Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

N/A to article-content (continued)

(Continued from 'Does "notability" apply to the content of articles? -- Proposed add to guidelines: "N/A to article-contents"',above.)

Fifth draft

This is what was added to the guidelines 21:22, 20 February 2007 by Lonewolf BC, but then deleted from them 03:32, 21 February 2007 by Centrx. It's of two parts: The upper bit went at the end of the introduction of the guidelines, and the lower part was a last section of the guidelines.

Note that these are guidelines for allowable article topics within Wikipedia, not for allowable content within Wikipedia articles.

....

== Notability is not needed by particular article-content ==

These and all the notability guidelines are for allowable article topics within Wikipedia, not for allowable content within a legitimate Wikipedia article. Although issues of article-content are sometimes discussed, on talk-pages, in terms of the content's "notability", that is not exactly "notability" in the sense of these guidelines, which do not directly apply to such matters: "Notability", in the sense of these guidelines, is not needed in order for particular information to be included in a Wikipedia article. For such article-content issues, see the guidelines on verifiability, reliable sources, and trivia. (Note also, though, that within Wikipedia's guidelines, generally, the term "notability" means what it means in the notability guidelines.)

Discussion of 5th draft

Centrx's reason for deleting it (copied from "Problems with recent changes", above):
Also, as explained above, notability is relevant to whether article content is included. The notability of the information and the reason for the notability of the subject is explicitly referenced in WP:BLP and WP:RS, and otherwise is the major factor in whether information is included in an article and how it is organized. —Centrx?talk • 19:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Centrx, I believe that the aspect of notability of your concern was taken into account by the chosen wording. If you think otherwise, you must be more specific. Please either explain what you mean well enough that I can better accommodate it, or write a draft yourself that does so. Naturally, I have already consulted BLP and RS. I really do not see what problem you see. -- Lonewolf BC 01:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Okay, I think I might see your problem, now. You are construing the fifth draft as saying that notability, in the common sense of the word, is not a consideration for article-content, or at least you are worried that it might be construed that way. That is not the intent. The intent is to make clear that "notability", in the special sense of compliance with the notability guidelines, is not needed by each piece of article-content. (Indeed, this whole business arises from equivocation upon "notability" -- its common and special senses.) I'm still not positive I have rightly understood you, though. -- Lonewolf BC 18:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC-8)

One thing to consider is that if garage bands are not notable, would an article on Garage bands in the Detroit metro area be notable if it was just a compendium of non-notable article content? I would think no, but that is just MHO. And of course, if there were multiple feature stories on the bands as a group, that could make it jump the shark. Dhaluza 04:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Notability, in the special sense of the word, is relevant to whether article content is included. Article content must be relevant to why the topic is notable in the first place, especially for any biography of a living person and any weakly reliable source. Articles do not simply contain any and all verifiable information about a topic. —Centrx?talk • 07:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Your response leaves me puzzled, and thinking we have not been understanding one another at all well.
Who said anything about "...any and all..."? Certainly I did not, and that's not at all what I'm driving at. Nor do I think that any of the draft versions have implied such a thing.
I think we must have different ideas of what "the special sense of the word" is. I used it to mean the requirement for multiple, non-trivial, independent sources. If you mean that same thing by it, then you would seem to be saying that all article content must have multiple, non-trivial, independent sources. This goes right back to my initial question (now archived, unfortunately), and would answer it contrariwise to the way a number of other people did. I somewhat doubt that that is really what you mean, but if it is not, then just what do you mean? Likely it would help if you told me what is your understanding of the "special sense" of "notability". I'm thinking (and hoping) that it is something like what I mean by the "ordinary sense of notability" -- "worthy of note" -- which of course is relevant to what goes into an article, although not in an all-or-none way.
This brings me to your middle sentence: I believe that you are misinterpreting the other guidelines that mention "relevant to notability". For example, JRR Tolkein is notable for his fiction, not really for his career as an academic, and certainly not because his father-side ancestors were craftsmen with roots in Saxony, yet these are covered in the article on him, which was lately a front-pager. Scarcely anyone is notable because of where they were born, and in most cases the exact place makes no difference to their notability, yet birthplaces are ordinarily given in biographies. Rather, there are particular classes of potential content that need to be "relevant to notability" (controversial matter about living persons, particularly). -- Lonewolf BC 23:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Sixth draft

Notability guidelines do not specifically pertain to the content within an article. For content issues, see verifiability, reliable sources, and trivia.

Seventh draft

Notability guidelines pertain to article topics, but do not specifically limit content within articles.

• This one seems to be the clearest and most supported by the notability criterion: "a topic is notable if ..." -- Black Falcon 11:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Eighth draft

Notability guidelines pertain to article topics but do not specifically limit content within articles. For issues of article content, see especially the guidelines on verifiability, reliable sources and trivia.
I think that is still not immune to the pig-headed, but it would be better than nothing. -- Lonewolf BC 23:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Ninth draft

(to add at end of introduction)

Notability guidelines pertain to article topics but do not directly limit content within articles.

(to add as a last section)

== Notability guidelines do not directly limit article-content ==

These and all the notability guidelines are for allowable article topics within Wikipedia, not for allowable content within a legitimate Wikipedia article. That is, not all material included in an article must, in itself, meet these criteria. For issues of article content, see especially the guidelines on verifiability, reliable sources and trivia. Note also, though, that other guidelines refer in places to "notability", meaning notability as defined by these guidelines.

-- Lonewolf BC 09:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Notability overview

I will be posting this chart at Wikipedia talk:Notability/overview, where I hope that many people will join in a discussion of the bigger picture of the comprehensive notability infrastructure. --Kevin Murray 14:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC-8)

We have a proposed guideline for Shopping malls? And it's not "None, except maybe the Mall of America, are notable?" Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Apparently: WP:MALL --Sid 3050 04:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC-8)

It's been pointed out to me that they are very important to several American communities, but, still, one would think we could easily generalise that guideline. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC-8)

I've got no idea about mall notability. Never been in an American Mall... or in America, come to think of it :P Generalising sounds like a good idea, but I think it's very hard to implement. But while we're at obscure special rules: The graph seems to be missing yet another (proposed) special case: Wikipedia:Notability (journalists) --Sid 3050 04:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Thanks Sid, I added journalists. --Kevin Murray 16:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Hey, this is great! One question though, why couldn't shopping malls and schools be placed under organizations? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 19:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC-8)

• I have added schools and malls to the org. column. There are probably fewer reasons for malls to be included at Physical Objects. The School criteria currently discuss the builings, but I think that should be removed. Buildings seem to do just fine with the primary criterion. I don't see any value to any of the criteria under Physical Objects, but felt it should be offered for discussion. --Kevin Murray 11:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Slate article

Timothy Noah of online news magazine Slate just published an article about Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I thought it might be of interest to editors discussing this guideline. http://www.slate.com/id/2160222 · j e r s y k o talk · 13:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Now we can create a meta-article about this guideline. :-) Sanchom (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Noah does bring up a good question on if Wikipedia should concern itself with notability and instead should rely on WP:V and WP:NOR to weed out inappropriate articles. I also remember when I first started editing on Wikipedia coming across a point in the deletion policies or the original essay on notability that notability was not a valid reason to delete an article, but that has since disappeared. --Farix (Talk) 16:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC-8)

As written, this page is no more than a how-to-avoid-OR-and-fulfil-V guideline. You'll note that Noah refers to the rococo subject-specific guidelines, which aim to measure notability by means other than the existence of material to write an article with. If you want to take Noah's points on board, you could try getting WP:MALL, WP:PORNBIO, and their like, tagged as {{historical}}. Articles which are deleted now via subject-guidelines would generally still be deleted if the guidelines disappeared. No alphabet soup can turn Takumi Ichinose into an encyclopedia article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC-8)

• This sounds like a good reason to get rid of the permutation of confusing guidelines. --Kevin Murray 18:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC-8)

I read Noah's point to be the same as mine -- i.e., that if an article has information that verifiable, not original research, and which doesn't violate BLP or any other core policies, deleting it because the sources are "trivial" or "not independent" is basically deleting it for being short, not for violating V or OR. I'm not aware of any encyclopedia that has a rule specifically against short entries. (There's a separate question of whether Noah's article of that of Stacy Schiff do, in fact, comply with WP:V (well, WP:ATT now, I guess), but WP:ATT should be able to address that). TheronJ 09:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Then we get back to the same point-I can write an article on myself which satisfies those core policies. I could even satisfy WP:NOT a directory, there's enough publicly available information and sourcing to do that, the information would all be attributable and not my original research, and it would all be verifiable. For that matter, I could do that for my car, and, again, even go beyond a directory stub-it was in an accident once, could certainly describe that sourced to the publically-available police report. I can do one on the pizza place near my house. If we don't have some type of cutoff, something to say "Look, someone who doesn't have a vested interest in caring about the subject decided it was worth attention", we'll get all kinds of that crap. That's why we need notability. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 11:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC-8)

• You're right, of course, that WP:NOT is a good cruft-filter. It's why we need it. Otherwise, we would be overwhelmed with 9/11 conspiracy theory articles. Oh wait, we are.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 13:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC-8)

• (edit conflict) I can write an article on myself... well that is a WP:COI/WP:AUTO problem and can be sent to AFD under WP:NOT#SOAP as self-promotion. But the problems with defining notability has been that no one can agree on a standard, objective definition. Perhaps the reason we can't come to a solution about how to define notability is because notability really is subjective and we are fooling ourselves by thinking that it should not. In fact, your own definition of notability has nothing to do with whether something is notable but whether there are enough independent sources to write an article that is more then a stub. --Farix (Talk) 13:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Well with the Slate article, and the Washington Post article, we now have two independent reliable sources, so "Wikipedia notability" is now officially notable! Dhaluza 16:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Yeah, but it's just not reliable.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 16:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Are you saying that Slate is not a reliable source? It is "a division of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive ("WPNI"), a subsidiary of The Washington Post Company." Not exactly a self-published site. Dhaluza 17:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC-8)

No, no. Wikipedia is unreliable.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 18:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC-8)

The Slate article and the Washington Post article aren't independent, since they are exactly the same article. Ray 19:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Those are different articles, but the subject of both of the articles is really Wikipedia, not Wikipedia:Notability. —Centrx?talk • 19:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC-8)

The central thesis in both articles relates to WP:N directly, and WP only indirectly. Dhaluza 19:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC-8)

No, the articles would never have been written at all if not for the notability of Wikipedia, and discuss Wikipedia:Notability only in direct relation to Wikipedia. A similar thing occurs with fictional characters, where they are only independently notable when referenced outside the context of the work of fiction. Anything about these articles belongs merged. —Centrx?talk • 21:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Yikes, there are so many circular arguments to this.

Having now read Noah's articles (as well as hearing him on NPR's "Day to Day" this morning -- see Talk:Timothy_Noah for article links, I see his point. "Notability" by its very nature is subjective. When enough people agree that someone or something is "notable," that's just a matter of a bunch of subjectivities getting together and taking a vote, & more often than not even their votes about "notability" is based on some kind of privileging. E.g., in the past (& often in the present), people couldn't be considered notable by whoever had the power to enforce the notability standards of the time unless they were white, or male, or spoke the right language, or knew how to read & write. (Language & literacy having very much to do with an article on a particular notable person I'm working on right now.)

In practice on Wikipedia, I've recently come across a couple of AfD discussions that revolved around notability. One involved someone I personally know (or knew), who was a political candidate deemed by many as not being "notable" unless she won her election (for U.S. House from Alaska), in spite of other achievements in her past. Okay, if you wanna look it up, here she is. Most of those who deemed her not notable were from other parts of the country, and knew little about Alaska politics, nor certainly about her local activities that made her very notable indeed to Alaskans, whether they like her or not. Including me, & not just because I used to know her. She got two AfD discussions, the first resulting in her deletion, the second in her bio being returned to Wikipedia. I was not part of these discussions -- I came across them afterwards. But it was ridiculous. How does someone not winning an election then mean they aren't "notable"? Is it the votes that make them notable, or not? What about their other achievements? It was that close to this person -- who a lot of people in Alaska would consider notable, as so would a lot of Native Americans -- having her bio removed based on "nobody outside Alaska except a few Indians knows or cares about this person." What hooey.

The other AfD, involving an Alaska academic, involved notability not so much because the guy is not notable, but because the original editor didn't provide enough information & sourcing. But poor editing & sourcing is an altogether different problem then whether or not someone is "notable." This AfD should be concluding in the next couple of days, & looks like he will be retained, mainly just because of significant work over the past couple of days (I'll pat myself on the back) to provide some real info.

Whether or not "notability" guidelines are retained in some form, (1) they need to be fixed somehow; (2) editors need to distinguish what the real problems with an article are before marking them AfD -- it's often not really a question of "notability" but of a lousily researched, lousily written, lousily source article about someone/something that does really count; (3) editors debating an AfD need to be mindful about their own biases & limitations that comes naturally out of them being, always, subjective persons with limits to their knowledge.

Okay, there's my two cents. -- Yksin 13:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Notability guidlines

IMHO a town/suburb/neighbourhood such as Gladstone Park, Chicago or East Gosford, New South Wales are notable, yet I doubt the majority of them are the subject of multiple, non-trivial works. My personal guidelines for notability are...will someone search for this article in its own right? The answer to this question should also be the same answer to the question should this article be on Wikipedia? Todd661 19:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC-8)

People will search for an article in its own right even if there are no reliable sources whatsoever on the topic. There typically are multiple sources for towns, though for many it might only be of the kind found in local and regional newspapers. —Centrx?talk • 19:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Given WP:V, a topic that does not have at least one reliable sources is automatically excluded. Notability guidelines need not worry about this kind of thing. -- Black Falcon 20:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Todd, one of the enjoyable aspects of an encyclopedia and especially this linkable format is following a trail of information especially with links. At WP I frequently stumble on facinating articles which I would never seek independently. --Kevin Murray 12:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Believe me, I agree that it is interesting to read articles that myself personally would never look up. However if people only EVER read an article because they stumbled upon it such as Bonded by Blood (poster), it should not be included. Todd661 13:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC-8)

• If I saw this at AfD, I would vote to keep because there are two reasonable sources. However, I think that notability is more to the team than the poster, and would rename the article for the team (or merge if there is an article), with a redirect from the title of the poster, because the poster is being talked about. --Kevin Murray 13:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Wikipedia:Notability (academics)

The proponents of Wikipedia:Notability (academics) are trying to claim that this has been accepted as a guideline. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics). I think that the primary criterion is sufficient to deal with Academics, but if further "rules" are needed, they could be condensed and included at People. There is little new and less which is valid. --Kevin Murray 11:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Courtesy notice: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Notability (films)

Wikipedia:Notability (films) has been nominated for deletion. Please visit the deletion nomination to discuss this nomination. --Kevin Murray 16:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Should sources be in the English language?

There is currently no requirement in this guideline that the sources used to denote and verify notability should be in the English language. Should this be an essential requirement for an English-language encyclopaedia? The question arose because I came across an article on the Sabah Tshung Tsin Secondary School which is currently awaiting assessment. There is one reference and three external links in the article but they are all in Chinese. As a non-Chinese speaker it is impossible for me to verify the content of the article though I would imagine that it is reasonably accurate. Dahliarose 08:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC-8)

The policy you're looking for is Wikipedia:Attribution#Language. Sources should be in English when possible, but non-English ones are acceptable if no English language sources are available. From the article in question, however, all the sources seem to be from the school itself, which could be a problem. It's not my area of interest, but consider looking at some of these English language articles for better sources: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 08:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Modifying independence

I added a sentence in discussing independence to alleviate the concerns of the proponents of Wikipedia:Notability (news). It seems that page really boils down to a simple sentence:

Several journals simultaneously publishing articles about an occurrence, does not always constitute independent works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information.

Please see what you think and let's see whether this is reasonable. --Kevin Murray 16:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Just to summarize the rationale for the language change, it's to handle "one shot" stories that garner multiple independently written news articles on the same day or so but then afterward receive no media attention at all. For example, you might have a "weird news" story or unusual crime or event that the national press covers for a day or two then never follows up on. It appears that most editors feel that such transitory events should not be considered "notable" in that readers are unlikely to want to access them in Wikipedia more than a few weeks after the event. Moreover, Wikinews is probably better able to handle the archiving of reporting on those sorts of "one shot news blurbs".

So by requiring the multiple sources not to be "simultaneous", you are implying that a news story should receive some extended coverage over a period of time. Stories that receive follow-up articles and published coverage over a period of a couple of weeks are much more likely to have solid notability and usefulness for the readers.

Kevin's reasoning, and I agree, is that it would be better to make a small change here rather than use an entirely seperate guideline to close that news-notability loophole. If you guys seem to agree with the change, then it would mean WP:NOTNEWS could be used more as a descriptive essay talking about news articles rather than being a possibly redundant guideline. Dugwiki 08:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Why news stories are such a difficult case

It is laudable that we try to make a change here (in conjunction with making WP:NOTNEWS a good essay) rather than create a whole new guideline, but please please please remember: NEWS stories are tricky buggers to nail down. NO MATTER WHERE we try to draw the line of "multiple coverage over multiple days" there will be exceptions. I'd be happier seeing something along the lines of "WP:NOT] a news archive" added to WP:NOT, simply because it is (or should be) part of the core definition of what Wikipedia aims to be and what it shouldn't aim to be (the same with NOT dicef and NOT directory). Wikinews is a better place for any and all news stories regardless, until such time as they have become part of the lasting historical record, which encyclopedias can then handle. It's quicker to explain with two examples why news stories are so problematic:

Example 1. A (non-notable) person is killed. After a two week man-hunt a (non-notable) suspect is arrested and charged. A month later his trial begins. It takes 6 months, after which he is convicted. Two weeks later he is sentenced. He appeals his conviction and the appeal takes a few more months before he is acquitted or the sentence is upheld. All of these points in the process are covered by the news media, giving "multiple coverage over multiple days".

Example 2. A civil war breaks out but is quickly suppressed by the government. From start to end the war takes less than 6 months. It is likely to become part of the historical record and has received "multiple coverage over multiple days".

So Ex 1 receives "longer" coverage than Ex 2, but it is still just a run-of-the-mill murder case no matter which way you cut it. The length of time of news coverage is NOT proportionate with the notability or "encyclopedicness" of the event. Trying to nail down a rule based on "multiple coverage over multiple days" is fraught with difficulty, which is why WP:NOTNEWS has a completely different set of criteria, based on news events having to "transcend being mere news" as a measure of their encyclopedic notability. Zunaid©® 05:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Zun, I agree that there will always be disputes over where best to draw the notability line for news stories. However, that doesn't mean NO line should be drawn, so to garner the strongest consensus we have to err on the side of inclusion rather than deletion. Thus while example 1 is probably a borderline case of something that ideally might not be notable, we need to err on the side of possibly including some of these borderline cases in order to have the broadest consensus of editorial approval and to avoid possibly deleting information that otherwise might actually be potentially useful. Therefore it's better to notch up the guideline slowly and keep it as inclusive as possible, while still hopefully eliminating a good portion of the types of articles we're trying to prune. Dugwiki 08:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

It's not so much about the murder example specifically. It is more that ANY story whatsoever which has "legs" to carry for a few weeks in the news satisfies "mutiple blah blah blah..." (MCOMD). In reality what we DO want to cover is stories which have become part of the historical record. We can only judge that by seeing how much non-news coverage a news event generates. Zunaid©® 23:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

"At least one substantial" source

Again, is there any example of a topic that only has "one substantial source" but no other reliable sources? —Centrx?talk • 19:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC-8)

• Asked and answered above. If you can't think of an example then you should also see this as a non-issue. --Kevin Murray 19:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC-8)
  • No, the question was never answered. If there is no example, then the phrasing is unnecessary and misleading. —Centrx?talk • 19:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC-8)
    • Please see section 12 above. --Kevin Murray 20:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC-8)
      • Yes, I know; your example was irrelevant to the question, as was made clear in my response. —Centrx?talk • 20:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC-8)
        • It seems more appropriate to continue this discussion above in section 12, within the context of the prior discussion, where several people responded to your question, leading to support of this concept. --Kevin Murray 20:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC-8)
          • No, that's not what happened, and new discussion belong at the bottom of the page. If this is at all a reasonable addition you should be able to come up with examples without so much difficulty. —Centrx?talk • 16:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Centrx, I have listed several examples in answer to this question before. The most notable example of single sourced articles are geographic places using census data. There is consensus that all towns or villages, no matter how small, are notable and deserve comprehensive coverage in Wikipedia. This guideline is not the place to debate that issue. We simply need to make sure this guideline is consistent with that practice. Dhaluza 02:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

• And I already responded: there are multiple reliable sources for these towns. —Centrx?talk • 16:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)
  • No, most of the US articles are created using the census data as the sole source initially. Your proposal would make these subject to deletion, even though they are very useful, because they create a uniform template that keeps individual articles from being created at random. People are free to add additional material from the additional sources, but the articles are fine without them. Dhaluza 16:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)
    • There's the fallacious and ill-thought-throught argument that I pointed out above, again. That the articles were created with just one source is not the same thing as only one source actually existing. Building your argument upon that premise leads you to the erroneous straw man that such subjects are non-notable, and thence to your subsequent argument against that straw man. Nowhere do our notability criteria state that they are constrained to solely the published works that were used in creating the article. Indeed, in quite a few places, including our Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, editors are encouraged to do the research and look for published works, to see what ones exist, when judging notability. Uncle G 16:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I added a sentence that I think conveys what was meant by this, at least it fits with the examples: the "at least one substantial work" indicates prospective notability, but is not in itself sufficient to demonstrate actual notability. With the examples: the historical military figure has these obscure works (they exist, there are multiple sources about the topic), but they not currently known to us; the towns have articles with relatively weak sourcing but there do exist good sources, generally. —Centrx?talk • 16:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

And I reverted it because it does not address the issues raised here. Dhaluza 16:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

You seem to have misread the page. There are additional sources for the towns and they are by that reason notable; the sources are just not in the article at the moment. That does not mean that there is only "one substantial work", it's just not in the article, which is exactly what the sentence was supposed to address. What is wrong with that? Why does the sentence I added not address that? Also, you should not do a blanket revert like you did. You reversed several completely unrelated changes; please re-instate them. —Centrx?talk • 19:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

I hear the sound of one hand clapping vigorously in an empty room. --Kevin Murray 19:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

You are probably just blind and nearly deaf. —Centrx?talk • 08:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• Not too far off speaking to my physical deterioration; around my house blindness is a curse, but deafness a blessing. However, I still have a keen sense of smell, and I smell traces of cattle in some comments. --Kevin Murray 09:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Mass tagging of guidelines and proposals as "Rejected"

One editor has tagged as "Rejected" or proposed on the talk pages the deleting of a whole series of guidelines or proposals, including WP:MALL, WP:CONG, WP:NOTNEWS , Wikipedia:Notability (royalty) and WP:SCHOOL and has also created a MFD to delete Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Notability (films). I would to make sure all interested editors have an opportunity to contribute to the discussions. Is it sufficient for the editor seeking to tag the material as rejected to so note on the discussion pages, and just assume that those who are interested will have watch-listed the pages? Should notice be given at a forum such as Village Pump or Community Portal for such a radical pruning of guidelines? Edison 07:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

• • Please consider that what Edison suggests was done before hand at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) which asks people to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability/overview which displays a graphic demonstrating the recent explosion in proposals for guidelines, aka:instruction creep. --Kevin Murray 09:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)
  • Any recent tagging of proposals was in keeping with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: "A rejected page is any proposal for which consensus support is not present, regardless of whether there's active discussion or not. Consensus need not be fully opposed; if consensus is neutral on the issue and unlikely to improve, the proposal is likewise rejected.". Otherwise a discussion was opened at the talk pages to confirm consensus where unclear. --Kevin Murray 08:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Changes to "Rationale"

I made some changes to the section titled "Rationale for requiring a level of notability," including changing the section title to "Why Wikipedia has a notability policy." Since I'm not sure that they meet the consensus standard, however, I rolled back my changes for the time being pending comment by others. You can read my version at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Notability&oldid=111589127

If I don't see strong objection to this change, I'll go ahead and reinstate it in a few days. --Sheldon Rampton 07:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

The only change I would make to your edit is adding the words "and friends" at the very end. Nifboy 07:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Downgrade to proposal

As per: User:Kevin Murray:

"Downgrade to proposal until situation stabilized"

This page appears to never have been stable. Looking at the archive history, people have argued this page since its inception.

The very first entry on this talk page probably sounds familar:

I took off the "guideline" tag, because I've never seen this page before, and I don't believe this particular definition has majority support. User:Kappa 23:07, 18 May 2005 (UTC-7)[8]

Archive two Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_2#Consensus

There are a significant number of established Wikipedians who disagree with the supposed "consensus" that this guideline purportedly describes...User:Jersyko

Archive three Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_3#Should notability be a guideline?

