG. --:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 11:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose -- this just seems silly. If an article meets general criteria, I don't think that the failure to meet some specific criteria should prevent inclusion. older ≠ wiser 12:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose For the same reasons as the first guy.--EchetusXe (talk) 12:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. With the caveat that this refers to SNGs which have broad approval, not those which a three-man WikiProject thought up. Stifle (talk) 12:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose - SNGs are needed to provide specific requirements, one general notability requirement could never cover everything. We need more and better SNGs, this proposal would effectively remove them from usage. --Captain-tucker (talk) 13:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose There needs to be special notability cases for instances such as 1900s Olympians, so a more specific notability criteria needs to exist. Lack of readily available sources should not be a requirement, eventually they will turn up. Royalbroil 14:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose Adopting this would mean the death-knell for specialized knowledge; it would mean that Wikipedia would never reach the usefulness of any specialized encyclopedia or satisfy the curiosity of truly dedicated researchers in any field. NSK92's comments are dead-on (and, thankfully, at the top of this section). Chubbles (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose There are many SNGs, some are great ( WP:MUSIC ), some are adequate ( WP:BK ), and some are fairly ridiculous ( WP:PORNBIO and WP:ATHLETE ). They certainly don't hold equal weight in discussions, and we absolutely should not pretend they do. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose SNGs and GNG should be a logical OR, (if an article passes either one, it's notable) not any other operator. Jclemens (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose The whole concept of notability guidelines is hurting Wikipedia, not helping it. Less of them are needed, not more. Hans Persson (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose. I think WP:N should be the only notability guideline; any other restrictions or exceptions will either err on the side of deleting useful and verifiable information, or keeping untrustworthy information. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose. Losing the plot here? Guidelines exist to guide article authors. Authors who try hard to conform to the guidelines may still fail to have a notable topic. That's most of it, surely. Notability is a broken concept, if the best we have in this direction - you can't expect to prove it via guidelines. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose Consensus has been against this for a long time. Many of the specific guidelines are in place to help editors unfamiliar with the subject decide quickly what subjects will probably have notability that isn't found in a 5 second Google search. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose; the SNGs in particular rarely seem to possess a wide degree of support from the community and are usually either dominated by a related Wikiproject or deletionists focused on some particular line of article. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose the SNGs should be considered a part of the general guidelines and should be specificly referenced in the general guidelines. The problem with not allowing the GNS's to expand as well as to contract on what is notable is the simple fact that the general guidelines can not deal with every specific area that would fall into an acceptable exception. Dbiel (Talk) 00:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose GNG should be general and sufficient. The idea of SNGs is bad. Iterator12n Talk 01:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose SNGs are especially useful when it is difficult to apply the GNG. Wronkiew (talk) 02:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose. SNGs should not prevent an already notable article from being declared non-notable. They should help in declaring an article to be notable if the article is somewhat compliant with GNG. ~AH1(TCU) 14:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose - The GNG is historically biased to the present. For inclusion of minor but otherwise important historical figured, the GNG is not as useful as having special notability guidelines. —  X  S  G  17:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose - I agree wholeheartedly. Sources for older professional athletes, as an example, can be rather difficult to find online. Print coverage from that era typically isn't available online, and especially not for free. Overzealous people will then take a baseball player from 1888 and argue that they don't have enough google hits to be notable. This proposal would create a huge bias towards subjects from wealthy nations and subjects from the present and recent past. matt91486 (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose the needless rule-bloat.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose My concern is not that the SNG may make things less strict, but also that they may make things more strict. The point about the SNGs is not to trump or be trumped by the GNG, but to clarify how the GNG applies to a particular topic. If someone thinks that a particular topic's SNG is too lax, then you should argue for the SNG to be changed. If the consensus disagrees with you, then what's the problem? I dislike the implication that individual editors should be able to argue in favour of deletion, even when the consensus in that area is against them. Mdwh (talk) 16:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Weak Oppose This proposal seems too narrow in what an SNG can do. It may clarify what does not count as notability, but it might also clarify what sorts of things counts as significant coverage in a particular field. This proposal does not permit this. RJC TalkContribs 17:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose - hopelessly biased towards events/people from the last ten years. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose As per the first comment. Meaningful Username (talk) 10:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Oppose - Unless the GNG is rewritten to observe other methods of establishing notability. We use 'significant coverage in independent sources' as one general guideline because in many (not all) cases it is a reasonably unbiased standard... politicians who get written up in national newspapers are notable, those who don't are not. In contrast one childrens' toy might get coverage because it is produced by a company which also owns the 'independent' media source... while another, far more popular, toy might only ever be mentioned in passing. There are systemic biases in the 'significant coverage' standard which make it inappropriate as an absolute requirement. If the GNG required 'significant independent coverage' OR 'steady readership' OR some OTHER form of 'provably high interest' in a topic then it would be a valid global criteria and SNGs could simply provide more detailed guidance for their particular topics. However, so long as the GNG attempts to apply a standard which is not valid for all categories it cannot be a universal requirement. --CBD 11:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose - SNG should trump GNG. Andrew Oakley (talk) 12:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Somewhat Oppose as not getting the relationship right. It seems to me that if we are getting lawyering about whether the general or specific guidelines apply, then there's probably something wrong with the specific guidelines. I tend to view the latter as implementations of the former. Perhaps this could be rephrased as a standard for the writing of SNGs. Mangoe (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose - a SNG is nothing more then a more topic specific version of the GNG. As the GNG is to specific in some cases a SNG should be used to give an editor somewhat more specific instructions. So, If something meets either the SNG or the GNG, it should stay around. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 15:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Oppose - I notice that some comments have expressed worry that this proposal allows for a SNG to set a higher bar than the GNG (ie that a Project could exclude topics that would be notable under the GNG), while other comments express the opposite: worry that the proposal allows for a SNG to set a lower bar than the GNG (ie that a project could include topics that are not considered notable under GNG). That tells me that this proposal is poorly worded. I am in favor of allowing a project to define a higher notability bar than the GNG. I am not in favor of allowing projects to set a lower notability bar than the GNG. Blueboar (talk) 17:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Strong Oppose The opposite should apply SNG's should override GNG's. General guidelines can't cover every instance; specific guidelines can address them and make appropriate alterations to generalities. Timmccloud (talk) 20:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose. This would exclude articles which are notable according to the global guidelines. That probably isn't even what the writer of the proposal intended, and if it is, I think it's a horrible idea, hopefully for obvious reasons. Shinobu (talk) 13:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral on B.1[edit]

  1. Comment I think it's important that an editor uninvolved in the relevant field be allowed to ask, "Where's the beef?" That said, I think there's a lot of justifiable use of WP:IAR in regards to this rule that prevents me from saying the rules apply absolutely 100% of the time, which is the tone of the proposal. Nifboy (talk) 14:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral I'm more for an "either/or" approach, while leaning (strongly) towards GNG for most situations. GNG is not a policy, after all, and not all SNGs are on the same level. -- Ned Scott 04:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Comment This ought to be redundant, as the SNGs should be compatible with the GNG anyway. In other words, if the SNGs are correctly written, any article that meets its topic's SNG will automatically comply with the GNG too. —Angr 06:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neural I agree in principle however if SNGs are well written they should be compatible with GNG. However, this policy as written would yield itself to instruction creep. Phatom87 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. neutral As said above, the principle seems nice, but it seems to me to be an opening for even more "lawyering".--Marhawkman (talk) 04:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral/It depends. I agree with many comments both by supporters and opposers, so I guess that makes me neutral. First, "must meet" and "guideline" do not fit well together, as has been noted above. Second, modulo the status of guidelines and the single beautiful line of the badly named WP:IAR, it is clear that all relevant guidelines should be considered when considering notability. Third, it is clear that the GNG contains general global principles that ask for a minimal notability requirement for all articles. Fourth, it is equally clear that SNGs are needed to interpret and clarify these principles and requirements for particular types of articles. Guidelines do not exist to overrule each other. They exist to reflect consensus, not determine it. That includes reflecting the consensus interpretation of other guidelines. Geometry guy 16:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise/B.1&oldid=1211979699"