Should notability be a guideline? User:Fresheneesz

Archive four Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_4#This_should_stay_a_guideline...

It is the very fact that this essay became a Guideline (on the basis of alleged consensus that is currently being disputed by Wikipedians here and in various other places) User:SMcCandlish

Archive five, six and seven: Nov 2006–Jan 2006 a large portion of the discussion is about this being a guideline or policy.

In fact the history of this page has always been controversial, with, it appears, no real consensus. See Wikipedia:Notability/Historical/Importance and Wikipedia:Importance which was the original names of this article.

Travb (talk) 09:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

I've reversed this change. While exactly what this guideline should state has been in discussion, this guideline is widely cited, and lack of a notability assertion is even acceptable as a reason to speedily delete, showing widespread acceptance in practice. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 09:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

The (ab)use of WP:N, a contentious non-core non-policy, to administratively enforce (by speedy deletion) a wikipedia-specific defined criterion, which is confusingly partially-overlapped and partially-divergent from core policies and principles is certainly not good enough reason to override continuing dispute. I have reversed your reversal. SmokeyJoe 16:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

My earlier proposal was rejected, and I backed away from this suggestion. After reading the responses I have mixed feelings, but won't oppose Travb. However, I think that we need to look closely at the growing infrastructure around Notability, and get everything working together in a well conceived and consistent theme. --Kevin Murray 09:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Wikipedia talk:Notability/overview is meant to be a forum where we can discuss the bigger picture. One major problem that I see is not specifically the specialization of guidelines, but at each permutation there is a paraphrase of WP:N and frequently a little twist on the interpretation. I think that the only supportable additions are where the upper level pages become cluttered. There is no reason to have extensive preambles to each permutation, just the facts, with examples, justification, and discussion at an essay. --Kevin Murray 09:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Well, I do oppose the proposal, and would not like to see Notability downgraded at all. Without the Notability guidelines Wikipedia would be full of unreferenced or poorly referenced conspiracy theory cruft. Yes, the guideline gets edited frequently, but that's the nature of Wikipedia. Even with a swiftly changing policy the meat of the concepts remains. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 13:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

But unreferenced or poorly referenced conspiracy theories will have problems with WP:ATT and WP:NPOV, which are policies. The simple fact is, the notability guidelines are unnecessary {{shrubbery}}. --Farix (Talk) 15:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

That seems to be a "Necessary_evil" argument. I would have agreed with this a while back, but the more AfD's I see where people use notability as an absolute test, rather than a guideline, it seems more evil, and less necessary. Frankly I think Notability will ultimately prove to be a trip to Abilene and until we recognize that, we won't find something that really works. While downgrading this guideline to a proposal is a rather drastic step, I think that the slow erosion of any acknowledgment of controversy in the text does not change the fact that Notability has not attracted a wide and stable consensus. Although Wikipedia:Notability/Historical/Arguments was written six months ago, and was recently labeled "historical", it could have been written yesterday, and the basic issues will probably still be controversial six months from now. I think we should put the disputed tag back at the top of the main page, and it should stay there to remind people they need to think before they blindly cite this guideline at AfD. Dhaluza 15:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

I don't see this guideline as any sort of "necessary evil", and I wouldn't support anything on those grounds-if we find that something is a necessary evil, it just means we need to find a better solution. I think this notability standard is an excellent means of keeping the place clear of unencyclopedic cruft, permastubs, and articles which are an invitation due to OR due to a primary source being the only one available. This puts the decision about what belongs here where it belongs-out of our hands. Just as we cite and use secondary sources rather than offering our own interpretation, so should we use what has secondary source coverage as an indication of what we should be writing on at all. This prevents subjectivity just as surely as NOR does. Finally, as stated above, this guideline is widely cited and used, and is even used for many of the speedy deletion criteria, which are official policy. That does not indicate a guideline which fails consensus. If you'd like to propose improvements, feel free. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 16:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

I referenced earlier why the notability guideline is not shrubbery or CREEPy, and Uncle G does exceptionally well at this in User:Uncle G/On notability. But let me present my example.

I can write an article about my car which satisfies all core policies. Public records are available containing vehicles, and the car was once involved in an accident, resulting in a police report. All of this information is neutral (satisfying NPOV), is not my original research (as it's compiled by government agencies or was written by a police officer), is attributable to publically-available sources (government and police records), and goes beyond a directory entry due to description of the accident (satisfying WP:NOT). What prevents this type of garbage article is this notability guideline. There are countless subjects which are verifiable, attributable, can be written about in a neutral manner, and yet are not encyclopedically suitable. It is entirely acceptable, and even necessary, for a project intended as an encyclopedia to limit its scope. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 15:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8) If you wrote an article about the make and model of your car, that would be reasonable. But to write an article about the the individual vehicle would be absurd. We don't need the crutch of Notability to see that. We can say that some people are suitable subjects for an article, but most are not. We can also say that models of cars are suitable, but individual vehicles are not. So we can define what is absurd, without setting an arbitrary white-line standard. Dhaluza 16:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

I have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand what Seraphim describes is on the fine line of original research per some interpretations, but this is subjective and could be argued to support an article as independent and neutral. But, there seems to be no way to take the subjectivity out of defining "notability" either. I've seen an analogy in public policy where legislatures who are frustrated with poor law enforcement stiffen the laws, rather than improve the enforcement. The former goes over well in re-election speeches, but goes no further toward curbing the underlying problem. --Kevin Murray 16:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

The argument, of course, is intended as a reductio ad absurdum, as I certainly am not planning on writing an article on my car either way. (On the other hand, the make and model is notable, there are tons of secondary sources available covering the Toyota Corolla as a car model). However, I see the notability guideline as very clearly outlining what is absurd. It is absurd to have coverage in a tertiary source (an encyclopedia) of a subject which has not even been covered in secondary sources. In that case, we are acting as the secondary source and as the "first reporter". This is outside our scope and violates WP:NOT and WP:NOR. Only when we draw from secondary source materials do we fulfill our function as a tertiary source. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 16:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Seraphimblade, you may not have intended to do so, but you proved exactly why "your car" example was nothing more then a straw man argument. But how would such an example not be a violation of WP:NOT:IINFO? --Farix (Talk) 16:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

We can argue about whether the notability guideline is or isn't necessary, but it certainly is useful. If you look at my userpage, you will see a list of 122 9/11 conspiracy-theory related articles that were deleted through the Afd process -- without exception, notability was among the primary reasons noted in the nominations of these articles, as well as WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NOR -- but notability is particularly important in the field of conspiracy theories, as they ARE widely discussed among the walled garden of conspiracy theory blogs and advocacy websites, but for the most part are not widely discussed by reputable (and citable by Wiki standards) sources.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 16:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

No doubt it's useful--that is why it was created. But it is also harmful in that it is used to delete articles without thinking. This is discouraging to new editors. And it has spawned a lot of WP:CREEPy guidelines like WP:PORNBIO with no end in sight. So while it may be useful, that does not mean that we can't create a tool that is more useful. That is why I don't think we should downgrade this all the way to a proposal, because we are stuck sleeping with this pig until we find something better. But we should tag it as disputed until we do. Dhaluza 16:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Morton, I doubt that WP:N is going away. I wouldn't want it to either. But we should make the entire notability infrastructure work together in the most clear and succinct manner. My greatest concern is a spread of confusing and conflicting guidelines becoming entrenched, and then blossoming into something resembling the US Tax Code(s). --Kevin Murray 16:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

On 26 May 2006 I was indefinetly booted for daring to question the blissful wikipedia "trip to Abilene" which User:Dhaluza igeneously aluded to above. I am NOT going to make that same mistake twice.
I am also not going to focus on the forest, because most people (including myself) seem hardwired to see only the trees.
I will take User:Dhaluza advice, and add the disputed tag, as a comprimise for now to those who believe this should remain as a policy.
User:Seraphimblade
As far as User:Seraphimblade eliquent argument, thank you for teaching me more Latin. reductio ad absurdum is not a term I had heard of before. I was simply going to be less courteous and call your argument a Straw man argument, but reductio ad absurdum sounds more poetic.
User:Seraphimblade, in his last two sentences explains exactly why we don't need WP:NN, by quoting other policy which would cover his eliquent "reductio ad absurdum" argument, I quote:

"This is outside our scope and violates WP:NOT and WP:NOR. Only when we draw from secondary source materials do we fulfill our function as a tertiary source."

Of the thousands of articles which are deleted every month, can User:Seraphimblade or any other wikipedian name one actual page which would not be deleted for some other policy reason?

User:Seraphimblade not once, but twice states that WP:NN should remain policy because it is commonly used to delete articles. In my experience, this is not something to be showboat about. In my experience I have seen partisan wikipedians, many who contibute little actual content to wikipedia, use WP:NN as a POV weapon to remove articles which do not match their own narrow POV. Until this issue is addressed on the actual policy page, I will continue to oppose this "trip to Abilene" policy.
Wikipedians, particuarly in my expereince POV warriors, actively promote WP:NN, but what about WP:NOT? Wikipedia is not a battleground, (which WP:NN is being used to promote) and Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia?
If this entry needs be shortened as per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines please let me know.Travb (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

It's interesting that the very people who are trying to defending the necessity of the notability guidelines are giving the best examples of why it isn't necessary. --Farix (Talk) 16:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Break

Centrx writes “get consensus on talk /before/ downgrade” Why? You’ve got it backwards. Consensus is required to upgrade to guideline. Without consensus, it should not be maintained as a guideline, as the previous consensus was a false consensus. SmokeyJoe 16:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Alright, this is starting to generate more heat than light, let's try to sum up a bit. Travb, deletion is sometimes necessary, cutting is a necessary editorial task. Anything that aids in doing that objectively and well is most certainly something to "showboat" about. It is correct that any article without any secondary sources violates WP:NOT and WP:NOR, and indeed our very core mission as an encyclopedia and tertiary source. However, we provide guidelines to help people understand exactly what is meant by that. It's far easier to point right to something that says "Look, when you combine WP:NOT and WP:NOR, we've got to work from secondary sources", then to have to make that argument to individuals who are not familiar with it, time and time and time again. And Smokeyjoe, as this guideline is in widespread practical use, it may be considered to de facto be approved by the community at large. One cannot have a "false consensus" for something which is in widespread, everyday use. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 16:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Absolutely can you have a "false consensus" for something which is in widespread, everyday use, especially when that “use” is carried out by an “elite”. SmokeyJoe 17:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Essays do just as good a job on how policies can be interpreted without the baggage of being viewed as "the rule of law", which is how WP:N has been used. If notability is to be used as a summary of WP:NOT, WP:ATT, and WP:NOR, then it should be done at the level of an essay and not a guideline. --Farix (Talk) 17:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Joe has a point. I would have been absolutely anti notability a while back, but now I see a value here if we can trim back all the special cases, and come up with something concise and understandable, without the need for wiki-lawyers. But if it has to be a mess of contradictions, I say throw it out and rely on the AfD process. --Kevin Murray 17:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Well, I think the "mess" is more caused by the sub-guidelines. If we could nuke WP:BIO, WP:PORNBIO for godsakes, WP:MUSIC, WP:WEB, etc., etc., etc., etc., WP:N would work just fine. It's people trying to carve exceptions that make it inconsistent and spotty, and allow unencyclopedic articles and original research to remain. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 17:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

RE:

It is correct that any article without any secondary sources violates WP:NOT and WP:NOR, and indeed our very core mission as an encyclopedia and tertiary source. However, we provide guidelines to help people understand exactly what is meant by that.

So the reason we have WP:NN is simply to explain WP:NOT, WP:NOR and other pages? I know this is not what you meant precisely, but I am trying to understand what you mean. I apologize for the showboat comment, and I was sincere about the new latin word, thanks. I can address your other points later, if you wish. Travb (talk) 17:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Most of the subject specific guidelines where just fine with most editors until a handful of editors started to assert the "supremacy" of WP:N in AfD discussions and treating it as if it were policy. --Farix (Talk) 17:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

That's exactly the problem. Notability is not supposed to be a subjective criterion, and yes, it is in effect a logical extension of WP:NOT and WP:NOR. We are not a secondary source, we are not a "first reporter", we do not allow original research. All of that adds up to the logical extension that if our work is not from secondary sources, we are violating those policies-this guideline. The sub-guidelines make notability subjective. Two gold records? Why not platinum? Why not one? Three? Six? A person has a "large fan base" or "cult following"? What constitutes those things, and how does that help us with source material? A website's content is distributed through someone else? It's still a primary source no matter who it eventually gets handed to. "Notability" doesn't mean "has reached a certain standard of importance" or "we really really really should have an article on this because everyone knows about it." For other publications, those may be excellent standards of notability or newsworthiness. But we must wait for those publications to publish, and then use them as sources. That's exactly the lesson we should take away from notability. (And for godsakes yes, whoever is refactoring the comments knock it off. It's generally considered rude, and I'd like what I say to appear exactly as I put it, as do most editors.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 17:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

All of what you said is already covered by other policies, making WP:N redundant as a guideline. But editors, like yourself, want this guideline to use in those WP:IDONTLIKEIT articles in AfD when they can't site an actual policy violation as reason to delete an article. --Farix (Talk) 17:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

• In my view, notability is the single most basic reason for deleting or keeping an article. If something is not notable, it should not be in something purporting to be an encyclopedia. If you believe that this guideline does not reflect your idea of "notability", then changes should be discussed. But, for me and I suspect many others, the idea that subjects of articles should be notable is fundamental to the entire concept of Wikipedia. --Brianyoumans 18:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)
• I would absolutely tend to agree, and in fact, this article doesn't lead to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If you can show that significant secondary sourcing exists, the article should be kept, regardless. It's the sub-guidelines to notability that lead to ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT. ("But we want to have articles on every band with two albums! But we want to write school articles! But we want to write articles on all state highways! But...but...but!") If we stick to a single question, "Is sufficient secondary source material available to write a comprehensive article on this subject or not?", then we can cut way down on I(DONT)LIKEIT. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 18:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Note to Travb: Please stop refactoring the comments. Not only is it annoying, but you are disrupting the flow of the discussion by breaking who each person is responding to. --Farix (Talk) 17:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

• This guideline is far from perfect - I think it gives too much legitimacy to articles which are actually non-notable and should be removed - but it is better than nothing, and until there is a consensus to change it or replace it, I think it should stay. It is silly to talk about downgrading something to a "proposal" which has been a full guideline for so long. Brianyoumans 17:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

• I absolutely agree. This is probably the most often-cited guideline we have, has been used as a central part of a policy (speedy deletion), and has been approved as a guideline for years. A few people coming along to disagree now does not change the fact that it is, in practice, overwhelmingly used and approved by the community, nor may one say "Well I don't like it, so it's disputed or just a proposal now." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 17:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

• Ditto to what Seraphimblade said.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 17:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)
• Need I remind you that consensus can change, and there is good evidence that there isn't enough consensus to support this as a guideline any longer. However, I have added a link to {{Cent}} so that other editors may notice that there is a discussion on the subject.

• A couple people showing up at the talk page with a dispute is not "good evidence" that consensus has changed on a guideline which has been widely accepted for years. Need I remind you, that while consensus can change, it is presumed not to have changed until consensus is clearly and conclusively established the opposite direction. Also, consensus is based on the community, not those who frequent this talk page. If the community continues to utilize and cite this guideline, it is accepted, no matter what we say here. The same is true if the community widely disregards a guideline-that is generally an indicator that consensus has changed. However, please have a look at "what links here" for this guideline. I think that will be instructive as to which is the case here. (I've no objection to adding to Cent, robust discussion is never bad, but in the meantime, leave the "disputed" and "proposal" tags alone. This is still a guideline until and unless the community at large decisively decides otherwise.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 18:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

• The description of consensus above is not supported by WP:CON. Consensus is a lack of change, and any reasonable objection breaks the consensus. Also this Notability guideline has not existed "for years." The edit history only goes back to September. Dhaluza 18:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

The very first edit on this talk page, before this talk page was even called Wikipedia:Notability was questioning whether this page is policy or a guideline. Since that time, people have argued continually on this page (For evidence of this, see the archives or my first message here above).

Wikipedia:Consensus

The basic process works like this: someone makes an edit to a page, and then everyone who reads the page makes a decision to either leave the page as it is or change it. Over time, every edit that remains on a page, in a sense, has the unanimous approval of the community (or at least everyone who has looked the page). "Silence equals consent" is the ultimate measure of consensus — somebody makes an edit and nobody objects or changes it. Most of the time consensus is reached as a natural product of the editing process. (emphasis my own)

"Silence equals consent" where in the edit history of this page, on the talk page, or on the page itself has there ever been silence? I see an uninterupted stream of arguments that this page should not be or should not be a guideline. Travb (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Actually it's been at least two months since any objection to this guideline on this talk page. There was a new user who said something about it on February 4, but it looks like he objected just because one of his pages was deleted, and his objections applied to WP:V and WP:NOT too. —Centrx?talk • 19:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

21:37, 9 February 2007 Badlydrawnjeff (Talk | contribs) (rv the precedents section, because consensus can change)

12:37, 5 January 2007 Dan100 (Talk | contribs) (When on earth do people think consensus was gained for this??)

Response: 12:39, 5 January 2007 Radiant! (Talk | contribs) (Several months ago, per the talk page)

My comments: Um where?

04:37, 27 December 2006 Thivierr (Talk | contribs) (rv - Actually there's lots of detractors. Call a straw poll, if you want to see how many. Note: this only became a "guideline" because you skipped that step)

"Silence equals consent" No silence = no consent. This is a quick and superficial look at the edit history. Is it necessary to find more, including on the talk page? (I would wager yes, sigh) Travb (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

• I looked back through February which has been extremely contentious, then January where the same issues were debated by fewer people, and then found this exchange at the end of December:

• I restored the disputed flag on the basis that 7-8 edits per day to the main article and active discussion on the talk page with 20+ edits per day do not indicate that a consensus has been reached. I applaud the bold move, but serious attempts at removing such a flag should first involve getting a consensus on the talk page. John Dalton 19:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC-8)

• What are the outstanding problems with the page? —Centrx?talk • 23:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC-8)

Deja vu? --Kevin Murray 20:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

• I strongly disagree with the attempts by some to eliminate this consensus notability criterion and the Wikipedia policy of a requirement for notability in articles. I stand 100% with Morton Devonshire and Seraphimblade on this. Without a requirement to demonstrate notability, then anything which can be copied and pasted or typed becomes an unchallengable article and we gain 10,000,000 snippits of nonsense, fancruft, sillyness, vanity, and spam. Going the other way. perfectly encyclopedic aricles can be deleted because someone objects to their religious or political implications, and there is no longer a guideline to point to to show the disputed article is not a "random collection" which somehow violates "What Wikipedia is not."(edit) Edison 22:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Disputed tag

May I suggest that the dispute over the disputed tag is prima facia evidence that the page is disputed. May I also suggest that perhaps removing the tag and sweeping the dispute under the rug is actually fueling the dispute, and that putting the tag on the article might be the best way to calm the situation and get the discussion moving in a more constructive direction? Dhaluza 18:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

It seems that the proposal tag was going to far, but I think a disputed tag does no harm and may help to stimulate discussion. So far the status quo cabal has blocked much progress in improving the text, so if an incentive to compromise is removing the tag, then let's post the carrot in plain view. --Kevin Murray 18:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

I would advocate that a vote of some sort be attempted. If the vote shows a significant amount of dissatisfaction with the guideline, then a disputed tag could be added, or it could be placed into serious discussion of revision. Having a few people on the talk page say "It's disputed" (or "it's not disputed") is not useful; we need to involve the larger community. --Brianyoumans 18:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

This tag will not be allowed on this page by certain editors:

{{Disputedtag}}

I was reminded of 3RR just now.[9] Is adding the dispute tag once more a 3RR violation? Since my edits have been different everytime, obviously this would not be a 3RR correct? Should I ask WP:ANI or can we resolve this together without third party intervention?

As I showed clearly above, since the very first post on this page, even before this page was called Wikipedia:Notability there has been questions about whether it was a guideline/policy. The archives are full of arguments, which have gone on continually since this page was created, and yet, some users refuse to even allow the Template:Disputedtag on this page.

I offered the Template:Disputedtag as a comprimise to those users who feel this should remain policy, I personally restored the policy tag and attempted to add the Template:Disputedtag as per User:Dhaluza suggestion. [10]

Where is the comprimise?

Has this page ever gone through the mediation process? It appears like this maybe the only way to settle such lack of comprimise.

I am sorry, we now have to vote on a dispute tag? This is not wikipolicy on adding tags. Where is the comprimise?

Can we comprimise? Where is the comprimise folks? Travb (talk) 18:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

• I sure don't see an intent to violate as your last posting was in the spirit of compromise with a different tag. Finding fault is counterproductive. Let's focus this energy on pruning some shrubs and solving the problems in defining notablility (what's the square root of pi). --Kevin Murray 19:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

• I agree that improving this guideline is a better idea than simply trying to get rid of it. As with an index, even a bad WP:NOTE is better than none. Brianyoumans 19:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

I agree with User:Brianyoumans, I think we can make this policy, through comprimise, something that the majority of people agree on.

There will always be those who disagree with the policy (for example, I have problems with fair use policy on wikipedia, but I am in the large minority it seems).

I already stated my concerns above about this WP:NN--how I feel it has been abused in AfDs. I also am concerned about how it is much more subjective than WP:OR, WP:V, etc. I think we can comprimise on this. I will leave out the template:disputedtag for a couple of days while we talk things through here.

If someone else wants to readd template:disputedtag, please do, if someone else then wants to remove template:disputedtag, please do. It is not the end of the world. :) Travb (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Clearly there is some dispute here on the talk page. On the other hand, consensus is reached everyday in dozens of AfD's to delete content based on this page or its subpages. This continued use makes it a guideline. Guideline pages are descriptive not perscriptive: they explain to people what we actually do, not what (the guideline writers think) we should do. Eluchil404 01:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

If 100 editors wholeheartedly endorsed a guideline, one person could slap a "disputed" tag on it and by the logic of a few editors claim that proved it lacked consensus, and that lacking consensus, it was , and then delete it altogether. Having straw votes would be a far more orderly and less disruptive approach to determine the will of the editors who donate many hours to attempts to make Wikipedia a good encyclopedia and not vanispamcruft. (edit)Edison 19:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

spelling and other indicators of disorganization

Looking back on this page, I see a remarkable number of typographic mistakes by well-respected and generally sensible editors. The frequency is inversely proportional to the length of time between postings. A reasonable hypothesis to explain this little piece of OR is that this discussion is moving too fast for people to exercise their common sense.

The matters being discussed here affect basic WP editing, and will affect the acceptability of present and future articles. The discussion on this page affects number of other pages, and similar matters there affect this. It amounts to a constitutional revision, though not quite to a new constitution. It is not practical for relatively small number of people to do this a a relatively great hurry and produce something that will have general acceptance. Perhaps it would be sensible to wait a while at this point, and then find a systematic way of proceeding. And only then discuss it point by point and try to get a wider participation. If things go as they seem to, I expect to find AfD arguments saying: Yes, thats what it says in the policy page, but it doesn't make sense and never had the consensus claimed for it. I propose a wikiconstitutional break until the middle of March, during which time coherent position papers can be prepared and posted, and then another 2 weeks for them to be read and understood before the discussion resumes on April 1. And then I have a radical idea, which I only dare suggest because I'm a relative newbie here: each participant in the discussion be limited to one post per day.

When a discussion reaches the point that everyone agrees it is all totally disputed, but disputes the words to use to say it, it is time to take a recess.DGG 20:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

AfD arguments have been using notability for years, and have been referring to the concepts described on this page for several months. —Centrx?talk • 21:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Junkies have been using opiates for centuries, and heroine for decades. So what? --Kevin Murray 00:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Kevin and I said about the same thing at the exact same time. If his experience leads he to hope we can do it in ten days, great. But I ask him, just what is that we are commenting on:is there a proposed basic text?DGG 21:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

• DGG, I would consider the existing page to be the proposal as a starting point. I suggest commenting on whether you think it is overly or underly restrictive, and why. Thanks! --Kevin Murray 00:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Well, firstly, DGG, not everyone agrees it's totally disputed. The community at large has not largely disputed it, a couple people on this talk page have. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 04:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Most of us do not agree that this policy is "totally disputed," just a very few editors who are attempting in a disruptive manner through sheer persistence and Wikilawyering to remove guidelines for notability for whatever reason. Edison 19:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

You need to remain civil and not facetiously classify those who disagree with portions of, implementation, or question the very concept of notability as "disruptive". WP:N is not a sacred cow and should not be treated as such. --Farix (Talk) 20:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Note that I was perfectly civil and did not say anything about their character or their person, only the manner and effect of the deletion of notability guidelines, which disrupts the functioning of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Edison 06:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)

A new start with a new goal

GOAL: Let's try to brainstorm a better WP:Notability within 10 days, using the present text as a starting point. A notice has been added to the Community Portal to bring new editors into this process.

To this purpose I suggest that eveyone briefly summarize their objections or concerns in the summary section below (please keep your comments and amendments in one area), and put details and rebuttals in the next sections marked details and rebuttals. Overly long summaries will be moved to the detail section, and other comments will be distributed based on content and context. Please keep your comments together in one paragraph or bullets without vertical spaces for continuity, and leave two lines above and below your section (visual clarity). If you substantially agree with a proposal, feel free to endorse it by adding your signature to that line (without comment), after the original author.

Summary -- this is not meant to be a debate section, but only a summary of editors thoughts

Note some comments have been moved to rebuttal per instructions above

• I would like to see it made clear that having multiple non-trivial sources is only a minimum requirement for notability and is not necessarily sufficient in and of itself. Brianyoumans 22:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)
• I think the "one substantial source" bit has loosened the requirements for notability unduly.Brianyoumans 22:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)
• And, I would like to see the bit about "notability is generally permanent" removed; many things which are notable now will be incredibly boring trivia in 10 years, let alone 20 or 100. --Brianyoumans 22:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

• I would like the notability guideline to make it clear(er) that "unsourced != non-notable" (at least not necessarily). I'll post something more general regarding the PNC, CNC, or GNC (whatever one wishes to call it) after I have a chance to give it some more thought. -- Black Falcon 22:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

• It should be made clear that something doesn't need to meet the whatever notability criterion to be notable. --NE2 22:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

• I ultimately don't think we need notability to remove "crufty" articles as those articles will often have problems with policies. Also, we are simply fooling ourselves when we say that notability is not subjective. Notability should never be the primary reason to delete an article. If notability is the only reason you can recommend an article for deletion, then the problem is with your argument and not the article.
• As for ways to improve the "guideline", first the "Primary Notability Criteria" should be renamed to "General Notability Criteria". Mainly because notability is negotiable and there are other reasons why something can be deemed notable or why we would want an article on it regardless of it strictly meets the notability criteria.
• Second, the "guideline" should reincorporate the arguments against the use of notability as bases for deleting articles. The original essay on notability did an adequate job of presenting both sides of the debate. However, It was much to Wikipedia's detriment when the opposing points where not incorporated into the guideline. --Farix (Talk) 04:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• Notability guidelines should erode the effects of WP:RECENT by sources. In today's mass media culture, current events are publicized to extents unheard of in the past, giving them here-today/gone-tomorrow substantial sources. Neier 04:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• Notability should, first and foremost, be a tool which furthers our goal of writing an encyclopedia, which is, among other things, a tertiary source, and not a secondary source or first publisher. To this end, the notability guideline should make absolutely clear that regardless of other considerations, anything which has not been covered substantially in secondary sources is not an appropriate encyclopedic subject. Also, as its name seems to cause confusion between our notability (source coverage) and the common definition of notability (recognition or common knowledge), I propose changing its name to "encyclopedic suitability". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 04:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• Notability is too contentious to be a guideline. It has become a form of instruction creep, it doesn't have consensus, and it biases arguments. We don't need notability guidance to nominate things for deletion, it encourages group-think and can cause lazy editing and poor deletion closing. We've seen instances where this guideline has trumped policy, and it should not. We should go back to our essay on notability and trust our deletion discussions to come to the right conclusions and build consensus on articles case by case. We don't do precedence, since consensus can change; we aren't a bureaucracy, so we don't need complex rules; we worked fine without this guidance, we can again. Hiding Talk 09:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• Although I agree with the page as it currently stands, I disagree with its use solely as a soundbite in AfD. Nifboy 10:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• The dispute appears not to be over wording, but of true disagreement over how inclusive WP should be. I have limited experience, but I suspect we will never have consensus on something so fundamental, so it appears to be a matter of finding words that everyone can interpret as they please. I consider the proposed ones acceptable--they will serve well enough as a basis for argument over individual topics and articles.DGG 11:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• I support the “concept” of qualifying our subject material above independence and verifiability. So far, “Notability” is the best word we’ve found to describes the higher quality level we seek.
• Here comes the conundrum; “notability” can’t be objectively defined, thus we measure in proxy, by evaluating sources in both quantity and quality. But the quantity seems conditional on quality (e.g., single “substantial”, multiple “non-trivial”). Then we get into defining two subjective terms: “substantial and “non-trivial.” So our logic sleigh ride has yielded two riddles for the price of one conundrum.
• My secondary concern is the propensity for writers to enjoy writing. Thus have evolved long complex rule-sets in ever growing permutations, with potential for contradiction and confusion. If these aren’t clear and concise few people will take the time to understand them. --Kevin Murray 12:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• AfD arguments citing presumed lack of notability should explain why the subject of the article is considered not notable, rather than stating "the article doesn't sufficiently document the subject's notability." Lack of sufficient documentation is a WP:ATT issue, not a WP:NN issue, & should be discussed as such. Furthermore, WP:NN is a guideline, not a policy; to the extent it relates to policy, it supports WP:NOT (specifically, WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE.) --Yksin 13:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• The central, main, ultimate, (or whatever) criterion is not a superset of WP:V, it is that the subject is notable outside of a localized community of interest, i.e. the "garage band" test.
• The policy requirement for "several external sources" for biography articles in WP:NOT#DIR is wise, and widely applicable, but not universally applicable to all subjects. It is not applicable in areas where authoritative sources are preferred, and is not necessary in subject areas where comprehensive coverage is desirable.
• This guideline should not redundantly reference or expand policy, in particular WP:ATT and WP:NOT#DIR. These policies can stand on their own. This guideline should be consistent with them, but no more. It should fill in the gaps between policies, not attempt to redefine them.
• This guideline, like all WP policies and guidelines should be DEscriptive, not PREscriptive. --Dhaluza 16:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)
• This guideline was, is, and probably will always be controversial. The acknowledgment of the controversy should be restored to the text. Dhaluza 16:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• I think Wikipedia has evolved considerably since WP:N was adopted, to the point where the reality of large portions of Wikipedia (including content large swaths of our users find valuable) is in obvious and clear violation of WP:N. This is particularly the case for works of fiction, such as television episodes and of course webcomics. I would support the outright deprecation of WP:N, such that WP:NOT and WP:ATT combined with (case-by-case or field-by-field) considerations of whether it is more useful to merge insignificant topics are the only determinants for deciding whether something gets an article. I think the recent rewording is an improvement, but the emphasis on "secondary sources" will lead to problems based on the definition of a secondary source. In particular, many types of independent sources (like newspaper articles) are not secondary sources, at least according to standard usage and our own article.--ragesoss 17:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• The Notability guideline as it existed before the recent series of aggressive revisions made a fine guideline for determining what did or did not belong in Wikipedia. If something is vanity, or spam, or fancruft, it should go. (WP:ATT would be the filter to keep out hoaxes and original research). If it is notable, as proven by being a primary subject of multiple nontrivial coverage in reliable sources, it should stay. There are additional subjects which could justify having articles, which is the point of the guidelines a few editors are doing their utmost to downgrade and delete. Television shows or movies for instance, should be able to be shown notable on the basis of factors beyond newspaper or magazine articles, expanding the realm of notable subjects. The WP:NOTNEWS guideline sought to show that a "watercooler story" about a missing girl or a four legged duck did not always make an encyclopedic article despite being in multiple newspapers and TV news programs during the subject's 15 minutes of fame, reducing the realm of notable subjects. The peril of having several private guidelines is it is too easy for fans or inclusionists to add provisions such as in the Royalty guideline that anyone who was knighted is automatically notable, along with their wives (and perhaps their cousins and their sisters and their aunts, in a Gilbert and Sullivan mode) or that "all state highways and all county roads are inherently notable" from the USROADS project, who do not even bother with a notability guideline, or all high schools are inherently notable, or all porn stars who made 100 films or had their names in the title of a film are inherently notable. Of course there are deletionists who argue that no number of article makes a church or restaurant or shopping mall or journalist or professor notable, because they are not "nationally or internationally" famous. Then we give some shameful sort of inherent notability to 490 Pokemon character articles and scold people who point the fact out with a special essay about how we are not supposed to mention the Pokemon articles in deletion debates for more notable subjects. We also allow inherent notability for everyone who ever kicked a soccer ball for pay. I can see consolidation of guidelines to prevent fans of something from writing in guaranteed notability for the stuff they like over in their private notability guideline, as long as there is a place in the consolidated general guideline which which looks at the special characteristics of nobility, actors, professors, churches, roads, or malls, and does not claim that a shopping mall or a church building.congregation should be judged only as an "organization" right next to Microsoft, when it also is a venue or structure.(edit)Edison 19:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• Notability is an important filter that sits above WP:ATT and WP:NOT. There are certain things which meet these two policies and yet are still not suitable for an encyclopedia.
• In lieu of expanding the two policies to exclude more things (which perhaps might be a reasonable thing to do), the Notability guideline SHOULD BE a guideline and should not be downgraded. If it is disputed then work on the wording to most people's satisfaction.
• WP:N should be the main guideline, and derived guidelines should NOT seek to bypass the PNC by creating other criteria. If anything, derived guidelines are there to clarify the application of the PNC to subject-specific criteria. They may be used to STRENGTHEN inclusion requirements in subject fields where the PNC is not a reliable indication of encyclopedic notability (e.g. even minor news events almost always get "multiple ..." coverage).
• If we want "notability is generally permanent" to stay in, then the guideline needs to be more restrictive on including things with potentially transient claims to notability (fastest, tallest etc.) as well as "15 minutes of fame" type of passing notability (reality TV contestants anyone?). Otherwise we should drop this clause, allow articles with transient claims, and delete them afterwards if notability is deemed not to be met at a later date. Zunaid©® 00:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Details

Discussion of Nifboy 10:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• I agree, Nif. Some editors simply list "WP:N" in cases where the article appears to actually meet the minimal WP:N standards. The same thing happens with, for example, WP:NOT#IINFO. Both are cases where some editors are attempting to claim some articles violate a guideline or policy without describing the failure and more as an "I don't like it" sort of argument. That's not a failure of the guideline or policy, per se, but of editors to actually read and follow what it says. Dugwiki 10:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)
  • It's not that I mind "Delete, WP:N" so much as I mind pages full of long-winded arguments based solely around one sentence in the page ("Multiple, non-trivial, yadda yadda yadda sources") and treating it like a checklist without any consideration for whether the source actually helps the article or even knowing why those particular requirements are in place; simply "appearing" to meet the requirements does not mean it meets the requirements, or vice-versa. Nifboy 10:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• My comment above speaks to the somewhat stable version of the primary guideline which has been around for about a week, and was substantialy the same as the prior versions with the additional potential for a strong single source. However, it looks like Smokey Joe sliped in great piece of work just before the page was locked. I'm really impressed! It is longer, but sometimes longer is OK. I think that the term "primary research" will be in conflict with the other new original guideline. But otherwise we might have a good first draft, that I could support. --Kevin Murray 12:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• I actually fully agree that use of N in AfD discussions without thought is far too common, but I've seen it happen just as often (if not more so) on the "keep" side then the "delete". Quite often, you'll see "keep, multiple sources" without the person having bothered to go look and see that the "source" that's cited seven times is the subject's own website, and that the "newspaper article" cited only mentions the subject in passing in one sentence. I've also seen a lot of very mechanical use of WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, and the like ("keep, has been on a national tour", "keep, pro athlete"), without stopping to think if source coverage is adequate for us to have an article on the subject. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 12:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Kevin, if this is "stable" it is only in the sense that a person who was mugged and is in traction in a hospital bed is "stable:" as an upgrade from "critical!" The protection should immediately be removed from this and all other guidelines or proposed guidelines for notability. Edison 20:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• I disagree, because if it is not "stable" then the guideline should be downgraded to a proposal, and I'm not sure that will be productive. --Kevin Murray 09:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Rebuttals

• It should be made clear that something doesn't need to meet the whatever notability criterion to be notable.
  • NE2, what is that supposed to mean? This would quickly become "Trivialcruftvanityspamopedia" with 100,000,000 article of no use or interest to anyone but the creator. Edison 22:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)
  • Jordanhill railway station has no sources that are actually about it, rather than mentioning it in passing in a larger context. The same is true for many localities. Either we should get rid of "All topics should meet a minimum threshold of notability for an article on that topic to be included in Wikipedia." or redefine notability to include these articles. --NE2 12:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)
    • Excellent example. Nobody seriously disputes the suitability of this (the 1,000,000th article). But it would fail the notability guideline that some editors think represents consensus. P.S. Wouldn't it have been ironic if the 1,000,000th article had been deleted for non-notability? Dhaluza 16:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)
      • (Some of us actually do, but anyone nominating that thing for AfD would get crucified. :P ) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 16:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)
      • Actually, if you really tried, I'm certain you could find articles about the station itself in local publications - "New rail station to open", that sort of thing. I'm not thrilled with railcruft, but there is some rationale for it; at least large numbers of people pass through or by rail stations. One can always ignore the rules if necessary to save an article that most everyone wants included; what is harder is when you have a rule that allows in too many articles. It is a lot harder to say, "technically it is OK, but practically we want to delete this." --Brianyoumans 18:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)
        • It depends; if it was one of the original stations on the line, and was never replaced independently, only as part of an upgrading of the line concurrent with other stations, there may not be an article with it as its subject. --NE2 19:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)
• Regarding "notability is generally permanent", if more care is taken in defining Notability, then, its application to topics 10, 20, or 100 years down the road will not need to be reviewed. Neier 04:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• Not a rebuttal, but a whole-hearted agreement with Notability should never be the primary reason to delete an article. above. Neier 04:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Rebuttal to Brianyoumans 22:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

• Brian wrote "I would like to see it made clear that having multiple non-trivial sources is only a minimum requirement for notability and is not necessarily sufficient in and of itself." I would disagree with that request. The Notability guideline should by its nature reflect a minimal bar for inclusion in Wikipedia. Including language that effectively says "this is a minimum requirement but an article still might not be notable" opens a huge loophole for WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments where editors claim an article isn't notable despite meeting the listed requirements. Thus I do not want such a statement included in the guideline. Keep the guideline as inclusive as possible, while still eliminating the bulk of the articles it's aimed at eliminating (ie articles with only one source and thus extremely limited outside published discussion). Dugwiki 09:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)
  • I agree that it opens a loophole, and I think it is a necessary loophole. Otherwise, you have what I call "the culvert problem", which is to say that many subjects which have multiple non-trivial yadda-yadda sources are not what we would think of as reasonable subjects for articles - "Town to build new culvert" is my favorite example. There are many localized subjects which meet WP:Notability as written, but who really wants an article on every local fire department, road project, elementary school, small shopping center, zoning dispute, housing development, etc? (OK, I know some editors want to go that way, but I think most don't.) It is not just localized subjects that are a problem; I think there is also an issue in areas like specialized industries, perhaps even areas of academic study. There are places you just don't want an encyclopedia to cover, and without a loophole people have a potent argument for keeping such articles. Brianyoumans 09:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)
    • See the difference, though, is that I want a guideline which tells you a minimal requirement for inclusion, as in "if an article meets this guideline then the article is probably ok for inclusion unless it breaks some other guideline or policy". You are looking, though, for the guideline to instead be a minimal level for deletion, as in "an article that fails to meet this guideline should be deleted AND article that pass this guideline should also possibly be deleted even if they don't fail any other particular guideline or policy recommendation". I feel that in order to maintain consensus for the guideline, it needs to err on the side of including borderline articles rather than deleting them. So while I doubt we want articles about culverts, I'd rather have culverts minimally meet this particular guideline and be deleted based on other guidelines and policies then delete articles that probably SHOULD be kept based on some vague openended language in WP:N. Dugwiki 09:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)
      • You state the difference in our opinions with great clarity! But I hope that such an unfortunate compromise with the more, um, enthusiastic inclusionists will not be necessary. Brianyoumans 10:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)
    • Your culvert example demonstrates why trying to define notability as a superset of WP:ATT misses the mark. Plenty of unsuitable topics have multiple references, and having only one reference readily available may be sufficient. The real issue is that the culvert has only a localized community of interest, and is unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Towns are notable, but shops and buildings (and culverts) in the town generally are not (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes). Dhaluza 16:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)
      • Practically, one ends up with "notability creep". I have seen people say, "Look, it's sourced, it's notable, therefore it gets kept" about all sorts of things - shopping centers, libraries, etc. That is why I see multiple sources as a useful minimal requirement; the problem is people have been reading it as sufficient to keep an article. --Brianyoumans 18:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Rebuttal to Brianyoumans 22:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

• Brian wrote above "And, I would like to see the bit about "notability is generally permanent" removed; many things which are notable now will be incredibly boring trivia in 10 years, let alone 20 or 100." I disagree here too. Notability isn't about "trivia", per se, it's about the level of verifiable discourse, analysis and information. If you allow notability to lapse over time, then there is little point to archiving historical information that the public might not have discussed recently but that was discussed years ago. Encyclopedia are as much about maintaining historical information that might not currently be considered popular, but which might still be useful at a future date, even if only for historical comparisons. Dugwiki 09:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Rebuttal to Black Falcon 22:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

• Black Falcon wrote "I would like the notability guideline to make it clear(er) that "unsourced != non-notable" (at least not necessarily)." Again, I'm going to disagree with this as well. We have to go by the information the article itself presents. If an article is unsourced, then it is not presenting any verified evidence of notability or accuracy at all. It is ultimately the responsibility of the authors of an article to provide the proper references to justify the information presented as well as demonstrate the article's notability. Therefore an article can not be considered to have demonstrated any notability until some minimal level of sourcing is provided. Dugwiki 09:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)
  • Allow me to clarify my comment (especially the "at least not necessarily part" which I left misteriously unspecified). I agree that the burden of proof is on the author(s) to demonstrate notability, but what I want in WP:N is one or two sentences that say that the lack of sources is not necessarily or automatically an indication of non-notability. I don't want a revision of the guideline, just a statement of the effect: please do a Google search for the article title before writing it's non-notable. -- Black Falcon 18:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Rebuttal to Neier 04:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• To that end, Kevin recently added the word "simultaneous" in the section on notability criteria to try and help eliminate cases where multiple sources simultaneously write about the same recent event. True, that doesn't elimintate all the cases you're probably worried about, but it does at least raise the bar somewhat to help take out "one-shot" recent stories. Dugwiki 09:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)
  • I disagree with simultaneous anyway. It's often notable that something is written about simultaneously by a number of sources. Why on earth are we seeking to eliminate and take out and raise the bar in such a manner? That's what afd is for, so we can have these discussions; we shouldn't be creating guidance which biases the argument in favour of deletionists rather than mergists or inclusionists. Hiding Talk 09:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)
    • You claim that it's "often notable if something is written about simultaneously by a number of sources", but I'm not sure that's actually true. If an event is only written about in the course of a single day or two by multiple sources, then forgotten and not written about again, would you actually consider that event notable for inclusion purposes? Can you even think of or describe any such one-shot events, either actual or somewhat hypothetical that would reasonably be considered notable by most editors? Dugwiki 09:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)
      • Conventions, conferences, football matches, any sports event come to that, awards ceremonies, art exhibitions, theatre productions, books, elections. That's a few I can think of. Hope that helps. Hiding Talk 11:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)
        • It does help make my point, thanks. For example, generally speaking, individual minor sporting events that receive limited coverage don't have their own articles. You don't see, for example, articles about every match John McEnroe ever had. Such minor competitions would likewise primarily receive coverage only the day of or after the event. The individual sporting events which DO have articles, such as championship matches and Pay Per View events, tend to be ones that have extended media coverage over a period of at least a week or two or more prior to and after the event takes place. So again, none of those examples you provided seem to overall fit the bill of an event which receives coverage only on a one or two or three day capacity but which is also significant enough for its own Wikipedia article. Dugwiki 12:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)
          • Sorry, the fact that we have such articles proves your point? You'll have to restate your point then, or explain why we have an article on nearly every grand prix, cup final and so on and so forth, which only receive significant coverage in the one or two days after the event. I thought your point was that we don't have such articles, and that if we did you'd concede your argument. I note we're now using the term "limited". This only helps prove my point that this whole issue is based on subjective language that changes at every point in the debate. Like I say, afd is the place to have these discussions, topic by topic. Hiding Talk 02:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)
            • You say "we have such articles", but then you talk about "finals" which do receive extended media coverage. What we don't have is articles about, for example, the June 27th 1998 baseball game between the New York Yankees and the Boston Red Sox. I'm pretty sure if you went into the archives for the New York Times and Boston Globe you could find two independently written articles about that hypothetical game, both from reliable newspapers and both written on the day of or day after the event. Combining details from those articles would result in an article that meets the requirements of WP:V (it's verifiable) and not original research. WP:NOT likewise isn't violated. The only policy or guideline that hypothetical article about that specific baseball game appears to violate is WP:N. Dugwiki 09:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Rebuttal to Farix (Talk) 04:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• I'm going to disagree with Farix's assertion that failure to meet a minimal notability requirement should never be reason for deletion. For example, someone winning a bowling tournament in their city might have a single newspaper article written about them. With only a single verifiable source the article about that person or that tournament would fail to meet the very minimal bar of notability established in this guideline. But by the same token that same article probably would meet verifiability policy, it's not original research, and it's not a copyright violation, etc. The article's sourcing and information would almost certainly never improve, and the only guideline or policy it currently would seem to violate would be WP:N. Thus citing WP:N as a reason for deletion would seem to be perfectly reasonable. Therefore I'm against including language that stipulates "notability should never be used as the sole reason for deletion". Dugwiki 09:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)
  • I'm going to disagree with Dugwiki. Such an article would be a permastub, and would be taken to afd as such. Issues of notability are not needed to nominate something for deletion, and aren't even needed to argue for deletion. The simple facts of the article would be enough to convince people to delete or keep. We don't need notability guidance to tell us to nominate things for deletion, that's been happening since I can remember, long before we had notability guidelines. Notability guidelines are just instruction creep. They started out with good intentions, but have become divisive and have fractured parts of Wikipedia. They have become interpreted more rigidly as time has passed until the point where people are demanding 4 or 5 newspaper articles on a given topic by notable journalists wriotten over a ten year period. And I say enough. AFD worked fine before we had notability guidance, and it will work fine again after. Notability is, will be and has been divisive and contentious. Let's at least accept that. Hiding Talk 09:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)
    • I'm not sure about your claim that the article I described would be a "permastub". If the interview in question was fairly detailed, and included a lot of information about the winner's bowling prowess, game results, a description of the locale and so on, it could easily be four or five solid paragraphs of information. So which policy or guideline does such an article actually violate? Dugwiki 10:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)
      • I'd imagine it would be a copyvio, unless it's summarising a thirty or forty paragraph article. But you miss my point. What stops someone prodding it or nominating it for deletion? I'd suggest nothing does. Hiding Talk 11:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)
        • It wouldn't be a copyright violation if the article is worded from scratch. Also, any article can be prod'd or nominated on afd by anyone, legitimately or not. The question is whether or not the guidelines or policies would actually support the deletion. Dugwiki 12:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)
          • No. The question is whether there is a consensus in that deletion discussion to delete. If any article can be discussed, and a consensus formed, there is no issue. Here we start to see the real issue, which is some people wish to write guidance based on what they don't like, but which our policies allow us to include. This proves the point that notability is subjective. As to copyright violation, I'm not clear on exact court definitions of plaigarism and fair use, but I believe if we summarise something in such detail it replaces the original, we can indeed be in violation of copyright. However, I would hope you would agree this line of arguing is detracting from the real point, which is that a consensus to keep the article is highly unlikely to develop at afd regardless of the existence of a guideline on Notability. Would it help if I pointed you to the thousands of such articles which were deleted before we had this guidance? Hiding Talk 02:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)
            • You appear to be arguing that because similar articles were deleted in the past without the presence of WP:N, but odds are most of those articles fell afoul of WP:V or WP:OR or some section of WP:NOT (as most articles that violate WP:N also happen to violate one of those policies). It's not clear, though, that arguments about the types of limited-media coverage event articles I described actually violate any of those policies. And if you're not using policies and guidelines in your afd discussions, then on what basis are you arguing for deletion? Articles should only be deleted based on reasoning citing policies and guidelines, which are intended to promote consistent and practical thinking as opposed to "I don't like it" rationales. I believe that removing WP:N produces a significant hole in consistency on how to handle certain types of articles, which would be detrimental to the process. Dugwiki 09:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)
  • Frankly, I find your example is full of WP:BEANS. I highly doubt that a local armature bowler will receive that level of coverage. But in the very unlikely that it does happen, I think that WP:NOT#IINFO will cover it. --Farix (Talk) 17:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)
    • What about the example I provided of a specific regular season baseball game from 10 years ago above? Doesn't seem to violate WP:NOT, let alone WP:NOT#IINFO. It would be verifiable and have at least two independently written newspaper articles (one for each city involved) as references. Doesn't appear to violate WP:NOT, WP:V or be original research. The only guideline I can think of off-hand that seems to come close to this example is WP:N. Dugwiki 09:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Reply to Seraphimblade 04:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• I'm not sure I like "encyclopedic suitability", since that implies the article is intended to handle "fancruft" and other things that some editors don't like and don't, in their gut, feel is encyclopedic. Perhaps a simpler alternative would be "Sufficient source coverage for inclusion", as that is really what this guideline seems to be about? Dugwiki 09:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• That's the point! Most *cruft (pick one, fancruft, Pokecruft, schoolcruft, roadcruft, churchcruft, athletecruft...) isn't suitable, but that has nothing to do with a gut feeling. If a Pokemon or anime character really is the subject of significant secondary source coverage, it's an appropriate subject, even if no one thinks so. On the other hand, if it's not, it's an inappropriate subject based on original research, even if a bunch of people love having it around. Cutting is a necessary editorial task, and I'm not sure what the massive resistance to it is around here. Any draft in progress should periodically have parts examined to say "Is this really needed? Is this within scope? Is it drifting off topic?", and cut if the answer is no. This one is no different, and since an encyclopedia is a tertiary source, I can think of no better indication of encyclopedic suitability then to ask about secondary sources. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 10:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)
• To add to previous: We've been over "sufficient" before, we must define sufficient for what. If we could do that, I might be for it (depending on the proposed definition of sufficiency), else it's a meaningless term and I'm not. Also, I would not agree to any version which does not specify secondary sources. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 11:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• How about this: We let WP:ATT and WP:NPOV be our guides, and when we feel something can't meet those or feel it fails WP:NOT we start a deletion debate. That's quite simple, and looks like it might work. Hiding Talk 11:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• And then when the deletion debate starts, and something minimally meets the policies you mentioned, but is an article about a July 18th 1993 regular season baseball game between the Yankees and the Red Sox which uses articles from the July 19th New York Times and Boston Globle as references, what would be the reason for deletion, if any? Presumably you could write such an article using NPOV, talking about the results and the players involved, and the references would be verifiable and from reliable papers. The article itself also doesn't seem to violate anything in WP:NOT. The only thing this article might violate that I could see would be a notability requirement. Am I overlooking something? Dugwiki 12:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• Yes, WP:AFD and the consensus of editors. I'm not sure why this is such a hard concept. I don't like article "A", feeling it isn't of note, so I list it for deletion. I make my case, and after five days of debating a consensus is declared by an admin. Where is the problem? You are basically asking that the dice be loaded, that the debate be biased in favour of deletion because someone does not like the article. I do not think that is fair. I believe in a level playing field. I believe afd is the arena to debate it. At the minute there are people simply voting delete per WP:WEB or WP:N or WP:MUSIC as if those pages were policy. They aren't and our debating should be much sharper. If only so that we educate newcomers to Wikipedia in what it is about that exact article which does not pass muster. We can't see admins enforcing guidelines like this in the face of a consensus for keep because this guidance apparently "holds primacy". That's not what it is here for and that's not fair play. Hiding Talk 11:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)

You still haven't answered the question, though, of by what reasoning the article I mentioned would be deleted. Guidelines like WP:N represent short-hand for reasoning commonly used by editors to determine whether an article meets a minimal quality standard. When an editor says "Delete per WP:N" they are actually saying "I agree with the reasoning and general details of WP:N and this article does not meet that minimal standard". If you disallow editors to use the reasoning in WP:N, then you are effectively saying "I don't care if you agree with the reasoning in WP:N, you shouldn't reason that way in afd debates". And the problem is that when you take out the logic behind WP:N, you end up allowing articles like the baseball one I mentioned which I'm pretty sure many editors would not agree with. Dugwiki 09:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• That's pretty much the point I was going to make. I summarized earlier how I can write an article on my car (not the car model, my specific car) which would satisfy ATT, NOT, and NPOV. If we're going to go to just using NOT, ATT, and NPOV, then ATT needs to clarify that lack of secondary sources almost invariably makes an article about the subject into original research, and probably broaden NOT significantly as well. If and only if this can be done, I would probably support losing the notability guidelines, but otherwise we're just asking for a crapflood. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 12:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• Didn't you already proclaim your car example to be a straw man argument? But either way, such an article would not be "ok" by WP:NOT as it will fall afoul of WP:NOT#IINFO.

• I believe you misunderstand the straw man fallacy. The straw man fallacy is to assert another person made a different (and weaker) argument than (s)he actually did make, in order to easily refute it. (Someone else asserted that it was that, but I fail to see how). An example of the straw man fallacy would be if someone were to state "I think we should remove the notability guideline." A straw-man response to that would be to first misrepresent the person ("What, you just want to get rid of all our policies and guidelines?") and then easily knock down the misrepresented argument ("We'd never be able to get anything done that way, it would be total anarchy!") What I stated that it was, is a reductio ad absurdum, which is a valid technique. If one can show that an assertion would lead to a conclusion which is obviously absurd, that certainly calls the assertion into question. The article on reductio ad absurdum gives some excellent examples of its use, so here, I cited an example of an article (the one on my car) which could be created if the notability guideline were not in place and we relied solely on core policies. As all of us here would agree it would be absurd for us to include such an article, this shows a flaw in the reasoning that our policies and guidelines are adequate without notability. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 18:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• Seraphimblade has often stated in these discussions the frequency that this guideline is cited in AfD discussions and elsewhere as evidence of a consensus. However, I don't think this is some much a consensus as it is an example of groupthink that currently surrounds notability. Editors see that this is a guildeline, believe that it has consensus backing, and the go and enforce the guideline without putting in any additional thought about if it is a good or bad idea to begin with. Also, he has cited that this guideline is used as the bases of a speedy deletion criteria (A7). However, if you actually read the criteria you will see that it has no relations to this guideline. Instead it is about whether the article asserts the importance or significance of its subject. --Farix (Talk) 17:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Rebuttal of point made by DGG 11:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• If we want something that can be so open to interpretation that "they will serve well enough as a basis for argument over individual topics and articles", then we do not need such words. We have a deletion process designed to act as the "basis for argument over individual topics and articles". What is currently happening is that people are not making arguments. Notability has become I don't like it vs. I like it. Notability has become the subjective thing it describes itself as not being. Already we argue on how many sources make multiple, how many paragraphs make non-trivial, what publications aren't reliable or independent. It's all subjective. Let's end this divisive issue and accept that we will be divided and that WP:AFD is the place to argue such division, and demand from each other rational arguments based on the article in question rather than pithy it's not-notable statements. Hiding Talk 11:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)
  • But in order to have rational arguments, we need to have some criteria to argue from. If our only rule is, "Wikipedia is a collection of whatever its editors want to include, as long as it is verifiable", then "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" goes out the window. --Brianyoumans 11:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)
    • No, we have WP:NOT, but we can't always be sure how it applies until we discuss on a case by case basis at afd. I'm not sure why this is such a hard concept. I don't like article "A", feeling it isn't of note, so I list it for deletion. I make my case, and after five days of debating a consensus is declared by an admin. Where is the problem? You are basically asking that the dice be loaded, that the debate be biased in favour of deletion because someone does not like the article. I do not think that is fair. I believe in a level playing field. I believe afd is the arena to debate it. At the minute there are people simply voting delete per WP:WEB or WP:N or WP:MUSIC as if those pages were policy. They aren't and our debating should be much sharper. If only so that we educate newcomers to Wikipedia in what it is about that exact article which does not pass muster. We can't see admins enforcing guidelines like this in the face of a consensus for keep because this guidance apparently "holds primacy". That's not what it is here for and that's not fair play. Hiding Talk 11:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Partial rebuttal to Farix 04:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• For the most part I agree with Farix's comments, in particular that "we are simply fooling ourselves when we say that notability is not subjective." I mostly but don't completely agree with "Notability should never be the primary reason to delete an article." I would say rather that to say: Notability in most cases should not be the sole reason to nominate an article for deletion. In most cases that I've seen, AfD nominations based solely on non-notability are usually rather about other lacks of an article relating to WP:NPOV and WP:ATT, and especially to articles being so short as to provide too little information to even evaluated the notabilty of the article's subject, or because the article is shabbily written. Too often editors who nominate an article for deletion equate "lack of information" with "lack of notability", or apply spurious standards of notability based on their own subjective biases. (E.g., a politician "not being notable" unless he or she wins an election, regardless of other reasons the subject might be notable; or simply because the editor doesn't know who or what the subject of the article is.)
• I guess I'm suggesting that "notability" should be the reason of last resort, only after first exhausting these other issues (NPOV, ATT, badly written, editors nominating or voting in the AfD process taking account of their inherent biases or limitations of knowledge) and still finding the article coming up short.
• My comments seem a little murky even to me; that's because I'm still trying to work out the language for what I think is wrong with the notabilty guidelines as they exist, or at least how I've seen them being misused in AfD discussions. -- Yksin 11:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Addition: [User:Nifboy|Nifboy]] 10:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8) did a good job briefly articulating my concern in critizing the use of notability "solely as a soundbite in AfD." --Yksin 13:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

We get into the question of the nature of Wikipedia. If it is a gazetteer, then it lists everything regardless of the notability of the thing. By this token, we properly list every mountain, river, lake, island, and my non-notable Granddad (here's his immigration record, here he is in the 1930 census and here is his army discharge paper and obituary) or by internal sources (I hereby certify that I made up this game in school today, or I coined this word, or I had this cool idea, or I made this film in high school film class, or these are the scores from my grade school basketball team this year), or we could create articles about things we like which are in government data bases (here are all the streets in a town of 700, all the mailboxes and all the traffic lights). Without WP:N as a screen,WP:ATT would allow creation of these last articles. We would become a stale unmaintained mirror of Google and every other reference book or reliable database, containing things that are true (or were once true) but non-encyclopedic. Edison 20:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Not quite sure why you placed your "Wikipedia is not a gazetteer" comment below my comment, seeing as I nowhere advocated for the complete removal of notability guidelines. My concerns have more to do with the ways in which notability guidelines have been misused, particularly in the AfD process. Though you & I may still disagree as to where notability should rank in the hierarchy of criteria to be used in determining whether an article belongs in Wikipedia. --Yksin 01:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Rebuttal to point raised by Edison: You have cited County Roads again as an example of something that should not be notable, why? Perhaps you have not worked on geographic subjects. Consensus at AfD supports notability for all towns and villages, no matter how small. The corollary from this is that significant roads that connect several of these towns are also notable, because it is necessary to mention them in a comprehensive article about each town. So the USROADS project has sensibly decided that State and County roads in the US generally meet this requirement, and it is better to have comprehensive coverage of the subject, rather than debate notability of the few marginal examples. So I think this is an excellent example of why a narrowly constructed authoritative Notability guideline misses the mark in a non-trivial number of areas. We should not force these projects to WP:IAR to build an encyclopedia. Dhaluza 04:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Good God, we need to put "comprehensive" in "deletion discussions to avoid". We don't cover relatively non-notable people, even if they're somehow considered "important" to a town or to understanding it, we don't cover the whole town's obituaries, though this could help to understanding it (as any sociologist would tell you), we don't put in a synopsis of every article in its local newspaper (though, again, a sociologist seeking to understand the town would sure have a look). That is beyond our scope. We need to trim cruft periodically, and nothing should be immune. Cutting is a necessary editorial task, and no work on a wiki is forever. Those who cannot handle those two facts should not edit a wiki. (Of course, cutting could take place through merging, conversion to a list, etc., it wouldn't have to mean deletion.) But "because it's a..." should never confer notability. Are all Presidents of the United States notable? Yes! Because they were a President? No! Because sufficient coverage exists on each and every last one to justify a separate article. Most road articles I've seen are solely a directory entry, with really no hope of improvement. Are some roads notable? Ask Route 66 or the Pacific Coast Highway. But not all of them are. Probably not even most. The same with "census locations", that are too small to even be called a town. We are not a directory. Directories seek "comprehensiveness". Encyclopedias do not necessarily. If we really want "comprehensiveness" in such cases, for godsakes a list should be used. "List of county roads in Oregon" would work just fine-even that would be creeping a little ways toward "directory", but at least that would be a reasonable compromise. 10000 different articles on every one-mile stretch of county road and wide-spot-in-that-road town are not. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 06:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)

By the token that we are said to need an article on each county road because the villages they connect are notable and people need them to get around, then every bus stop is notable for the same reason, and every TV mast is notable so people in the notable villages can be informed. Nothing could be deleted as long as it passed WP:ATT, no matter how trivial. Edison 07:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Protection

Majorly's protection of the page seems unwarranted. The excited status dispute has been contained to tags, and there are non-contentious incremental improvements waiting to be made.

I would change:

"A topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other.

To

A topic is notable if it has been the subject of substantial coverage by one or more secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other.

SmokeyJoe 03:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

The protection was for an edit war, there was an edit war, what's unwarranted? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 04:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

As edit wars go, this is really really tame. Nifboy 09:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

This appears to be an edit war over a dispute tag. What's the dispute? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 11:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• Whether this is a guideline, whether it describes the position, what multiple means, what non-trivial means, whether there is a consensus for notability, whether notability is subjective, whether it applies to sources, whether it trumps policy, how long you got? Hiding Talk 11:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• There is a four way dispute with the following general POV (1) this guideline is fine. (2) the guideline needs work, (3) there should be no central notability guideline, and (4) there should be no notability guidelines at all. Of course this is over simplified. We are conducting an experiment above where participants have been asked to succinctly summarize their thoughts in an area, where rebuttals and other comments are not allowed. --Kevin Murray 11:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I personally feel the page protection should be removed. There is no edit war. Travb (talk) 12:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I disagree. I was going to recommend the page for protection myself this morning, but then I didn't have to because it was already done. We couldn't even agree on how to tag the article, much less what to do with the content. I think it's time for everyone to take a time-out. Dhaluza 13:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

WP:Consensus has recently had an excellent reworking. I suggest that it be re-read. One point that I think is important here is that to reach a consensus, page edits are necessary. Otherwise, talk page debate is endless, rambling and rolling about like a ship without a rudder. I agree with a point by Brianyoumans: we need focus on the issues in dispute. SmokeyJoe 14:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Consensus about Wikipedia:Notability?

As per WP:Consensus:

Wikipedia works by building consensus. Consensus is an inherent part of the wiki process. The basic process works like this: someone makes an edit to a page, and then everyone who reads the page makes a decision to either leave the page as it is or change it. Over time, every edit that remains on a page, in a sense, has the unanimous approval of the community (or at least everyone who has looked the page). "Silence equals consent" is the ultimate measure of consensus — somebody makes an edit and nobody objects or changes it. (emphasis my own)

"Silence is consensus" i.e., no silence = no consensus.

Several editors have argued on Wikipedia:Notability that there is a clear consensus (silence) about:

1. Wikipedia:Notability in general and
2. Wikipedia:Notability being a guideline.

But the edit history of Wikipedia:Notability, the talk page of Wikipedia:Notability, ***, ****, shows there has never been consensus (silence) about Wikipedia:Notability.

I would respectfully ask that the editors who argue that there is "clear consensus" about Wikipedia:Notability please stop immediately. Based on the history and the lack of silence around Wikipedia:Notability, the "clear consensus" argument is dubious and misleading.

At the very least, can we all agree that there has never been silence about Wikipedia:Notability?

HISTORY OF Wikipedia:Notability

Detailed evidence of the history of no silence about Wikipedia:Notability to be added later (if necessary).

Travb (talk) 12:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Travb, you're making a logical fallacy. Silence doesn't even necessarily always mean consensus (it may just mean that no one noticed what you did yet). But we can generally presume it to, at least until shown otherwise (someone notices and does object). However, silence is not the only way to determine consensus. Sometimes, there can be consensus despite vocal minority opposition. Nor is consensus on a policy or guideline found by reading that policy or guideline's talk page. That leads to a sort of selection bias, in that those who support the policy or guideline will simply go along following it, perhaps citing it when required. Generally, those who are happy with and do not object to a guideline or policy do not frequent its talk page. Those who object, on the other hand, are far more likely to find their way there. "No one has objected" is one way of determining consensus, but it is not the only one. "In practice, nearly everyone really does abide by this and frequently cites it" is another. Consensus is not necessarily unanimity, nor the total lack of any objections. To demonstrate the fallacy: Lack of any objection is consensus, but consensus is not necessarily a lack of objection, in the same way that cars are always a mode of transportation, but a mode of transportation is not always a car. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 13:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

The main way that a guideline is shown to have consensus is that it is used in practice. Wikipedia:Notability is actively and regularly cited in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion debates. Not always, but far more often than not. That makes it a consensus guideline. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I am not sure that this is a particularly strong argument that there is consensus regarding the notability requirement so much as a strong argument that notability is generally the requirement most frequently not met. In fact, with established guidelines for notability, I would say that the vast majority of entries in this encyclopedia fail to meet the notability requirement, as many editors have been bold in creating entries about relatively trivial subjects so as to put as much knowledge into the encyclopedia as possible. What is desperately needed is a stronger statement of purpose: Is Wikipedia seeking to be the most extensive respository of knowledge in the world through use of its digital (and thus potentially unrestricted in scope) nature, or is it mimicking traditional paper-based encylopedia with the belief that this is the best possible? -Xiroth 22:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Or, to put it another way, will Wikipedia be the world's best and largest encyclopedia... or will it be a vast unmaintainable morass of words, indiscriminate, unverified, vandalized, which much of it of little interest to anyone? --Brianyoumans 01:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Indeed, that's the opposing viewpoint. I remain unconvinced that this notability requirement truly solves such a problem, however - going to a random page returns a fairly irrelevent page more often than not, as pages which are not visited are not marked for AfD, and even if they were we simply don't have enough administrators to waste their time on every small page. Instead, in my experience it is only reasonably commonly visited and used pages that are deleted on notability grounds. A better solution, in my opinion, is that pages that have insufficient activity (visits and edits) should be automatically deleted unless an administrator flags it as notable in an appeal process (for articles in which the subject is notable but has little general interest). -Xiroth 16:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I have to admit that I am ignorant of how WP:Notability came to be a guideline - I didn't realize that it was so recent - but I agree that being in general use is a sign that most people at least find it useful, if not agree with it. I also think that, being in such general use, one cannot simply come along and say, "I disagree - this is no longer a guideline." If a guideline was downgraded every time an individual editor or group of editors found it inconvenient, it wouldn't be much of a guideline. --Brianyoumans 13:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

The guillotine was once considered useful, and widely used in France. But eventually people realized it was not such a great idea after all. Dhaluza 17:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• I find clarity in the procedure for rejecting a proposed guideline, but no guidance toward rejecting an approved guideline. I also don't see a procedure for downgrading from a guideline to proposed guideline. I think that consensus would have to be substantial to downgrade, but once downgraded it would require substantial consensus to either regain acceptance or prevent rejection. --Kevin Murray 13:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• I don't really see "proposal" as something that can be "downgraded" to. Something is proposed when it's proposed, at that time, it either achieves consensus (is accepted) or fails to do so (and is thus rejected). "Disputed" would mean, for example, if someone had recently stated that a page had achieved such consensus and tagged it as guideline/policy, but others argued against consensus, or the guideline or policy met widespread resistance once it were put into practice. However, in a case like this (a guideline used as a foundation for speedy policy, cited exceptionally widely, etc.), there would have to be a strong consensus to then reject the guideline later. This can happen, of course, but just the existence of debate on the matter is insufficient to show that the guideline or policy is "disputed" or "rejected"-if this were the case, we'd have to dispute-tag all guidelines and policies, almost all of them have at least a few who disagree. Even V, NOR, and NOT are disputed by some. What makes them consensus policies are their widespread use in practice. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 14:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

See, this is the same soundbite-based arguing that I really don't want to see. Nifboy 13:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Travb claims that WP:Consensus says "silence is consensus." He infers that without silence there is not consensus. I searched WP:Consensus and did not find anywhere that it says that. What I see in that page is that there can be consensus even with a minority complaining loudly. It only refers to "silence" in terms of a phrase added and not objected to implying that others consent to the change. Consent to a change is not the same as consensus for a guideline or policy. In a world of deletionists, inclusionists, and anarchists there can be no requirement for absence of oppisition for something to be a guideline. It only has to be a statement of observed practice, which often boils down to what get deleted or kept in AFDs so far as issues of notability and attribution go. Edison 14:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

User:Seraphimblade

I can spend a lot of time discussing the different points in detail of your concerns. Stating that my statment is not in fact logically falacious, and pointing out what I see circular reasoning, logically fallacious arguments, and silly examples. Do you want me too? I really see no point. I have seen these long discussion between two sides go on for archive after archive after archive, for weeks, sometimes months. Before long the fence-sitters, neutral wikipedians who don't have a strong opinion either way (those we are actually trying to influence by our reaonsing) lose interest and leave, and only the staunches advocates of both sides sometimes only two people) are left. No thanks :(

Will this really solve our disagreement about consensus though? Will it convince anyone else either way? Is it more productive to compile the evidence that, in my opinion, there has never been clear consensus on this page, and let the wikipedia communitee decide? Maybe this is pointless too? Will anyone be persuaded by such edit history?

As mentioned above, it appears like there are two very strong opinions about WP:N.

User:Edison

I am confused about your interpretation since no WP:Consensus was quoted. But don't worry about it.

Like User:Seraphimblade, to argue against my point, you stretch my argument to a conclusion which I never stated, nor advocated.

Again, I am simply stating that this page has had a turbulent history, with much disent, and little "silence". Can we all agree on this statment? Probably not :(

User:Edison and User:Seraphimblade, you both feel that there has been a consensus reached. Several wikipedians disagree.

I don't think it matters how much oposition (or lack of oposition) either of us point out on this page, we are going to always disagree, and I don't know how much we are going to convince anyone else either way. I hope that I am wrong on both points. Travb (talk) 16:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Basically, so long as you keep looking at this page to determine if there's a consensus, we're probably going to disagree. What I'm looking at is a much wider picture-the community at large, and what it does in practice. And in practice, notability is widely used and cited. As I said, there's always going to be a selection bias in terms of a policy or guideline's talk page-those who are unhappy with the policy/guideline are much more likely to come there and comment then those who are happy with it. The main question is "Does this reflect actual practice?" and the answer seems to be yes. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 16:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Thanks for your comments. Travb (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I'm almost afraid to say it, but maybe we should have a straw poll. Silence often means "everything I would say has already been said, so I won't repeat it", and two (or more) sides seem more balanced than an accurate reflection of most Wikipedian's views. The three main position are a) get rid of WP:N, b) loosen WP:N, and c) keep it like it has been.--ragesoss 17:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

You forgot "tighten WP:N by getting rid of the sub-guidelines." Still, a straw poll here on a guideline that's used in practice thousands of times a day is meaningless, unless we're to count every admin who A7's something as a "keep it" vote, and every person who cites it at AfD as well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 17:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Of course we shouldn't count those as votes. Consensus is developed through discussion and not through practice. --Farix (Talk) 18:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

With regards to the fact that notability is widely used and cited, may I note this dilemma: notability is a guideline and if someone wants to keep or delete an article based on it, one almost necessarily has to argue in context of WP:N. My point is that not all those who use WP:N as a reason to keep/delete do so because they like a particular version of the guideline, but perhaps because that is the context in which a discussion has been set. Let me clarify. I would need to be convinced that the notability guideline is not necessary (option A). Likewise, I would also need to be convinced that the sub-guidelines should be eliminated and WP:N ought to be the only guideline (option D). I am currently wavering between C and B (loosen or keep like it is), and my decision will depend ultimately on what is meant by "loosen" or "like it has been". This last part is not entirely clear as the guideline has gone through a number of versions over the past weeks. -- Black Falcon 18:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Seraphimblade, now you are engaging in logical fallacy by saying that AfD and A7 renders any discussion here moot. Dhaluza 18:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Absolutely not. Guidelines reflect what the community actually does, or they're meaningless. In this case, the assertion is that consensus is demonstrated by the fact that the community de facto accepts it by acting in accordance with its principles, cites it as a standard (implicitly stating that they believe it should be such a standard), and the like. It is not logical fallacy to ask "Does it really happen in practice?" Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 19:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

That's not all guidelines do... they also form a significant part of the enculturation of new Wikipedians (alongside watching what others do). Guidelines are not simply a reflection of practice. And most Wikipedians are willing to abide by consensus (or supermajority, when appropriate). One big issue is that AfD !voters are not a representative sample; to oversimplify, deletionism is overrepresented at AfD and inclusionism is underrepresented. The point of a straw poll, with all 4 categories (including your tightening suggestion) would be to sort out a more representative version of the balance of views. As others have noted, WP:N is such a central piece of Wikipedia guidelinery that discussion has serious limitations in its ability to create consensus (see Dunbar's number).--ragesoss 20:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Your statement that "guidelines reflect what the community actually does" is also fallacious. People do a lot of stupid things on WP, but we don't put these in a guideline. Guidelines are not of historical interest, they tell people what to do. We only put in a guideline behavior that should be repeated. So it is perfectly reasonable for the community to look at what it does, and decide what it should do in the future. Many of the commenters have cited bad behavior at AfD, and traced it back to this guideline (for example "Delete per WP:N"). Dhaluza 03:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• I would be happy with a vote (I proposed one somewhere above) as long as it was widely publicized. If we all astroturfed vigorously and posted messages to the Community board and elsewhere, we might be able to get a good sense of community feeling. I think this is a very fundamental and important guideline, and I think a lot of editors would take the time to vote if the proposals were simple enough. --Brianyoumans 18:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Some suggested reading, for those who are arguing that "practice means nothing":

• If we find that a particular consensus happens often, we write it down as a guideline, to save people the time having to discuss the same principles over and over.

Basically, WP:CONSENSUS states that this is backwards. That's why WP:N was written-AfD was clearly demonstrating that, while there were some subjects that technically passed WP:V, WP:NOR (which of course then were separate), WP:NOT, and WP:NPOV, nonetheless were being found by many editors to not merit inclusion. Since this was happening in practice, someone then said "Alright, we should write something that addresses this issue, and lays down what we've already been doing anyway. That way we can point people to it, and quit having to rely on ignoring the rules so often." New policies and guidelines are born of existing consensus, not the other way around. Either the new policy or guideline is simply a logical outgrowth of the old (such as merging WP:V and WP:NOR into WP:ATT), or of something which is being done widely in practice by ignoring the existing rules, which is what notability came from. Or, to use the earlier example, "silence equals consent"-and every admin who deletes under A7, and every participant in an AfD debate who argues based on notability, is, by such acceptance of the guideline in actual practice, silently acting in consensus with it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 20:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

You have it slightly wrong. We wrote an essay detailing what people thought notability was. Many efforts at proposing a guideline on what notability is have been tried, and all have failed, up until this rewrite, which doesn't appear to have consensus either. The existing consensus is that we cannot agree on a set of words with which to define notability, although we allow that some topics are suitable for Wikipedia and some aren't. Our speedy deletion criteria do not mention notability, and it's all well and good to say there's a consensus when people argue for notability, but what about the people who arguie against it or define it differently? What about the admins who do not delete because of A7 but remove the tags and direct that they be sent to prod or afd? Their opinion is of equal weight. There simply is no consensus on WIkipedia for a definition of notability, never has been and it is unlikely there will be. The simplest thing to do would be to return the essay to this page. That presents the issue fairly and represents all parties. I would also point out that debates over notability, importance, fame and significance predate the policies of WP:V and WP:NOR, which were written in part to address this issue, so Seraphimblade is wrong to sate "while there were some subjects that technically passed WP:V, WP:NOR (which of course then were separate), WP:NOT, and WP:NPOV, nonetheless were being found by many editors to not merit inclusion". The word many is also wrong in that sense as well, because just as many disagreed. The only place to decide whether an article should be kept or not is at afd, not here. This should be an essay. Hiding Talk 02:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• That WP:N is citewd in deletion debates does not mean it should be a guideline. Many essays are cited heavily across Wikipedia, and look at WP:SNOW. Whilst notability ios cited, the definition of it is contentious, which means we should explain that contentious state. Hiding Talk 01:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Out of process guideline?

The point has been raised above that this Notability guideline was marked as a guideline out of process. The only relevant policy I can find is in WP:POLICY which states that guidelines are "authorized by consensus." The first application of the guideline tag I find in the page history was 09:04, 23 September 2006[11] which was reverted at 20:55[12] and immediately restored at 21:02[13]. It was tagged as a proposal again at 12:20, 27 September 2006[14] and immediately reverted at 13:33 [15] followed by several more reverts. The dispute over the guideline tag reoccurred frequently after that (but I won't clutter this discussion with all the diffs).

So, based on my quick check of the history, it appears the argument that this may not have properly achieved consensus as a guideline may have merit, which affects the discussion on how to move forward. If my analysis is incorrect, please post additional details below, but please focus on the topic at hand (if you want to comment generally, please do so in another thread). I note that the editors who have placed the guideline tag are still party to the discussion (although the original objecting editors apparently are not) so perhaps they can fill us in on how we got where we are. Dhaluza 19:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• Your analysis is pretty much correct, and I think I'm speaking as someone who has added the guideline tag to this page. The idea behind writing this guidance was to try and describe the practise on Wikipedia. But the practise is disputed, which appears not to have gotten mentioned, the meaning is subjective, which I think debates above and across Wikipedia show, and over time the page has been edited far away from the initial beginnings. I admit I stopped watching it for a while, but I think the fact that it is disputed and contentious is proved in the edit history of the main page and the talk page. If you look at the page as it was when first tagged, [16], you can see it's describing the practise, noting that "it is generally agreed that topics in most areas must exceed a certain threshhold of notability in order to have an article in Wikipedia". Now that's something almost all of us here can probably sign up to. Where it seems to get contentious is in defining where that threshold is. I'd argue that the threshold is set at afd on a case by case basis. We seem to have lost the notion that we aren't here to complete an encyclopedia, that we don't have to have a final version. Articles are supposed to grow and get better through continuous editing, not get deleted because a few people don't like them. People up above are arguing about the consensus implied in the silence of people, but they seem to forget the silence of the many readers who have visited deleted pages. They obviously found something of merit here. Is their opinion to be ignored? Do us vocal editors get the casting vote in what happens, and does the last man shouting win? What phyrric victory that would be, reducing an encyclopedia anyone can edit to an encyclopedia only one person wants to edit. Look at what else that version of this page stated, and bear in mind this is less than six months ago:

“ Articles on subjects with borderline notability are frequently merged into list articles (e.g. List of esoteric programming languages), or into an article on a related subject (e.g. articles about not-well-known relatives of a famous person tend to be merged into the article on the person itself).

Articles on non-notable subjects are frequently nominated for Proposed Deletion and Articles for Deletion, and the article's merits are discussed, assessed and frequently ultimately deleted via those processes, as can be seen through precedents.

Notability or lack thereof are subjective, but both are valid arguments in discussions such as on WP:AFD, as well as for the creation of subject-specific guidelines.

”

• Compare that to the current version, which includes the line "Note however that outcomes of prior deletion debates do not supersede the primary notability criterion or the ancillary notability guidelines listed in the box above." Correct me if I'm wrong here, but this page is currently tagged a guideline. Guidelines aren't set in stone, their application requires common sense and exceptions are allowed. Something is seriously wrong if this guideline is attempting to trump policy. Is it any wonder this is such a contested idea when the guidance flagrantly disregards every other policy? The idea of the concept of notability or fame or importance has always been contentious, still is and I move that it always will be. That's why we had philossphies established on Wikipedia, to take the edge of it, and to allow each other equal respect. I think this page has pushed that respect out of the window in its move towards righteousness. Notability is subjective. It used to be honest enough to admit it. "Notability or lack thereof are subjective, but both are valid arguments in discussions such as on WP:AFD, as well as for the creation of subject-specific guidelines." Revision as of 09:04, 23 September 2006. Hiding Talk 02:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)

If we're seeking to make notability subjective, we are going in the absolute wrong direction. The objective here is to avoid making anything here subject to the whims of editors, and instead to ensure that we have objective policies. I put this rationale at WP:NOTNEWS, someone on the other side seemed to think it was clear. Here's why notability, wherever we choose to set its bar, should be a firm bar, not a movable one:

• As to "inherently unencyclopedic", I object to that just as strongly as "inherently encyclopedic". More than anything, the logical view of "no original research" and "verifiability" is that decisions as to what we write should be out of our hands. We as editors are not to decide the "truth" of a matter, only to report what reliable sources state, and if there is a debate or disagreement, to properly frame the positions without taking a side. In the same vein, we shouldn't be deciding what's notable or not. In the end, those who write the source material we use decide that-by deciding to write enough material about a given subject, or by not. That properly places the decision out of our hands, and is the best insurance against systemic bias there is-if we use that as a guide, we are not deciding what's worth including at all, so our own biases play no part! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 06:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)

  I like the current guideline a lot, but don't agree that it's "objective." It has always seemed fairly obvious to me that the notability guideline requires significant subjective judgments. (I know that we say it doesn't, but IMHO, that's not accurate). To take the current formulation, in order to determing whether a particular topic is notable, an editor must make a subjective judgment about whether the topic has been been the subject of a single (a-1) "substantial" source, or (b-1) "multiple", (b-2) "non-trivial" sources. In both cases, the editor must also determine whether the sources are "reliable." There are no objective standards for "substiantial", for what constitutes a "non-trivial" source, of for how many "multiple" sources are required once you have determined the level of "non-triviality" of the sources. Reliability is often objective in clear cases, but becomes highly subjective in close cases. Of course, Seraphim is right that we generally shouldn't be making the guideline more subjective than it already is, at least not without good reason. However, I can't resist quibbling with the idea that creating 3-4 subjective criteria makes the overall guideline objective. TheronJ 07:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Encyclopedicity instead of notability?

Hi.

Perhaps maybe we should have a Wikipedia:Encyclopedicity guideline/policy instead. We've only defined what is not encyclopedic, not what is. This seems like a superior alternative to notability, since for one it does not carry the connotations of "fame", "I heard about it", etc. but rather of "what is suitable for an encyclopedia", which makes a whole lot of sense. There is presently a redirect at this page to a boiled-down WP:NOT, which is not helpful with defining what encyclopedicity is. 74.38.32.195 12:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Please see Wikipedia:Article inclusion. We're working on something similar to what you describe. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Took a peek, and it still points to WP:NOT for "defining" what "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" really means. We need to define what is encyclopedic -- ie. what "encyclopedic" actually means -- not what is not. Defining something by an exhaustive list of negatives is not a good idea -- it may not be something else that we haven't said there. That's what I'm going after. 74.38.32.195 12:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

You seem to know what you're talking about, so please toss some ideas in over there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Just posted a message there to initiate the discussion. 74.38.32.195 20:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I've replied to the message you left over there, so won't continue the discussion here. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 00:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC-8)

OK. Mike4ty4 06:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll #2

Since this page has been edit protected for a relatively long time now, it is time to decide how to proceed. As outlined in the original straw poll discussion thread, a wide range of options were originally presented, with a follow-up poll needed using a narrower set of options based on the results of the original poll. As the original poll showed that this guideline did not have broad consensus, and the "Discuss" option had the least support, two basic choices remain:

1. Continue editing under a disputed tag {{Disputedtag}}, in the hope of eventually reaching consensus through discussion and editing.
2. Declare this a failed guideline and mark it with the historical tag {{Historical}}.

Although some editors suggested deleting and possibly salting this page, those options should be held for a follow-up discussion only if the guideline is rejected. A number of editors also suggested the "rebuild" option, which was associated with the proposal tag {{proposal}}; but again, this option should be held for a follow-up discussion if the page remains active, and a proposed resolution of the dispute is produced.

Please indicate your choice below as Disputed or Historical, and add brief comments supporting your choice. As before, please limit your comments to how to proceed with this particular page only, and make general or extended comments in another appropriate thread.

--Dhaluza 17:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Recommendations

• Historical — As indicated in my revised comments to the original straw poll, further work within this framework is not productive. Although the individual Notability guidelines may stand or fall on their own, this common guideline has failed to reach consensus, and is unlikely to do so. Dhaluza 17:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
• Course Unclear I think that we have to break new ground here. It seems that it is easy to demonstrate that a proposal does not have consensus to become a guideline, but once a proposal becomes a guideline I don't see a clear policy specifically describing how to remove it. It seems like the WP tradition is to favor the status quo, and deviating from that requires demonstrable consensus above a simple majority of the participants. I believe that the consensus disagrees with the present format, but doesn't call for outright rejection. WP consensus evaluation is specifically not a vote, so a count is not relevant. However, the arguments for change seem far more compelling than the simplistic Keep arguments e.g., "keep because it is used", "keep and make a policy", "keep because we have nothing better." --Kevin Murray 17:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
• A combo of the first two. I mean, I'm trying to make a workable alternative elsewhere, so my hope is that we'll be able to simply move on from this abomination, but consensus clearly doesn't exist for this page, but I don't know what the answer for this page is in terms of proceeding. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
• Put on hold Redirect to Wikipedia:Article inclusion; it seems the proper course of action is to codify something policy-related in relation to AfD and then decide if we want to go above and beyond that. Nifboy 17:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
  • After mulling it over, I think this is the way to go, with a blank slate and existing policy/guidelines already integrated into the text. If there's a need to go above and beyond what's there we should work from that context instead of the current mixed bag. Nifboy 02:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC-8)
• Historical - This page doesn't have enough consensus to be a guideline. It may have seemed like a good idea at one time to one group of people, but that time has clearly past. - Peregrine Fisher 22:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
• Historical, but first let's work on something that would stand in its place, like jeff's version. I think the way to go is to have subject-specific guidelines deal with their own areas of expertise, with the new WP:N creating a minimum bar for ALL articles, including those that do, and those that do not, fall within the scope of the subject-specific criteria. It is also important to aim for some sort of consistency between the sub-guidelines (in whichever way that may be measured). It shouldn't be the case that some guidelines are stricter than others, where such differences are inappropriate. (However in certain cases the differences may well be appropriate.) Zunaid©® 23:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
  • Comment - It seems like WP:ATT and WP:NOT give us our uniform standard, and takes the POV out of AfD. Why do we need something else? - Peregrine Fisher 23:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
    • Because the concept of notability is different than ATT. ATT only prescribes what type of info we should include in articles. WP:N, ideally, should address what type of subjects are appropriate to write about in the first place, hence some suggestions to name it "encyclopedic suitability" or "article inclusion". Perhaps there is no good way to make standards "uniform" across different topics. A hypothetical test could be something like: "if this WP:CORP company was a person would it pass WP:BIO?" It may or may not work. *shrug* Zunaid©® 04:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC-8)
    • What he said. WP:ATT is a collection of our core policies and how to follow them. WP:NOT is simply a list created as time went on about how things tend to work. Neither of them deal with notability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC-8)
  • I can't agree with a jungle of special case criteria. In theory it sounds great, but these seem to develop in dark corners, become more exclusionary than inclusionary, and attract special purpose cabals. Not to mention the confusion from overlapping purposes. I would prefer to see one page dealing with this concept, and preferably dealing with "encyclopedic suitability." --Kevin Murray 06:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC-8)
• Disputed, or Keep as guideline - As I've said many times, some sort of clear and specific notability guideline is absolutely essential. The central criterion - multiple coverage in non-trivial independent sources - provides an objective, uniform standard for article inclusion, that isn't reliant on WP editors' subjective judgements on what is "encyclopedic". The only way I would support abolishing this guideline is if Wikipedia:Article inclusion develops into an adequate replacement. At the moment we still need WP:N. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 01:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC-8)
  • Your argument for keeping this guideline doesn't follow from the current wording of the primary criterion. All it says is that if topic meets the criterion, then it is notable. It doesn't say that a topic must meet this criterion. Thus, even in its current form, it leaves much room for subjectivity as regards establishing "notability". Sancho (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC-8)
    • True, but I don't see why that's a problem. There are certainly some things that are inherently notable, whether or not they meet the primary criterion. But in any case where notability is disputed, the "multiple non-trivial coverage test" provides an objective standard. Let's take the made-up example of X, a fictional student from East Nowhere, Idaho. He claims to be notable for having the world's largest collection of Pokémon cards. The article is sent to AfD. Then the notability test can be applied; if there have been several articles in mainstream newspapers about X and his vast Pokémon card collection, and these are cited in the article, then he's notable. If such coverage hasn't occurred, then he isn't notable. Without WP:N, this case would quickly degenerate into a battle between those users who think Pokémon is great and should be extensively covered on Wikipedia, and those who think it's trivial and unencyclopedic. That's why the present system is best. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 02:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC-8)
      • But the wording doesn't say that if a topic doesn't have the coverage, then it's not notable. It only says if you have the coverage, then you are notable. So, this guideline wouldn't give you the ability to refuse an article at all. It would still come down to a subjective decision. Sancho (talk) 08:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC-8)
        • Fair point, but I don't see what's wrong with the current version. It's true that the normal criterion is the "multiple non-trivial coverage" test, which is the one we usually apply when an article comes up for AfD. Yet at the same time, it is possible that someone or something might be notable despite not passing this test; there are some articles which do not present coverage in multiple independent sources, but which would never be sent to AfD in the first place, because their notability is self-evident. (A good example is Anakin Skywalker - all of the sources are Star Wars-related, but no one has ever nominated it for deletion. In fact, it was an FA at one stage.) It would be too rigid, therefore, to say "an article is notable only if it meets the criterion"; it works more the other way round, in that "if an article meets the criterion, then it is automatically notable". That's what the criterion is for. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 18:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Historical - I don't care if the subject of an article is trivial, so long as the article is well written and attributed and not copyvio. Notability isn't a problem; lots of typos and unsourced details are. DanBeale 03:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC-8)
  • We already have subject-specific guidelines to handle that. A one-size-fits-all guidelines doesn't work. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC-8)
  • What, so you don't think that we neded any sort of restriction to exclude articles on non-notable people, bands, companies, webcomics and so on? You'd be happy to see Wikipedia filled up with random pages that no one is ever likely to use for research (while, of course, we have to wikify, cleanup, deorphan, NPOV, and de-vandalise all of those pages)? We need some sort of restriction on what constitutes an acceptable topic for an article - and "it must be encyclopedic" just doesn't cut it. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 03:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC-8)
    • No, I think he clearly said that poorly written articles are the problem, not their notability. So if it's well written, we don't have to "wikify, cleanup, deorphan, NPOV, and de-vandalise all of those pages" Dhaluza 03:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC-8)
      • Do not under-estimate the will of people to (ab)use Wikipedia as their marketing tool. At a stroke you're suggesting that every company that has been mentioned in an ATTributable source (such as newspapers? trade publications?) would have cause to get an article on Wikipedia. Zunaid©® 04:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC-8)
        • WP:NOT#SOAP covers that possibility, and it is policy. Dhaluza 04:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC-8)
      • SOAP is about tone and NPOV, not about excluding the content itself. Getting your company onto Wikipedia artificially raises its status (wow! they're important enough to be mentioned in Wikipedia!), I don't doubt that "Wikipedia optimisation" will become the next search engine optimisation if it isn't already. Zunaid©® 09:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC-8)
        • I agree with Zunaid, and would like to add that just because an article is well-written and well-sourced doesn't make its topic encyclopedic. An encyclopedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, as outlined in WP:NOT. An article on Bob's Webcomic that has a readership of 100 and is made in MS Paint, or on John Doe and his unsigned rock band with a total of 10 listeners, is no use to anyone, except as free publicity for the subject of the article. We need some sort of standards for determining what should be included in Wikipedia. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 18:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
          • A well written article about John Doe and his rock band does not harm wikipedia. Nobody reads it, but so what? There are already things like COI to cover spam. People appear to spend some time discussing whether an article is notable or not. If the article is well written that discussion time is -in my opinion- better spent discussing all the poorly written articles and ways to improve them. A well written article about a non-encyclopedic subject is better than a poorly written unsourced article about an encyclopedic subject. I will concede that many articles about 'trivial' subjects are poor. DanBeale 14:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• disputed Notability is a key factor in determining whether or not something falls under that indiscriminate collection of information clause. Its helpful to be able to point people to this. If there is a need to not keep this, a consideration has to be made to expand the WP:NOT to clarify.--Crossmr 06:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC-8)
• Keep Make this the central and primary guideline for notability. Make it say a subject is notable if and only if it meets certain criteria. Thos criteria have been edited a bit recently per the whims of inclusionists and exclusionists, but the actual practice in AFDs has been to demand nontrivial coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources. An addendum to this should be a provision to exclude subjects which have only "news feature" or "water cooler story" sensationalism per WP:NOTNEWS. Edison 07:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC-8)
  • And your response to the numerous arguments and examples that a one-size-fits-all guideline doesn't work? --badlydrawnjeff talk 08:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC-8)
    • Your use of the term "one size fits all" is misleading and a bit tiresome. We aren't selling shoes, we are determining suitability for inclusion in an encyclopedia. I don't see any further clarity in trying to predefine every possible situation. It only allows for conflicting rule-sets etc. A simple criterion to establish what should be included will not be easy to establish, but will save grief down the road. If you seek multiple fields for many debates, just add a plethora of permutations. Otherwise let's work on a central concept. --Kevin Murray 08:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC-8)
      • Tiresome, sure, I'll accept that. Misleading, though - absolutely not. A simple criterion simply does not work, this has been demonstrated clearly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 08:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC-8)
    • And actually, Jeff, there's an easy response to that. "One-size-fits-all" prevents systemic bias. It ensures that every article, be it on a Pokemon, railway station, or obscure concept, is subject to the same rule, not to the whims and ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT of editors. If we allow "notability by category", we'll find very quickly that if a lot of people like writing about Pokemon, they'll commandeer notability guidelines and write in a bunch of articles about primarily-sourced in-universe cruft. If we say "One overall guideline, period, end of story, either enough secondary sourcing to write a comprehensive article or get it out of here", we eliminate those biases. Just like what goes in an article should be a question of "What does the source say?", not "What does the editor think?", what we write about should be determined by "What are our sources writing about?", not "What do we like to write about?". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 08:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC-8)
      • It doesn't prevent it, it encourages it. If I know of three books that give coverage to Paracrowspecioh, I'm meeting this one-size-fits-all concept. But we don't want articles on every aspect of Paracrowspecioh, so I'm told - so we can build a guideline on the notability of Paracrowspecioh which will better govern what's notable about it. Which one does a better job? Replace Paracrowspecioh with Pokemon - do you think a one-size-fits-all concept (let's run with multiple, independent, non-trivial) would counter such bias better than a guideline specifically about Pokemon which, by consensus, decides what aspects are worthy of coverage? Seems like a no-brainer to me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 08:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC-8)
        • Whether or not anyone doesn't like having articles on every aspect of Paracrowspecioh, Pokemon, or anything else, if enough secondary source material is available to write a comprehensive article on the out-of-universe aspects of any given aspect of a fictional work, we ought to have an article on it. On the other hand, if people really really want an article on a more obscure aspect of Pokemon, but there are insufficient sources for a comprehensive out-of-universe article, we shouldn't have it. We are not to attempt to "correct" any perceived biases in sources. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 08:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC-8)
          • Then I'm not following your line of argument here. I don't get it, I'm sorry. --badlydrawnjeff talk 08:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC-8)
            • My line of argument is, if there is enough secondary source material on a subject to write a comprehensive article, we should have that article. Else, we should not. If there's enough coverage on a music album to support an article, we ought to have that article. If not, it should be under the parent band. Same with individual Pokemon or anything else. Anything else is an attempt on our part to "correct" for "bias" in what people write about. That is not our place. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 09:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC-8)
              • Absolutely. But that has nothing to do with notability, which is the overbearing point that I'm making. --badlydrawnjeff talk 09:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC-8)
                • True enough. See my suggestion below. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 09:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC-8)
                • How does multiple, reputable independent sources comprehensively noting a topic have nothing to do with that topic's notability? Also, in your view, what does notability have everything to do with? --Dragonfiend 09:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC-8)
                  • Because notability is fluid depending on the subject. Not all notable things have multiple reputable independent sources. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
                    • Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are saying there are things you personally think are notable, but they're not actually noted by multiple reputable independent sources? --Dragonfiend
                      • I'm saying that sources are not the only thing that can confer notability on a particular subject. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
                        • There are other things that aren't noted by sources that show a topic ought to be noted? --Dragonfiend 17:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
                          • Correct. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
                            • Can you give some examples? The idea that there are things that aren't noted by sources that show a topic ought to be noted sounds like original research and personal point of view pushing. --Dragonfiend 18:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
                              • Okay, what is notable in terms of what the word means? It means that it's something that's "[c]apable of being noted; noticeable; plain; evident." It doesn't have to do with who notices it, or whether some group decides to give it attention. So a side-project of a well-known band is notable due to the association, whether or not anyone bothers to cover them in the papers. An early book by a popular author is notable whether or not anyone retroactively reviews them. Etc. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
                                • Why are you using a defintion markes as "dated"? --Dragonfiend 19:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
                                  • Didn't think it made a difference. Substitute at will, my point doesn't change. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    • (indent reset from above) Additionally, if we just use the definition of "capable of being noticed", even if no one has, that applies to every possible subject on the planet. The problematic subjects I mentioned above (me, my dog, my car) are all perfectly capable of being noticed. What sets it apart is that no one actually has noticed and written reliable material about those subjects. It's possible for anything to be noticed, even garage bands get noticed by someone (even if only the band members). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 19:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
      • ...which is where the subject-specific guidelines come in. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
        • ...which is back to "A subject is notable if enough editors here say it is", which is back to our own biases again. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 19:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I like the "if and only if", but some people were previously worried that it will take away from subject-specific guidelines. What about saying on this page, "a topic is notable if and only if it [meets the primary criteria] or meets one of the criteria specified in a subject-specific notability guideline". ? Sancho (talk) 08:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC-8)
    • If you replace "or" with "and" then I'd support it. Using "and" prevents the loophole that Seriphamblade mentions, by establishing a minimum notability bar that cannot be circumvented by the whims of any particular Wikiproject, and also makes the sub-guidelines more consistent per my suggestion above. Zunaid©® 09:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC-8)
      • Some subject specific guidelines are more lenient than the primary criterion though... we'd be trumping their guideline if we say that a topic must also meet the primary criterion. It seems that you want that, though. The subject-specific guidelines aren't the Wikiproject guidelines, they're things like WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC or WP:BOOK. Would you agree deferring to them? Or do you still want a primary criterion that applies over all of those as well? Sancho (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
        • "More lenient" is exactly the problem. Anything but consistency across the board is systemic bias. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 17:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Alleged consistency across the board is systematic bias. When you deal with a subjective topic like notability, there's no other kind. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Rename to "Encyclopedic suitability". This deals primarily with whether or not a given subject is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedic sense, and under its current name is often confused with notability's "normal" meaning-importance or significance. This is about sourcing, which is really not the normal sense for notability, so I'd say we should move it to a less confusing title. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 09:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC-8)
  • Except that this page doesn't address that, either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 09:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC-8)
    • "All topics should meet a minimum threshold of notability for an article on that topic to be included in Wikipedia." "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources." Sure seems like an inclusion/exclusion/suitability guideline to me? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 17:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Those don't actually address encyclopedic suitability. They merely apply an arbitrary threshold for sourcing, ignoring what makes a topic suitable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Under what circumstances could something lack sources and still be suitable? I think the guideline certainly addresses that issue, even if you disagree as to how. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 17:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Because sources don't make something encyclopedically suitable, something's existance makes it suitable. It's why I'm pushing WP:AI - it addresses both sides of the coin. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
            • I'm not clear how something's very existence makes it suitable? I exist (verifiably so), but am not suitable for an article. The same is true of my dog, my car, and the property I live on. All of those are verifiable through public records, all exist. Sourced articles could be written about each and every one. But not secondarily sourced. That still seems to me to be a decent dividing line. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 17:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
              • You've misunderstood me, and perhaps that's my fault on this one. Not everything that exists is suitable for inclusion, but it's not some sort of arbitrary media attention that makes something suitable, it's what that thing that exists has accomplished, or is associated with, etc, that makes it suitable. If a band sells 20k copies of an album and it reaches the top 20 of a chart, that band and album are notable regardless as to whether anyone writes about them. If a writer makes a splash with his fourth book, his first three become notable even if no one retroactively reviews them. It depends on the subject, but sources aren't what makes something suitable, what that something is is what does it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with SB on the name Encyclopedic Suitability (ES), and agree with Jeff that the recent standards are an "arbitrary threshold for sourcing", but what will work better as an objective surrogate measure of ES? Realize that I am one of the opponects of "multiple" if the one source can be sigfnificant. I'm not seeing any better criteria evolving at the subject specific pages. Can you site an example of a subject specific criterion which works well? --Kevin Murray 17:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    • No, but we have to be honest with ourselves that no subject-specific guideline will be perfect. They're going to be ever-changing and reflect what's best and realistic. I think WP:WEB is an example of one that handles its topic poorly, and Wikipedia:Notability (books) as one that handles it fairly well. Which is why WP:AI is so favorable, IMO - it simply says "this is what we do when judging a topic." --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Can't agree that they ever reflect "what is best", what they reflect is the opinion of the infulential cabal of the day. --Kevin Murray 18:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I haven't seen evidence of that, thankfully. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Have a look through railroad, school, or Star Wars articles. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 19:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• it just transfers the problem to the individual pages for the topics,many of which, as Badlydrawnjeff says, are without even a stated consensus or unusably imprecise or continually contested.DGG 18:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Historical. This guideline clearly does not have consensus and it looks unlikely to regain it. WP got along just find before WP:N, and will get along fine until we can work out a better compromise on WP:AI, then turn our attention towards perhaps streamlining or merging the subject-specific guidelines.--ragesoss 19:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do you keep deleting my things?

i am writing about Peter Anderson, and it keeps getting deleted. He is real!

Jodie kennedy 21:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about Peter Anderson (footballer)? - Peregrine Fisher 22:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedic suitability

The above topic is endemic of the problems caused by the name "notability". What we're really looking at here is "What should we have articles on?" Therefore, I propose moving this guideline to the title "Encyclopedic suitability", since that's the real subject of discussion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 19:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It still has the same problems, just a change in name. I still think we should abandon this in favor of Wikipedia:Article inclusion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

But that encourages the subject-specific guidelines, so then we're right back to "A subject is notable if enough Wikipedians say it is." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 20:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It's always going to be biased, no matter how you approach it. "Multiple, non trivial" is biased toward one point of view, and the subject-specific is based toward another. At the end of the day, the discussion should be "what makes something notable in this subject" and ignore what may or may not be noticed by the press, because the bias will always exist. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

True, the press can be biased. (I'm using "press" here as a general term to encompass everyone who writes reliable sources we could use.) However, WP:ATT (and the former WP:NOR) seem to make it pretty clear that we prefer any potential biases of the press to potential biases of Wikipedians. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 20:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

For attribution, yes. For notability/encyclopedic suitability? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If one of our core policies is "We only write from sources", does it not logically follow to say "We only write on subjects for which sources exist to do that"? Or to phrase it differently, "What we write depends solely on what our sources write", to follow with "What we write about depends solely on what our sources write about"? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 21:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, because sources aren't what govern whether a topic is worthy of inclusion. A topic can be worthy of inclusion without meeting the core policies, much like a topic can meet the core policies without being worthy of inclusion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

How do the subject-specific guidelines encourage that? By the way, as you might notice from the signature, I just got an account here. Mike4ty4 06:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I proposed something here earlier that is akin to what you are describing, called "encyclopedicity". Although it's more than just a simple change in name, it is also a change in the idea of the concept. It refers to what is suitable for an encyclopedia. We have WP:NOT to tell us what is not encyclopedic, but we don't yet have a real policy or guideline to tell us what is encyclopedic, to define just what "encyclopedic" means. Mike4ty4 06:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the word "encyclopedic" is virtually undefined, but that's because it's inherently an ambiguous and subjective term. "Notability" is much better, because it has a clear meaning which is defined by this guideline (and the subject-specific guidelines), i.e. "a subject is notable if it meets one or more of the following criteria". Anyway, changes in WP terminology are always counterproductive, and simply confuse everyone. I just can't see that there's anything wrong with the existing situation. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 13:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well...what's wrong here, that I see, is that "notable", in the context we use it, is so far different from the dictionary definition of notable, as well as popular usage. In this guideline, we specifically state that "Notability is not popularity", but in most people's mind, notability is popularity. Even Jeff, above, has been here for quite some time, and still is confused by the popular and dictionary definition of the term rather than ours. What notability really is, is a way of determining whether an article is suitable or not. Some subjects which would commonly be thought of as "notable" are not encyclopedically suitable, some subjects which are encyclopedically suitable are not very notable by the conventional definition of the word. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 13:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa, I'm not confused by anything. I understand the concept fully, I just recognize that the usage here is lackadaisical and unrealistic. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, from what I've seen, you've steadfastly refused to recognize that "notability", like the word "verifiability", has a different meaning here. Instead of thinking of what "notability" means to wikipedia, you keep clinging to your dictionary definition. This leads to unproductive discussion. Maybe you're not confused, but the effect is the same as someone who creates a vanity article and insists it's "verifiable" because they're the subject and they've verified it personally. No useful progress can be made with such a person if they cling to their dictionary definition of "verifiable". The same is true of your use of "notability". Friday (talk) 14:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Friday, I don't agree that there's consensus that your interpretation of notability is the controlling one in the community. As far as I recall, the historical development of this guideline runs something like this.

1. Historically, including most of 2006, the dominant understanding of notability was much closer to Jeff's -- that notability meant "importance" or "prominence." See, for example: Wikipedia:Notability/Historical/Arguments, which seems to fairly characterize the state of notability debates as of August 2006.
2. This page was ultimately promoted to guideline not because of consensus on the talk page or the Village Pump, but because it reflected the core fact that the AFD responders routinely delete some pages on the grounds of "notability." However, the AFD debates do not generally identify whether an individual !voter understands notability to be "importance," or to mean "a sufficient number of independent non-trivial sources have been identified." (Particularly since both definitions usually lead to the same result, it's difficult to understand which definition is being applied. If anything, Wikipedia:Notability/Historical/Arguments suggests that editors deleting for "notability" understood notability to mean "importance," not "sufficiently sourced by non-trivial, independent sources."
3. Over the past several months, several editors (my rough guess would be more than 5 and less than 15) have argued that notability should mean "sufficient numbers of acceptable sources," not "importance." A similar number of editors have opposed this idea.
4. This very page contains several editors posting in the last few days who think that notability means "importance."

I'm happy to have a debate about this and to test for consensus, but IMHO, telling Jeff that he doesn't get it isn't helpful. AFAICT, Jeff understands that you prefer the definition of "sufficiently sourced," and I certainly do. We just disagree that there is consensus for your preferred definition, or that there ever has been. I'm open to suggestions on how to test for or form a consensus. TheronJ 15:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

And then along came User:Uncle G/On notability and many people realized it was a nice statement of what we should have been going for. It's based on an understanding that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it works everything out very smoothly. Maybe I'm overestimating the impact that this essay had, I dunno. It's OK for our notions to evolve over time, as long as they're moving in the right direction. Friday (talk) 15:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I absolutely agree that the "sufficiently sourced" definition is a powerful new argument, I just don't see consensus yet. (Also, I personally oppose it, but I would respect a clear consensus). TheronJ 15:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It makes way more sense than any other way I've seen of considering "notability". We know from WP:NOR that we can't use our personal notions of what's worthy of attention. So what's left? We have to use sources. It's an inescapable conclusion. How long should we wait for people to catch up with it? Friday (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe when it actually starts reflecting reality? That would be a good start, because right now, your "inescapable conclusion" fails to do so. You're very much overestimating the impact Uncle G's essay had - I never gave it a thought because it was so poor, and then it one day became the guideline and got forced all over the place without discussion. I know that's how you like to do things, but it's not how it flies. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps maybe we should use a poll to check the consensus? I've advocated this idea for a while -- see in one of the archives (late 2006 I think), I made a thread titled "Consensus check?" where I advocated the idea of using a well-designed poll to check the consensus on notability. We could poll on the following topics:

1. definition to use: do you accept "notability" to mean what is on the WP:N page, or do you accept something else, such as "fame"?
2. notability's authority: do you think that notability, alone, should be a valid criterion for deletion?
3. subject-specific guidelines: do you think the subject-specific guidelines should exist? If so, what about in subjects where they do not? Should a general guideline exist?
4. general guideline: do you think WP:N is a reasonable general guideline for notability?
5. subjectivity vs. objectivity: do you think notability is subjective? If so, should it be? If the answer to that is no, how do you propose to make it more objective?

What do you think of a poll or series of polls on this, anyway? With a good poll, we could dig up various views, and see the reasons for them, and then produce a more organized debate. mike4ty4 23:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, the "encyclopedic suitability" idea fails to address one of the major objections to this guideline/policy/essay. It remains an arbitrary fiat ruling by a small number of editors. Like every other crufty piece of wikilawyering, editors will accept or ignore it as they see fit. I'll probably ignore it insofar as it aims to inform decisions at AFD and DRV. NOT's advice does me, and don't see why it needs anything other than commentary and expansion: When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - couldn't we just replace this whole page with "If you can't source an article properly from independent reliable sources, that article shouldn't exist"? Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 15:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Further comment - at any rate, it should be an policy principle somewhere that that which is not verifiable from independent RS should not exist. If we do not stick by that, the entire concept of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia breaks down. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 15:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That is policy -- WP:ATT. Generally, "not currently verified" will not get you a deletion; but "cannot possibly be verified" will. TheronJ 15:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict reply to Moreschi) To some degree. However, then we run into a different problem. Let's say the newspaper runs an obituary. The newspaper is a perfectly independent source, and I can certainly source an article from that ("Jack Crack died in Some City, Somewhere, on 1/1/01. He was 85 when he died and had 3 kids.") Non-triviality, and the ability to write a comprehensive article, are important too. On the other hand, I'm all for simplifying notability (especially getting rid of the sub-guidelines, those are some of the worst examples I've seen of WP:CREEP and WP:BIAS), and just changing this to say "If there aren't enough secondary sources that one day the article could become a GA or FA based mainly on secondary sourcing, that article should be merged or deleted", I'd go for that in a second. But we've got to have something that states the resulting article must be capable of being comprehensive (even if it isn't necessarily at first). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 15:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Response to everyone - I've been reading through everyone's points above, and the discussion is interesting. One thing I would like to refute, though, is bdjeff's point that ""Multiple, non trivial" is biased toward one point of view, and the subject-specific is based toward another". I would disagree with this - subject-specific guidelines are all very well and they are helpful, but all they do is express the opinions of X numbers of Wikipedians. However, when one asks oneself the question "what do encyclopedias do" - you would reply - "they publish information that is verified to independant reliable sources when that coverage by reliable sources is non-trivial". That is the job of an encyclopedia. If we abandon that, we abandon the idea of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 15:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I would support turning Wikipedia:Notability into a redirect to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. An understanding of what an encyclopedia is, is really all that's required. Friday (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why is it essential to the nature of an encyclopedia that no articles be based on non-independent or "trivial" sources? If an article can be written from a sufficiently large number of trivial sources, plus a non-independent source or two, sufficent to comply with WP:ATT, why is it logically necessary that the article isn't encyclopedic? TheronJ 15:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Non-independent sources are needed to protect Wikipedia's integrity. Nothing wrong with "trivial" sources, provided they are published: it's trivial mentions in those sources that are inadmissible in an encylopedia. Not every random fact/topic is of encyclopedic importance. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 15:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If a comprehensive article can be written and sourced to a hundred mentions, each of which on their own would be trivial but in aggregate paint a good comprehensive picture without engaging in original synthesis, I see no problem. However, that's an exceedingly rare situation. Most of the time, a hundred trivial mentions say the same trivial thing, or simply give a few fragments which editors would have to engage in a significant amount of original synthesis to put together into an article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 16:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not as rare as you make it out to be. I think that's been heavily demonstrated over the recent weeks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Our current consensus is that articles can exist that have only primary and trivial sources, if there is enough source material there. See for instance Category:Census-designated places in the United States and Jordanhill railway station. Any guideline that disagrees with this current practice should be changed, or our current practice should be changed. --NE2 16:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether I agree with your "definition" on an encyclopedia, that's still not the point here. Notability has nothing to do with sources or source quality - it has to do with what happend with the subject. If no one writes about a song, but it hits #3 in the national charts, it's notable. If no one writes about an author, but his book sells 500,00 copies, he's notable. It's why WP:AI is good - it recognizes that, for an article to be included, it MUST be notable in its subject and it MUST meet the core policies. The two (attribution and notability) interact with eachother, but they are not the same and do not coexist in terms of how they come to their individual conclusions. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree about the song: it would probably rate a short mention in specialist encyclopedia. The book, likewise. However, if it's news reporting - and the material which is disputed almost invariably concerns living people, recently dead people, and current events - adding footnotes doesn't turn something into an encyclopedia article. The idea that any number of press reports confer notability is, as they say, not even wrong. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yup. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Not solely press, granted. But many sources are available which cover obscure topics which may not hit the mainstream press, yet are still reliable. I would wager you that most articles in reputable science journals cover topics which never touch the pages of a mainstream newspaper or magazine, the same with journals regarding other topics. But it is not to us to determine what merits coverage. If a song hits #3, it will very likely get written about anyway. No one says it must hit the front page of the NYT-a review in a reliable music publication works just as well. However, our standards are verifiability, not truth. It may be true that something is notable. But the only way we can verify that is to say "Look! It's been noted!" Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 16:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That form of "being noted" doesn't require secondary sources. --NE2 16:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That depends. Everything is noted through primary sources. I am. My car is. My dog is (rabies vaccination registration, gotta love it). Everyone who's been born or died in the US since the start of the Social Security system is. I could write an article about myself, one about my car, one about my dog, and one about the pizza place a couple blocks down from primary sources. I can verify the existence of every character on World of Warcraft through a primary source (the presence of that character's account). Primary sourcing doesn't mean something is notable, it means it exists. Significant secondary mention is what establishes that something is notable. Someone who is not affiliated with the subject chose to write about it, without being in any way required to do so. That subject has been noted in more than a trivial and routine way. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 16:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what the subject-specific guidelines are for, and why subject-specific guidelines can override this "primary notability criterion". --NE2 16:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) However, then we simply enforce our own biases. We would not, for example, put our own opinions of George W. Bush in that article, only sourced and verifiable information. We are, in fact, forbidden from doing so by a global policy which applies to every last article we have. In turn, it is possible to globally establish notability in a verifiable manner. We do that through this guideline. The assertion is "This subject is notable." The response is "Very well, show that it has been noted, by people who do not routinely or by requirement do so, and are not affiliated with the subject." Or in short, "Cite your sources to establish that." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 17:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think choosing what to include is bias... in fact, using this "primary notability criterion" can be, since things at the same level in a developing country are less likely to have "non-trivial" sources. We should certainly exclude anything for which there are no reliable sources, but it should not matter how "trivial" those sources are as long as there are enough for a decent article. --NE2 17:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Seraphimblade's comments here. Coverage in reliable secondary sources is the best and most accurate way of establishing a Wikipedia-wide guideline for article inclusion. If there are multiple sources, or such sources can be found and added, then it's notable; if no such sources exist, then it isn't. I just don't see why this guideline is in need of any change whatsoever. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 17:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to uphold that standard, you can start with Category:Census-designated places in the United States and Jordanhill railway station. Otherwise, said "standard" is not actually a standard, since it is not being followed. --NE2 17:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree that "source bias" may exist in covering subjects in developing countries, but it is beyond our scope or purpose to somehow "correct" for that. If you'd like to see more coverage of events in developing countries, contact the media and tell them that's what you'd like to see. (Also, scholarly sources are often available on developing countries, if you have access to a scholarly database through a public library you'll tend to find that. If you don't, I advise signing up, almost all libraries have that and it's tremendously useful.) We do not correct for "source bias" in any manner. If every source we can find says one thing about a subject, that's what goes in the article, even if an editor personally disagrees totally. We should also follow the principles of WP:ATT, including that we should use potentially biased, questionably reliable, or self-published sources only sparingly and with caution, and base an article mostly off independent sources. Since any non-independent source is by definition potentially biased, we should never base an article solely or mainly on it. We don't even need this guideline for that, WP:ATT covers that just fine (and, of course, overrides this guideline and any other subject-specific ones). The main thing this guideline prevents is trivial mention being sufficient for an article, as mentioned above with obituaries. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 17:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

How is it "beyond our scope" to cover something that we decide we want to cover and for which suitable sources exist? --NE2 17:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not. However, for an article, sources must be mainly independent in order to be suitable. As I said above, that is not in this policy, that is in WP:ATT, under the cautions on using self-published or potentially biased sources, including that such may never be the basis for an article. Primary sources present three possibilities, all of which makes an unacceptable article if based mainly on them. The first possibility is that the primary sources are self-published or potentially biased. In this case, basing an article solely or mainly on them violates WP:ATT, which specifically states that such sources may be used only sparingly, with great caution, and never as the main or sole basis for an article. The second possibility is that unbiased primary sources (such as an actual historical artifact) are available, but since little or no secondary source material is available, the article is based mainly or solely upon an editor's speculation as to what it is and means. This too violates WP:ATT, an article may not include or be based upon an editor's original synthesis of primary source material. Finally, we come to articles which only effectively repeat the primary source material. This does not fail WP:ATT, as it is permissible to simply repeat information verbatim from an unbiased primary source (such as census information). However, unless further information is available to add to these articles from secondary sources, we are then acting as a web mirror (webhost) or directory of this information. This violates WP:NOT.

Thus, any article based mainly or solely upon primary sources violates a core policy. There's no way around that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 17:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If most articles in Category:Census-designated places in the United States fail our core policies, you should have no problem getting them deleted at AFD. Given that, as far as I know, no CDP has been deleted, either your interpretation of our policies is wrong or no one has bothered to take one to AFD. --NE2 17:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess the latter. A fair chunk of those places hardly appear notable. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 17:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not really true. From WP:ATT: "Primary source material that has been published by a reliable source may be used for the purposes of attribution in Wikipedia, but only with care..." It's entirely valid for attribution purposes, and may even be valid for notability purposes (an autobiography published by a reputable house may be a reliable source about events within it, for instance). --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT does not say "Primary sources may not be used." What was demonstrated above was that primary sources should not be the main or sole source for an article. Absolutely, an autobiography might be useful in some cases! But it should never be the sole or main source for an article. On the other hand, if the autobiography is used as supplemental information where plenty of independent reliably sourced information already exists, I'm 100% for it. The census-designated places are the perfect example of what I meant regarding a web mirror/directory. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 18:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That was a cut and paste directly from the page. I'm merely saying that what you're saying ("Thus, any article based mainly or solely upon primary sources violates a core policy") does not appear to be true. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The CDPs are the perfect example of an article that doesn't meet the "primary notability criterion", but still exists. Either "notability" has to change or the existence of these articles has to change. If the latter, you should start taking them to AFD and see if there really is consensus for the PNC and your view that they disagree with WP:NOT. --NE2 18:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Many CDPs are not examples of topics that don't meet the PNC. The PNC requires only that appropriate sources exist and can potentially be used to cite and/or expand the contents of the article. The PNC does not require that the current version of the article cite those sources. Pan Dan 19:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Very true, and I wish people would remember to do at least a cursory check for sources before nominating for AfD. (I've had many articles I've considered nominating and held off after finding a significant amount of source material.) However, I would imagine on many of these, no sources exist besides the census data. In this case, the articles would seem to violate WP:NOT a directory. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 19:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

...which is a problem with not a directory as well as here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It is extremely difficult to keep track of this debate. I would like to make two points. First, there really is no hard and fast distinction between primary and secondary sources, as I and others explained above. A lot of the criticism of use of primary sources is really criticism of trivial sources. Second, the real confusion here is because we are different from other encyclopedias. There an expert editor or other expert determines what articles should exist. Then, and only then, are sources identified and an article written. Since we do not determine the need for an article by experts, we need to find another way, but sources are not the answer. That is for the inclusion of material in the article. --Bduke 23:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

There is most certainly a clear distinction between primary and secondary sources. WP:ATT explains it very well, but there are clear definitions for both that have been developed outside of Wikipedia. Primary sources are not necessarily trivial-a company's website may contain a ton of information on the company. While it contains a non-trivial amount of information, it is a primary source in regards to the company. There may be a great deal of information available from a fossil, but that fossil is a primary source. On the other hand, a report from a paleontologist who studied it is secondary. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 05:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me be clear about this. Are you saying that when I do some computational chemistry calculations and write a peer reviewed journal article, then that article is a secondary source and the calculations are the primary source? Somewhere here I am sure I read that journal articles were primary and reviews secondary. I commented above that reviews these days often contain original research from the author's group that is cited as "personal communication". Then there was the comment from the admin from Bergen about an encyclopedia (normally considered a secondary source) having information about every street, every school and so on. This was to oppose your view that goverment reports on streets and schools were not allowable because they are primary and the author is ordered to write them. I know that people who study the scientific method or other academic methodologies like to use this distinction, but in practice, like a lot of other things, the real situation is more complex and more confusing. I am confused about this because scientists never use this distinctions. We talk about peer review journals, review articles, books, specialist encyclopedias and so on. --Bduke 07:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

In your example, yes, peer-reviewed articles are certainly a secondary source, as are independent reviews. An encyclopedia is actually a tertiary source, but it would generally be appropriate to reference an encyclopedia in a Wikipedia article. (We've actually got a few articles that started out as wholesale copies from the public-domain 1911 Brittanica.) On the other hand, a government (or government-ordered) report about a government institution would in almost all cases be primary. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 07:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I wish to address the case of a peer-reviewed journal article. It isn't peer-review that changes the type of source. And calculations are not primary for our purposes unless they've been independently published. The primary source is simply the *first* published (made available to the *public) source that contains a particular *fact*. That primary source would be the published paper. Pre-print papers are not published, and notebooks are not *generally* published, so they are not primary sources (for our purposes). It's a slippery slope that leads to infinite regress, which we don't want. What peer-review does, rather than change the *type* from primary to secondary, is change the *reliability* from non-fact-checked to fact-checked. Fact checking by itself does not change the type of source from primary to secondary. So what we have is a fact-checked, and thus reliable, primary source published by an independent third-party.Wjhonson 08:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That's...not my understanding, but it's certainly not WP:ATT. You're correct on fact-checking. A blog or forum post would be a secondary source too, it would just be an unreliable one, as would a paper which has not been peer-reviewed/fact-checked. However, it would be my understanding, in the case of chemical calculations, that the raw data would be the primary source, and the paper a chemist publishes after experiment and/or calculation is secondary. Same with, for example, sociological statistics-the raw survey data is a primary source, a paper published by a sociologist regarding them is secondary. (I was not trying to imply that fact-checking changed primary to secondary, but I see how that was unclear.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 08:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the characterization that my argument does not agree with WP:ATT. I've been heavily involved in creating the entire primary/secondary distinction in Wikipedia. So if you feel that my remarks don't reflect ATT can you specify exactly where so I can address that? A primary source is simply the first published source which asserts a particular fact. Secondary sources never assert independently fundamental new facts except interpretive ones on the primary sources they are discussing. If a paper on physics is presenting a new fact than it's a primary source. If a paper on physics is discussing flaws among four other papers previously published, then it's a secondary source. It's discussing the underlying primary sources. Wjhonson 08:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

From WP:ATT:

"Primary sources are documents or people close to the situation you are writing about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident, and the White House's summary of a president's speech are primary sources."

The speech itself is certainly a primary source, but the White House's summary of it is as well, because it's not independent. From WP:ATTFAQ, on secondary sources:

"A sociologist thesis based on his research of primary sources is a secondary source."

If a sociologist looks at statistics and data, and writes an interpretation of them, the data is primary, the report is secondary. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 08:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are, I think, the two interpretations of what's going on here: Any fool can punch raw data (primary source) into Excel and, for example, calculate a mean, standard deviation, things of that nature. It takes a statistician (or, minimally, someone familiar enough with statistics) to interpret the results and determine if those numbers mean anything (secondary source). Then there are occurences where a statistician says something of note (primary source), which is then reported by newspapers, etc (secondary source). I, personally, think the distinction between primary and secondary sources isn't so "obvious" such that we can rely on it and have editors understand it or anything derived from it. Nifboy 08:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Response to a bunch of stuff since my last comment. It seems that my modern chemistry review article is both a primary and a secondary source at the same time depending whether the author is reporting his own work or criticising others. Also the Bergen encyclopedia is now a tertiary source but it contains what you wanted to ignore as a primary source because it was trivial (details of every street and school in Bergen). The distinctions are not obvious. --Bduke 09:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Further comment. This has quietened down now, probably because the US is asleep and I am still up. The pace of the discussion here allows little time for reflection. I think WP:ATT is very good and it is policy. We should try to rely on that as much as possible, as it does seem there is no consensus about WP:N. Perhaps we have to accept that decided what to have an article about is really subjective and if it meets WP:ATT it may be acceptable. I like local quidelines that use the kind of common sense that might be used in a specialised encyclopedia. Specialised encyclopedias give us a good guide of what to include, but some areas do not have them. I work on chemistry articles and also on Scouting articles. We agree on the later that an individual Scout Troop does not deserve an article unless it is the oldest in the country or the largest or similar. This has nothing to do with sources. Some attempts at articles on troops have no sources. They are all OR, but some do have sources. They are still unencyclopedic and I think the good sense of consensus of people who know about the area can determine this. The criteria for inclusion of an article is always going to be difficult. Let us accept that and not look for a quick solution because there is not one. --Bduke 11:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

To respond on primary vs. trivial: A primary source can be quite non-trivial. A company's own website may contain a ton of information on the company, therefore being non-trivial. It is, however, primary. On the other hand, if the Wall Street Journal makes a "passing reference" to the company in an article about something else, that is a secondary reference. It is also a trivial reference. With the encyclopedia, we've got tertiary trivial references. Triviality has nothing to do with whether a source is primary, secondary, or tertiary. Also, the chemistry review article is secondary, no matter whether the author is reporting their own work or commenting on others'. The lab notes and raw data would be the primary source in this case, the report on them is secondary. Whether or not that report is reliable depends on whether it's been peer-reviewed, but even if it hasn't, it's still a secondary source. It's just an unreliable secondary source until peer-review occurs. Whether a source is primary, secondary, or tertiary has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it has been peer-reviewed or fact-checked, and nothing to do with triviality. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 20:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well User:Wjhonson does not agree with you, as he says published papers are primary. I have never said that primary = trivial, or confused peer reviewed and reliability. Also if a chemistry review contains otherwise unpublished results from the author's lab, then that part of it is just the same as if it was in a paper not a review. The only difference is that it may be less peer reviewed. But let us leave these points. Now will you address the question of how you decide the tertiary sources (Bergan streets in an encyclopedia) are trivial sources and hence not all streets in Bergen should have articles? You keep avoiding it. Whether a source is trivial or non-trivial is subjective. If primary and secondary are objectively defined (although clearly they are not), then you can fall back on not using primary sources, but this is not the case here where we have a tertiary source containing information you do not want articles on. So, how do you define trivial, or do you have some other way of deciding that all streets do not deserve an article? --Bduke 23:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Werdnabot

Given that this thing is approaching half a meg, would anyone object to siccing Werdnabot on it? Anyone archiving by hand is braver than I. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 17:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Archival set at threads that have been dead for a week? Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 18:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Added, since no one seems to object. If anyone does object, please remove the header, or post here and I will. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 18:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the Werdnabot code, since it's broken and doesn't seem likely to get fixed anytime soon. I put in a request for Miszabot to do the archiving instead. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 20:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem

Hi.

The big problem, unfortunately, is that no matter how good a guideline we can make, if nobody follows it and instead sticks to homebrew definitions, it does no good. mike4ty4 00:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No guideline is every going to cover all eventualities. Even policies are open to interpretation. As the legal maxim says, hard cases make bad law, so any attempt to construct a framework that covers absolutely everything is unlikely to succeed. Even this apparently simple guideline has all manner of unintended consequences (and I don't mean deleting Abel and Baker, or Isabella V, neither of which were a huge blow to the project). The best we can hope to produce is a guideline that works most of the time. We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that AFD is always going to be full of hard cases. We have speedy deletion, proposed deletion, redirects, merges, and fixup to deal with the vast majority of material that isn't "encyclopedic". What's left is bound to be problematic. I don't imagine that any guideline would make AFD simple and predictable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

But, the thing is, if they don't even follow a rule even in the slightest, and substitute homebrew definitions left and right, which is what seems to happen on AFD, it is horrible. That's what I'm talking about -- I'm not talking about "once in a blue moon" disputes, with everything else otherwise proceeding to follow the guideline, but where the majority of AFDs do NOT follow it. Also, "encyclopedic" still needs to be defined, even if a totally rigid, 100% infallible definition is impossible, since we do not need that. We need one that is sufficiently reliable, not perfect. How good do you think all the inclusion guidelines, including WP:N, are here on WP, anyway? mike4ty4 23:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Notability is a term of art meaning "worthy of being included in the Wikipedia"

Notability is a rather uncommon word in English. It is subjective. It is a term of art Wikipedia editors use to say "worthy of being included here". Recourse to dictionaries for this word will just have one running in circles.

That being said, the idea of notability is the union of two concepts, one objective and the other subjective:

• The objective criteria are the superlatives and unique: biggest, longest, richest, and first, last, only, etc.
• The subjective criteria are matters of judgment: what impact does (did) the subject have in the context. This could be expressed in the negative as a thought problem: "Can the reader completely know X without also knowing Y?" Some articles and items within articles simply exist to provide some completion or comprehensiveness to a subject. These resolves then to discussion among editors of what impact a subject has upon a bigger context, or whether inclusion of the subject really increases knowledge of a bigger context.

I don't claim this my original insight into editing the Wikipedia. It seems to cover the people, places, and things in hobbies where there might be between 100 and 1000 people involved in the that hobby globally for which there is a good article here already creating the context or a related article for the subject.

I created this as new section because the above sections drifted into verifiability and attribution. patsw 17:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Really, it's good that the above discussion has gone to verifiability. Notability should have nothing to do with being the biggest, fastest, richest, first, last, etc., etc. It should also have nothing to do with comprehensiveness. Many things which are not notable but are needed for the sake of comprehensiveness can be covered if there's any verifiable information about them, even if not enough to write a comprehensive article. How? By covering them in a parent or related article. What notability is here to determine, is "What should be the requirements for a subject to be covered in an article specifically about it?" The answer, of course, is "When there is enough verifiable independent information about that specific subject to make a comprehensive, neutral article about it." Impact, superlatives, etc., should have nothing to do with whether we cover a subject in its own article or merge it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 18:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No, "notability" exactly has everything to do with those things. That's what notability is. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think we're talking across each other again, I'm meaning notability as defined here, I think you're meaning the dictionary definition. That's why I was wanting to rename it (I think "article inclusion" has some promise in reducing the confusion too though, so I do hope that one can be worked out). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 21:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Seraphimblade seems to have hijacked this section for the pragmatic question of "new article" or "merge". I'm speaking to the meta-discussion: i.e. how we discuss among ourselves what "notability" is -- as a point in a continuum from self-evident to all to whim. patsw 22:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

We used to talk of whether an article asserted notability. Such comments as "the oldest cricket club in Yorkshire", "the oldest Scout Group in the UK" and "this School is 500 years old" are all assertions of notability and would lead to the article being kept. Impact, superlatives, etc., have a lot to do with whether we cover a subject in its own article, although of course, as the first post in this section says, there are other factors. Seraphimblade, you are still mixing things up. "When there is enough verifiable independent information about that specific subject to make a comprehensive, neutral article about it." is when we write the article. We need to determine before that whether we want the article. The information may be enough and verifiable and independent, but still not worthy of an article. Examples are all the streets in Bergen (well "enough" might be problem for some of them, but certainy not all). We are back to you defining trivial. --Bduke 23:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how we got around to me wanting notability to be subjective! "We should keep it if it's the oldest cricket club in a town" (or a band with two gold records, or a website that won an award, or...) is subjective. "We should keep it if we can write a comprehensive article from the secondary source material that's available" is about as objective as you get. "Comprehensive" is easily defined, we already have the GA/FA standards for comprehensive articles (and GA works for those things on which there might not be quite enough material to write an FA someday). If there's enough coverage to eventually write that article, the coverage is non-trivial, else it is trivial. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 02:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comprehensive -- this would now hinge on the definition of comprehensive. Taken literally, we probably have sufficient RS in the historic city maps at LC to write an article about every street in the US. One is the previous maps, the other is the current Google maps. Both reliable. The Sanford insurance maps give names of every company on the block, so we could write a local history for each street. (Only reason for limiting it to the US is the available historic maps). Come to think of it, by combining the maps with Dun and Bradstreet, we could write an article on very business establishment.

There are RS for every book published. and reviewed anywhere. The book itself is accepted as an RS for the plot., and the review makes 2. Comprehensive as such an article is likely to be,.

There are RS about every person who has ever acquired a PhD and become a teacher. We have his thesis, which contains a certified CV up to that point. We have the school web site, an authoritative official site which describes what he teaches. If he does research, it describes that too. The material in the form of college catalogs on microfilm goes back to at least the 70s for most schools, and so does proquest for the theses.

There are RS about everyone who has ever played in a professional of college league at any level. There will be at least two newspaper articles from the college or local newspapers. They will describe his record, which is as comprehensive as needed for such an article.

• • I know all this is absurd, but it is what guidelines based only on V (or comprehensiveness) will get us. DGG 02:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh...once again, please remember we're talking about a comprehensive article, meaning it could one day reach GA or FA standards, not just a quick permastub. Notability (or encyclopedic suitability, or article inclusion, or Regulation #3591938, or whatever in the hell we choose to call it), should still be about verifiability, but while verifiability just asks "Is a given piece of information verifiable?", notability (or..., same as above), should ask "Is there enough independently verifiable information on this topic that we could one day write a GA or FA (even if all there is now is a three-line stub)? Or is there no possibility of this going beyond a few paragraphs because there are too few independent sources? Or is there no appropriate parent topic for this, or no verifiable information at all?" That is how we should determine if we should keep, merge, or delete, respectively.

comprehensive does not mean "possible GA/FA." It means "covers a subject fully." Notability has nothing to do with comprehensiveness, but the basic encyclopedic merit of a subject. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure about that. "Exit 160 is a freeway exit halfway between Somewhere and Somewhere Else at mile marker 123 on Interstate 321. It exits onto Blah Road." Well, there's comprehensive coverage, by your definition, can't say much more about it! But is that encyclopedic? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 20:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Protection

I am trying to make sense of what the argument is about that has lead to this guideline being protected, and I am lost. Can someone list the main points and what the current thoughts are on these points? Jeepday 12:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It's complicated, but it runs something like this:

• Some editors feel that this guideline is unnecessary, and that WP:NOT and WP:ATT adequately cover it. They argue that if an article is "encyclopedic" and verified by reliable sources, then it should be included.
• Others favour the proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Article inclusion, which is intended to supersede this one. The main difference between it and WP:N is that it doesn't try to establish universal criteria for notability, but directs the reader to the specific criteria for various subject areas (e.g. WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC).
• Still others (including myself) feel that there's nothing wrong with the existing guideline and that it works fine in providing a firm, objective standard for excluding the many unnecessary and un-encyclopedic articles that appear each day.

The debate's actually more complicated and multi-faceted than this, but I'm attempting to give a brief summary. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 21:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

But why keep it protected? Is it because the edit warring might start up again? mike4ty4 02:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Sounds ugly, could we maybe just list the options and address things in stages? Sounds to me like it boils down to two paths. If Choice 1 is true then we don't need to discuss the issues related to Choice 2. If Choice 2 is true then discussing Choice 1 just clouds a complex issue.

• Choice 1 Wikipedia:Notability is not needed other policies and guidelines address the same topics well. No other similar policy is required
• Choice 2 Wikipedia:Notability is needed Notability is significantly different then other policies and guidelines. It may need to be changed or renamed but it needs to exist as a separate entity.

Signed Jeepday 00:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I still don't get it

Why do we need a higher bar than "can an encylopedia-quality article be written on this topic"? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

We don't. This page doesn't really say anything that WP:ATT doesn't already cover. - Peregrine Fisher 05:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Except that WP:ATT doesn't cover notability. This is why I'm proposing Wikipedia:Article inclusion, a page that does not conflict with ATT while pointing people in the direction of inclusion on the grounds of notability for specific subjects. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

How is this page different? - Peregrine Fisher 05:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

This page asserts primacy, and asserts that notability is only achieved by a specific occurance, rather than how notability is actually achieved. WP:Article inclusion merely says that articles have to meet certain standards to be included, and points users to the specific guidelines for attribution, NPOV, and notability for the subjects. --badlydrawnjeff talk 06:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Because it is an encyclopedia, not a databases of everything. And also because what you just said will be open to interpretation and abuse by whoever wants to. Anyone can write an "encyclopedia-quality" biographical entry on themselves using only verifiable information (population register, official school board results, university records, company records, tax records, vehicle registration database, accident records, flight records, court records, marriage records, etc.). And of course there's my current bugbear: using an encyclopedia as a newspaper because news is almost by definition multiply sourced. I agree with jeff, notability is a necessary bar that sits above ATT, and yes, this page SHOULD say things that ATT doesn't. Zunaid©® 05:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

BS. If it contains no analysis or context, only descriptive claims, it's insufficient for our purposes (and that's all you'll get from databases). I still don't see why we need to exclude stories just because they happen to be news. From 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake to Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner, we've got Featured articles about all sorts of news events. Wesley Autrey isn't going to have lasting historical impact, but his story is worth having. Quantity is not a reason for exclusion, only quality. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

The 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake has notability beyond being a news story, it is the largest natural disaster in recent years. Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner is hardly as notable, and it survives on Wikipedia mainly by virtue of being an excellently written article; a stub article on the same subject would probably have been deleted (For clarity: I am not suggesting that anyone nominate it for deletion). Sure, some events are notable because they produce not only a news story but form a lasting impact which resonates in many different fora, the Colbert speech apparently caused waves on the internet as well as many locations in various other media. But the majority of news stories don't have this kind of impact on society, and they are therefore not as notable. In general notability for an event in the context of an encyclopeda means stuff which has had a profound and/or long lasting impact in some way for a significant number of people. For a newspaper, even though it's paper, the notability standard is considerably lower and will cover things which only matter there and then. Take for instance this article in the State about an upcoming concert. I doubt that 2007 Kenny Chesney concert in Columbia, South Carolina is a notable topic, even though we have an independent medium covering it. And it would not be encyclopedically notable if we had four other newspapers covering it either. For the newspaper on the other hand, it is a significant part of today's local cultural scene, and it is therefore noteworthy for them, and that is perhaps why the newspaper noted it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

And that's why the subject-specific guidelines handle it better than an all-encompassing one. A random Kenny Chesney concert isn't going to meet a music guideline - or, more importantly, people interested in music articles aren't generally going to write one given the standards they've spent time working on - but it certainly would meet a one-size-fits-all guideline. It works in both directions. --badlydrawnjeff talk 06:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

some concerts are worth including, though. So where and how are we drawing our bar? Hint: It's not "importance" or "significance." Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

That would be up to consensus at the specific page, I would assume. My personal bar is similar to where the current line appears to be, but the overlying point is that a one-size-fits-all notability guideline/policy fails to properly address things like this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 06:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

What would be wrong with having an article on an individual concert, if it had thorough, non-trivial detail and analysis, for example? We have articles on individual football games. The press coverage listed would make for barely a sentence (some fans camped out before the concert). We need more to write a decent article. The issue isn't the number of sources, it's the depth. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

It's a one-size-fits all by virtue of being vague about specific standards, and we can narrow it down I think in an objective manner. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Actually, individual football matches might be a better example of the kind of thing which gets extensive coverage in the newspaper, and little to no coverage in Wikipedia. Every time S.K. Brann plays a league game, both Bergens Tidende and Bergensavisen will provide an extensive coverage of the match, often taking up three or four pages, with a description of events, the yellow and red cards which were handed out, the goals scored, a rating for each of the players, and a description of what the team's status in their league now is. If the game was against Rosenborg BK we could also expect an equivalent coverage in Adresseavisen. The "primary notability criterion" is easily met, and there is no trouble in making an extensive article about the game based on the sources. Even so, Wikipedia has a grand total of zero articles on individual football matches in the Norwegian Premier League, and I think any such article would be deleted without much fanfare on AFD, for the precise reason that a single game has no serious impact outside the tournament there and then. From an encyclopedic viewpoint, the game is not notable. But from a news journalist's viewpoint, the football match is the single most important sports event in town that particular day, so it receives a prominent spot in the sports pages in the newspaper on that particular day. But a newspaper is a "read it today, paper recycling bin tomorrow" type of publication, very unlike an encyclopedia. Things of local interest which matter only there and then are quite suitable for newspapers, becuase they are supposed to satisfy the reader's interest for what happens there and then. Notability in a newspaper is not meant to be lasting in the same way notability in an encyclopedia is. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

2006 Rose Bowl, for one. But if an event has been covered sufficiently in the past, even if it doesn't have particularly lasting effects, why not have an article on it? Nothing important ever happened because of the Tsar tank. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

That was the BCS championship game and quite likely the most important and notable college football game of the year. Why wouldn't it have an article? ChazBeckett 07:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Indeed, being the final game in a major tournament is what grants that subject notability. Regarding the Tsar tank, that equipment is part of military history where we aim to be comprehensive. The weaponry used at various times is a significant and notable part of this coverage and of interest to a student of history, and therefore we have articles on such items. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Why not aim to be comprehensive anywhere we can meet our standards? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I agree with Night Gyr. If there really is enough coverage for a comprehensive article on a sports game (NOT just a directory stub stating the score and maybe a few quick statistics and highlights), why shouldn't we have an article on it? However, this should be looked at much like the perspective of WP:FICT. Our main goal should be to explain the game's significance to the outside world, not write the article from an "in-universe" ("in-game"?) perspective. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 08:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Right, which is something WP:N handles poorly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 08:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I think the primary notability criterion is actually a good bar for that. The trouble is coming when people try to work higher bars (that ought to be inclusionary ones) into notability as exclusionary criteria to meet their personal subjectivity. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

How would you define a "comprehensive article" on a sports game? Take NBA games for example. Each one results in loads of statistical data, game recaps, interviews and articles (local, regional, national newspapers, etc). Should we really have an article on all 1500+ games that occur in one season? ChazBeckett 08:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I hate the quantity argument -- it's explicitly contrary to WP:NOT#PAPER. Potential quantity of articles is not now and never will be a prohibition on including a particular type of article. As for games, I think the scope of a single game is too narrow for proper depth. Seasonal articles seem to have been the recent trend. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

(In response to ChazBeckett) A comprehensive article on a game would be similar to a comprehensive article on anything, and I think WP:FICT could be very informative here. Just as a comprehensive article on a fictional work should focus mainly on its "real-world" importance, not be just (or mainly) a plot summary, and focus mostly on its importance in a wider scope, a comprehensive article on a sports game should focus on its "out-of-game" impact, be significantly more then just a game recap and/or list of stats (though these may be appropriate in the context of the full article), and so on. Could this be done for every sports game? Doubt it. But if it can be done for any given one, why shouldn't we have it? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 12:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I think it's important to get an idea of the scope of what would be created, which means that the potential number of articles does need to be mentioned. In general, I agree that an individual game shouldn't have an article, unless there's something special about it (championship game, for example). ChazBeckett 08:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Actually, I think a better example would be films. Numerous films are released to theaters every year. Many are forgettable, mediocre, insignificant in the scheme of things. But we have articles on them anyway. Why? Because we can cite numerous sources - reviews, box office takings, cast interviews, dvd commentary - that we can synthesize into an encyclopedic article about films that no one will have heard of a hundred years from now. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I agree with Gyr that WP:N should reflect a minimal standard. It should basically say that "if an article fails to meet even this bare minimum standard of reference quality and quantity then it should as a general rule be improved or deleted." Articles that barely meet this minimal bar might still be deleted, though, based on concerns that fall beyond the scope of this guideline. For WP:N to enjoy the strongest consensus among editors, I feel it should reflect those minimal sourcing requirements that almost all the editors can agree on. Gyr is correct that attempting to make WP:N more than minimally restrictive simply results in those restrictive portions not enjoying strong consensus.

I disagree with Gyr that the concept of "an encyclopedia quality article" is sufficient standard. As noted above, you can write verifiable lenghty articles about all sorts of things that would be routinely deleted, such as regular season sports games and local crimes and events. It's not just a question of eliminating "perma stubs", but also of weeding out some of the articles that have at best fleeting usefulness and interest and whose presence makes editorial maintainence and reader navigation more problematic. Yes, there is no "physical limit" on the number of articles, but that doesn't imply it's a good idea to have millions of articles of questionable sourcing and use. Dugwiki 08:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

You said "of questionable sourcing and use" -- what about of good sourcing? If that is not a high enough bar, then what is? We're talking about well-sourced topics -- which still may not be encyclopedic. Perhaps it might be a good idea to take a page from paper encyclopedias -- maybe we should look at all sorts of published encyclopedias, see what criteria they use for inclusion, average it all out, tweak it to suit WP's purposes, and trot out a new inclusion guideline/policy based on that. 74.38.32.195 12:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

This is possibly bad. Wikipedia covers many topics that other encyclopedias don't. However, what we CAN gain is some sort of idea on the standards of inclusion to apply. I'm of the school of thought that certain things are inherently encyclopedic (geographical features, chemical compounds, towns), certain things are inherently inappropriate material for an encyclopedia (run-of-the-mill news stories, TV episodes and sports games) and everything else has to prove their worth by meeting certain standards (companies, bands, websites, significant news stories, TV episodes and sports games). Zunaid©® 23:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

What's wrong with writing a quality article about a local crime? You say it would be routinely deleted, but I don't see any justification in policy for such a deletion. A small town might have its only murder in years, and the thing would be covered out the wazoo. We could certainly turn all that into a quality article, and I don't see any policy reason why we shouldn't. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I think Sjakkalle hit exactly my point. "it survives on Wikipedia mainly by virtue of being an excellently written article." Excellently written and sourced articles that violate no policy deserve to be kept, even if they cover obscure or local topics.

Notability = verifiability

• On discussing the "proper criteria for inclusion/exclusion", Jimbo Wales wrote "'verifiability' has long been accepted as a decision rule.". The description of "Notability" originally endorsed this view,[17]
• The new definition is elitist and counter to Jimbo's original criteria. Notability has nothing to do with worthiness, "attracting attention", secondary sources, popularity, consensus, or truth.
• Verifiability is objective. Worthiness is not. --Iantresman 02:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

  And considering that on WP:ATT, it says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true.". Thus, anything that is published, provided it also does not contradict something in WP:NOT (ie. like phonebook entries, etc.) or other policies, is fair game on WP under this. I'm not sure if the community would agree to that, though. Note: policies. That is the important thing -- POLICIES are what should dictate whether or not content should be kept, not guidelines like WP:N, WP:AUTO, WP:NFT, WP:COI, etc. Guidelines are to provide guidance to users to explain them what subjects are more likely to be kept/deleted, what may get them into trouble, etc. Ie. to help steer users in the right direction, not to prescribe defining, decisive criteria or rules for WP process. In that case, either WP:N should either not be used as a deletion criterion alone, or if so, it should be more rigidly defined, formalized, and promoted up to official policy. mike4ty4 23:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• OK, so you are verifiably a disruptive POV-pusher, so we can discount any consideration of your worthiness and ignore you. Sounds like a recipe for peace on a lot of articles :-) Guy (Help!) 21:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

  Sounds like a way to keep people from being able to make positive contributions and from being able to change. What if the POV-pusher decides to reform? Since the community becomes bigoted and solidifed in it, their reforming, and perhaps pleas for help, may fall on now-deaf ears. This could hurt their feelings, get them angry, etc. and perhaps just get them even more diligent in their pushing out of anger or revenge, or perhaps take up some new disruptive activity like blatant vandalism or other stuff. Sounds like a bad idea, morally speaking, and perhaps even in terms of productivity and usefulness. mike4ty4 23:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Guy, POV-pushing use to be described as the "editing articles so that they disproportionately show one point of view."[18]; Deleting a point of view (whether it is mainstream or minority), is POV-pushing. I have always supported the description of all notable (verifiable) points of view, which is the opposite of POV-pushing.

  I would also think POV-pushing would include adding excessive information to some point of view that it does not deserve (see WP:Undue weight). Any deliberate and repeated attempt to bias an article, whether it includes deleting or adding information, is a POV push. Note: "notable" does not just equal "verifiable" -- it requires a significant amount of verifiable (now attributable) material to exist -- see WP:N. mike4ty4 02:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Undue weight confirms that "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them" (as long as they notable, ie. are verifiable and conform to the new WP:A). --Iantresman 00:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Reductio ad absurdum

Isn't this a Reductio ad absurdum where one editor's verifiable fact can be an article without even asserting, much less creating a consensus of worthiness, anticipated Wikipedia reader interest, reliable sources, etc. among other editors in cases where there is a dispute over its inclusion. If Iantresman is correct, how could an article have been deleted for any reason other than its verifiability in the past? patsw 20:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Ian is in favour of certain articles and concepts challenging the dominant view of cosmology, and it has got him in trouble in the past (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience). Ian's views are out of line with the community view on a number of things, and he is frustratingly unwilling to help himself by making any kind of concession to those supporting the mainstream view. The result is that we end up with less coverage of his favoured content because he is unable to work productively with others. It is a pity, because Ian is clearly very well-informed on these non-orthodox views. Guy (Help!) 21:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop attacking the editor, and focus on replying to the points that he's raised. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 21:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Perhaps this was meant to be a reducto ad absurdum. When JW wrote that phrase, he presumable meant it in context with everything else he said about WP, and was merely emphasizing that no matter how encyclopedia worthy, there had to be sources--which were more of a problem at the start--there were plenty of things to write about, but the articles were poorly sourced by current standards. DGG 00:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• The real world contains ideas that challenge the dominant view of cosmology. I do not not necessarily support them or agree with them. Jimbo Wales says that we should describe them. It was the Nazis who burnt books because they contained unpopular ideas (no connection with any editors implied).
• The editors with whom I have problems want to either delete such articles, or misrepresent them (I have many examples), all of which are verifiable. When I complain, I'm accused of disruption.
• A recent article "Electric universe (concept)" was deleted [19] because it was not considered scientifically note-worthy (subjective), and yet it was notable as all the information was verifiable (objective). --Iantresman 00:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

In your opinion, but other editors did not agree, nor did the closing admin, and I'm not seeing a groundswell of support at deletion review either. "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." There are a million-odd articles on Wikipedia for you to edit, and millions more that haven't yet been written. Change the subject please. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not X has a lot of support does not mean X is wrong, it could simply mean the community is too rigid and dogmatic (and I've seen a lot of dogmatic communities!), but I personally think that for now, it was right to delete EU. mike4ty4 02:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

To me, that does not appear to be the point, looking over the arguments. The point was that there was not enough verifiable, reliable information to satisfy WP's verifiability and reliability standards (now WP:ATT), as well of a lack of independent information published from third parties not involved in the subject so as to allow for it to be NPOV and prevent it from being VANITY. Given the "verifiable" information available, which was not reliable and not independent (and having been published in vanity presses is original research), no NPOV article could be written. That's why we have WP:N and it's associated sub-guidelines, to provide a guideline as to how to find subjects that are capable of meeting Wikipedia's content policies (WP:NPOV, WP:ATT, WP:NOT, etc.). mike4ty4 02:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• It was claimed that the sources were "vanity presses" (self-published); As I pointed out in my comments,[20] aside from a couple of Web sites, this was false. --Iantresman 10:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly it. Verifiable sources aren't just "someone said it somewhere". (If that were the case, I could state something on an article's talk page or a personal blog, write what I just said into the article, and cite myself, after all, at that point, it's attributable to someone!) It must be attributable to peer-reviewed or fact-checked reliable sources. Part of reliability is independence from the subject. A self-published source which hasn't been fact-checked is not reliable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 02:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• It depends on the fact, and I think why WP:A has come about.
• If I say that "The sun is powered by electricity", then that requires peer reviewed sources.
• But if I say that "The Electric Universe theory claims that the sun is powered by electricity", (an attributed statement) then it requires a fact-checkable source. The claim may be complete rubbish, but the statement is verifiable in numerous sources that are not self-published. --Iantresman 18:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Possibly a different meaning is desired

I just found this phrase on a place calling this link "\{\{Notability\}\}":

"If you are familiar with the subject matter, please expand the article to establish its notability, citing reliable sources. If notability cannot be established, the article is more likely to be considered for deletion, per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. (See also Wikipedia:Notability)"

But I think you mean "more than likely" rather than "more likely" because there is no target for the comparison suggested by "more". Carrionluggage 21:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes

What's up with all the footnotes? That stuff belongs in the main body of the page. — Omegatron 21:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It’s part of I called pseudoscholarship. Maybe I should have said “very drafty”. The guideline is in poor form, written poorly, not saying what people think it says, not clear as to what it means to say. For how long is the page to remain protected in this form, as a guideline purporting to reflect consensus? SmokeyJoe 23:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

A good line of thought?

Hi.

I was wondering if this is a good way to think about this whole "notability" thing. Notice, at the very beginning of this page (WP:N), we have:

"Notable is defined as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice"."

So that's what we start with. Notable will mean just that: worthy of note, or attracting notice. So therefore we need to determine what attracts notice, or what is worthy of making note of. That follows from a simple dictionary definition.

Now, we could see if something is worthy of note, or attracting notice, to see if someone has already made note of it, and how many people or other entities have done so, and in what forms, and in how much there is. For example, a couple of people discussing in a bar at 9am some girl they saw is too trivial (for one, it is a very short mention, for another, it could not possibly be WP:ATTributed to any reliable, hard sources). But several meaty articles being published in high-quality academic journals about some hypothesis from multiple people/teams, something that's been covered continually on the news, had TV programs devoted to it, lots of press material, etc. would be much more significant, thus "worthy of note", or "attracting notice", hence it would be "notable" and suitable for inclusion in WP (provided of course it meets all other relevant policies).

Thus we could then start with something:

"Two people discussing some X in a bar at 9am does not establish X as being sufficiently notable for Wikipedia."

"Continued coverage in quantity in well-known channels like academic journals and the mass-media of some X is likely to establish X as having sufficient notability for Wikipedia."

Of course, these are two extremes, and a good bar will have to be somewhere in the middle. Personally, I think the criterion on WP:N is a good start even if it's not perfect and needs some revising, since it attempts to measure how well something "attracts notice" and thus how "worthy of note" it might be. Regardless, I think if one wants to come up with a good N guideline, we should start with that first elementary definition -- the very first sentence on the WP:N page.

What do you think? mike4ty4 02:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, I reject the recourse to the dictionary to define the uncommon word notability. It's not merely a question of being noticed -- and isn't that a synonym for being observed? A person changing a flat tire next to the Long Island Expressway in daylight is noticed by thousands of people who slow down to look.

Maybe then we should dump notability, and instead go for encyclopedicity -- what belongs in an encyclopedia, and try to work from that -- based on what an encyclopedia is. mike4ty4 20:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Mere notice is simply too vague to be a starting point. I believe what you are attempting to describe is the editors' expectation of interest by the reader of the Wikipedia to an article or to an article's content. patsw 19:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If we were to use that, and try to deduce from it, what would we get? Things need to be famous? mike4ty4 20:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• What we actually mean in an operational sense is encyclopedic suitability and we might do well not to define it much closer than that--in view of the demonstrated unlikeliness of agreeing about any fundamentals at all. Encyclopedic suitability is at least a term without any emotional implications--UNnotable reflects on someone accomplishments in the world; unencyclopedic just defines what we do.DGG 01:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I still think though that whatever you call it, it should be defined. "I like it" and "I hate it" should NOT be valid arguments for deletion. And the community should agree as much as possible, not necessarily entirely. I proposed something much similar, called "encyclopedicity" which would be pretty much the same thing as your "encyclopedic suitability". Perhaps it's time to start a new Wikipedia:Encyclopedic suitability proposal page? mike4ty4 00:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

A second notice...

...that discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia:Article inclusion, which may act as a possible replacement of this page altogether. Please hop on over and give your input. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

any idea on how to merge them, because I think they are not going in the same direction--the trend of discussion there seems to be saying V is the only rule. DGG 01:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The desire is that WP:AI will replace this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Any higher bar runs into subjectivity problems. Most of the stuff that people want to keep out with other barriers isn't really a problem at all or would be kept out by a properly written guideline rooted in policy. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Probably not going to get a lot of play with this comment, but shouldn't we close down Notability and Article inclusion and take all of this over to WP:NOT? There's the actual policy that keeps out articles not fit for an encyclopedia. - Peregrine Fisher 05:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No, because as a policy, it has to be written extremely strictly. Guidelines are more flexible, and "what articles can be included" is a topic with many gray areas. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT is definitely not good enough on its own - although in theory it excludes "non-encyclopedic" content, the definition of what is "encyclopedic" is entirely subjective and depends on editors' own opinions. WP:N is necessary because it provides an objective, definite criterion that can be applied at AfD - it says that something is notable if it has "multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources". I have no problem with WP:AI in principle, but the present draft of that guideline is simply too vague, and I really don't see what's wrong with the existing guideline. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 09:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Flexible about "what articles can be included," sounds like "I like it/I don't like it" opinion. Now if WP:N just said "multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources" it would be WP:A, wouldn't it? Using WP:N to pass the buck to sub-pages about books, music, etc. is just more opinion, though. - Peregrine Fisher 09:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not, which has been explained to you over there. And no, if WP:N said that, it wouldn't be WP:A, it would be something much more that doesn't work in reality. Please read the archives here for numerous examples. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Food Notability

What type food can be notable? Any type? I noticed lot of sweet foods. So can I write any article about sweet cofectionary? What about other type of food (spicy)? I didn't find any food notability. I want to know more.--NAHID 19:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

New measure for notability

As suggested in the Consensus topic earlier, I propose that instead of manual judgement about whether a subject is notable or not, we should instead base notability on how frequently it is accessed or edited. Wikipedia is now a sufficiently commonly-used tool that accesses are likely a good indication of how many people seek knowledge about a topic. If enough people seek information on a subject, who has the right to say that it is not sufficiently notable when clearly there are a fair number of people who are taking notice of it? Thus I suggest that the only measure of notability which should be utilised in Wikipedia is the number of accesses to a page.

I would, in fact, suggest that an automated method should be devised - either through bot or underlying code - which automatically nominates for deletion articles which are receiving insufficient traffic. There should be a grace period of a week or two in which the deletion can be appealed on the basis that the subject is notable but not widely known, and any appeals should be reviewed by the administrators who can put a manual stay on deletions based on notability of any article. Lacking an appeal (or on rejection of an appeal), articles should be deleted (preferably automatically, to lessen the load on the administrators).

This approach would remove most of the superfluous articles on Wikipedia, put far less of a burden on editors and administrators, and prevent the misuse of the notability criteria that we see today. Some few articles would likely be caught up in the system which shouldn't, but those which should really have been kept can always be appealed through the current deletion review system. -Xiroth 18:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Hit counters have already been suggested and rejected by the developers as too hard on the servers, so hit counters with automated processes to examine them are not likely to fly any farther. This aside, though, that's not a good idea at all. I imagine many historical topics and the like are not visited very frequently, but are quite notable. This would cause a tremendous degree of systemic bias, and "wikibombing" would become the next googlebombing (Want to keep your junk article? Set up a bot to visit it frequently!) I wish deletion could be boiled down to automation, but unfortunately I think it can't be. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 18:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Hmm, the concept doesn't necessarily need hit counters - recent frequency is what needs to be assessed, rather than absolute figures over the lifetime of the article, and there are some relatively efficient methods of counting that (one could even assess frequency over the lifetime of the article without a huge resource load). I would suggest that the requirements to maintain a place would not be much higher than the minimum access frequency caused by the assorted bots which access Wikipedia pages, so historical events with any notability at all should be kept (I know that I frequently read through historical subjects, and I would expect that there are a reasonable number of other users who also do so). I would not expect a huge number of articles to be maintained by bot-masters which would otherwise be discarded - the number would be relatively small compared to the number of non-notable articles in Wikipedia's databases today. On the other hand, while I would prefer an automated solution, the alternative is, of course, to have those articles which drop below the required frequency to become vulnerable to a manual nomination of AfD for notability reasons. -Xiroth 18:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I'd still be very concerned about systemic bias, as well as automated "keeping" of articles which violate WP:5P regardless. Notability is not popularity, and it shouldn't be. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 18:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

If they violate other rules, then they should be nominated for deletion under those rules. Notability is not the only grounds for deletion, but as things stand it seems to be becoming too big a catch-all for articles which individual editors want to see deleted. -Xiroth

I guess I fail to see what the new system would change, then? The only thing I can see it doing is changing notability into a popularity contest (which it is not and should not be), and other then that, things get nominated and debated as normal, while placing increased load on the servers. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 19:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

The new system changes only how notability is utilised - it certainly shouldn't have any impact on how any other policy is enforced. It would be there essentially to clean up the least used articles which add nothing to the encyclopedia, as opposed to the current notability guidline which is routinely used to delete regularly visited and used articles which are deemed non-notable purely through editors' personal opinion. Notability is not a popularity contest, but we currently have no reliable way of judging what is and isn't notable, so my suggestion is that we delete the clearly non-notable articles and assess the others on their merits under other rules and guidelines. -Xiroth 20:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Hrmmmm. Well, I guess there'd be no harm in a bot that went through and, for example, looked for articles that hadn't been edited in over a month. There would be false positives that way (some articles are in good shape and just stable), but that certainly might find a good deal of junk that was "drive-by" created, slipped through newpage patrol, and could be prodded or speedied as appropriate. Might also find some articles that are viable and really could use some attention, or would make useful redirects or merges. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 22:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

That might be a good idea. Having articles that nobody is paying any attention to is how you get the Siegenthaler scandal; it would be good to have a way to identify those. I'd actually be much more interested in how many active users' watchlists an article is on, rather than how many edits it gets -- as you say, some articles are just stable -- but I don't think that can be measured without a significant software change. —Celithemis 19:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)

This approach would remove the very articles that put the least strain on Wikipedia's resources. Bryan Derksen 18:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

The point remains, though - if information is frequently accessed and does not disobey any other Wikipedia rules or guidelines, then is it not somewhat illogical to consider it non-notable based purely on opinion? -Xiroth 18:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

What is your point? Notability is not popularity. —Centrx→talk • 22:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

True. But if an article is being visted frequently and matches all the other policies and guidelines, who is qualified to say that it is not notable? On the other hand, few accesses makes a strong case that the information is not commonly required - which does not say that it is definitely not notable, but makes a strong suggestion of it. -Xiroth 00:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)

This also seems to be a way to ensure that WP:BIAS is never overcome. Using the example pointed out on WP:BIAS: Jennifer Wilbanks (29 edits in past four months), and Bernard Makuza (3 edits in past four months). Removing from the database because of lack of edits is not going to help the situation. Neier 22:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

As far as automated removal goes, I would only advocate that the most infrequently visited articles are deleted in this manner. There could then be a 'grey area' in which articles could be nominated for deletion on notability grounds if they are accessed with a low frequency but so low that they are definitely not being useful. Any article outside this grey area would be immune to nominations on notability grounds, and any AfD nominations must be on other grounds (such as unencyclopedic content). This should prevent most systemic bias problems (at least, in the automated deletion area). -Xiroth 00:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)

The problem, unfortunately or not, with this proposal is that it does not go with the goals of notability, which is to guarantee that sufficient reliable, attributable material exists to write a neutral article based on information published independently of Wikipedia that is sufficiently comprehensive to be encyclopedic. For example, if only one reliable source exists on some topic that gives only a couple of sentences about it, that's woefully too little information to write a good article (or for that matter, any sort of article at all. To me an article is more than just a couple of brief sentences.). An interesting idea I might propose is that "notability" could mean that the subject has been reported on enough so that there is enough material that an article created on it stands a reasonable chance of becoming a good or featured article in the future, although this may be too restrictive and hard to determine exacting criteria for (ie. too subjective). 74.38.32.195 00:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)

To be honest, we don't need a notability policy to cover that. We already have policies which say that articles must be verifiable and if, as you suggest, we should require multiple sources (which I wouldn't be opposed to), that should be required in the WP:ATT policy, not in an extra one. Notability, on the other hand, is by its very nature far too subjective to be a useful requirement unless we can impose some kind of objective method of measuring it. -Xiroth 00:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Then why don't we quantitatively define it? In another post here I point out the necessity for a general notability criterion to "take up the slack" from where the subject-specific criteria do not apply. I'll just toss some proposals out here for fun, what do you think?:

• A topic can be considered notable if there are at least two reliable sources documenting the topic each devoting at least one thousand (1,000) words in each, including all numbers unrelated to formatting (like lists, etc.), and with hyphenated words counted as single words where grammatically appropriate (like "nick-nack" versus "divis-ion", with the latter being on a line break if our source is in print) with each covering a distinct, major view on the topic (see WP:NPOV).
• A topic can be considered notable if it garners at least one thousand (1,000) hits on Google after compensating for redundancy, all of which are from at least fifty (50) independent organizations with no copying of coverage, and which do not, taken together, only describe a single point of view, if possible (again, see WP:NPOV).

What do you think? Note: these are not 100% serious proposals, but they are more "quantitative" as in having hard numbers attached to them. 74.38.32.195 20:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I had added a DelRev tag on Mark Bellinghaus, but Tyrenius removed it because I didn't have it linked properly (my bad!) Bellinghaus Mmmovie is the perfect example of why Wiki NEEDS to define "Notability" and enforce a Notability policy! Bellinghaus is a sometimes-actor who fanices himself a Marilyn Monroe expert. He has done nothing of note himself. Worse, he has not only hijacked the Monroe article, he created an account specifically to promote his agenda. I told Tyrenius that Wiki is not the place for that! The thing that makes Wiki great is it's greatest weakness. Anyone with an account can start an article on him/herself. That is abuse! If I may be so bold, "Notability" should also not be defined as someone who is related to someone of note. Walter Gretzky may be a lovely man, but he is notable solely for supplying half of Wayne Gretzky's DNA. Ditto for other parents, children, spouses or siblings who wouldn't have Wiki articles were it not for their famous relative. Is Albert II, Prince of Monaco's son Alexandre Coste deserving of an article? Maybe if or when he succeeds his father; until then I'd say it should be deleted. Worc63 23:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

What's the point in this debate?

I really don't see what's wrong with the existing primary criterion of WP:N. Where notability is in question, it can be established by demonstrating multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources. Because this is an absolute standard (except for those articles that fall in special categories), it ensures fair and equal treatment for all articles, rather than relying on Wikipedia editors' subjective judgements. WP:NOT is not enough on its own; whether or not an article constitutes a "directory entry", "vanity page" or "dicdef" is entirely a matter of opinion, and basically boils down to either WP:IDONTKNOWIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Fundamentally, if the subject of an article has received multiple coverage in the mainstream media or in reference books, then they are by definition notable. If they haven't, then they probably aren't notable. What's so confusing or problematic about that? Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 09:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Walton, the most common problems are (1) the term "non-trivial" can not be defined objectively and is a source for dispute at XfD, and (2) there is a dispute over whether a single substantial source could by itself demonstrate notability in some circumstances. Then there is also the dispute over whether WP needs to limit itself to notability or a similar concept in general. The term "notability" itself is difficult to define without using equally subjective synonyms. I'm from the camp that believes there should be some objective standard for what is suitable for an encyclopedia, but don't believe that the standard need be too high, but should be high enough to eliminate vanity fluff, garage bands, and spam. --Kevin Murray 12:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)

The point in this debate is simple - WP:N, as written, fails to comprehend the idea of "notability." --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Can you briefly describe how you comprehend notability? --Kevin Murray 13:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)

No, I can't. No one can, that's part of the problem - notability is inherently subjective, and means different things for different people in different subjects. We can't solve the first part, but we can come to compromises in the second. This guideline assumes neither the former or latter exist. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)

It would be fair to here state that all of reality is subjective. No it isn't! Yes it is! No it isn't!. On another note, we do not need to try to define every single term we use. We can, for the most part, point to the dictionary. Individual article issues on notability can be taken up in AfD as they always are. We don't need to address the remaining ten percent. We just address the ninety percent, and leave the rest fuzzy. Wjhonson 13:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Leaving the rest fuzzy leaves too many poor decisions open to improper results. Please see the obviously notable articles that fail to meet this standard in the archives - keep in mind that many still don't reach the slightly rewritten standard as it reads now. The proper course of action should be to depreciate this entirely, and say "Notability is how we generally decide what is verifiable and worth including. For subjects that deal with X, see X. For subjects that deal with Y, see Y. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)

The only problem with that is, there'll always be some Z that doesn't have a written guideline governing it specifically. It leads to proliferation of guideline pages. (And what do we do when people simply can't agree about how to judge the notability of X or Y?) I think it's a good idea to have a basic "default" to go by, distilling the most common indicators of notability. And, for our purposes, I think that often does boil down to multiple independent non-trivial reliable sources. It might suffice to note that there could be exceptions (with a few examples), and point to the subject-specific guidelines, where they exist. Shimeru 19:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

There's nothing wrong with a proliferation of such pages, and our purposes generally do not boil down to that. Please see my proposal below, I think it addresses your concerns. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

If you claim this, everything is subjective to some degree. Even NPOV is somewhat subjective -- that's why we get into NPOV disputes, because people have conflicting ideas of what NPOV really is in detail. Some may say "if it says X then it is neutral." then someone else may say "NO!!! It has to be *Y* to be neutral." and so a dispute begins. But people have a general idea of the concept, and the page WP:NPOV lays out some rules to trace borders around the concept and give that general idea, even if the minutiae may be quibbled over -- and thus eventually a consensus can be reached that agrees with WP's goals. If with N there is no general concept it cannot work -- it becomes a total free-for-all. We should be trying to stop WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments, not trying to promote them. Doing otherwise only serves to undermine the quality of the encyclopedia, make it look silly and unprofessional, and veers it away from it's stated goal of being an encyclopedia since essentially anything would then be game for inclusion and deletion. If we scrap the general guideline (WP:N) and use only the subject-specific guidelines, then what happens when they do not cover something? Like pets, for example. If I write a cute little article on my little doggie, it goes to AFD, and everybody reads it and says "Keep. I like it, it's cute." and it gets accepted, then WP becomes a joke! If we're going to let that type of argument in, why not just scrap all rules and let everyone write whatever the heck they want?! Obviously that is not acceptable. 74.38.32.195 12:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Simply, this goes straight to Wiki's credibility as a information source. Anyone with an account can create an article, which is fine depending on the legitimacy of the article. That's why you note that the month pages forbids you from listing your birthday or what date your grandpa died. Unfortunately, the temptation for some to launch an article on themselves or their grandpa may be too much to resist! Worc63 23:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Current news events

An educator at a school was recently charged with a crime, as reported in reliable newspapers. To what extent is this relevant to the article on the school? Should organizations get some degree of protection similar to BLP? Gimmetrow 06:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No, organizations do not deserve the protection of BLP. Organizations are not natural people and have fundamentally different rights and protections both under the law and in the common perception. BLP recognizes that some issues are so potentially risky that we compromise our normal editing processes. Those same degrees of risk do not apply to organizations.
That said, most such controversies and crimes are excludable under the proposed WP:NOTNEWS guideline. That kind of content is better presented in WikiNews, not Wikipedia. To mention a current controversy in an encyclopedia article, we really ought to be looking for sources about the encyclopedic influence of the controversy or crime - national policy-shifts or new legislation that arose as a direct result. The mere existence of the crime, even if provably true, does not automatically merit its inclusion in an encyclopedia article. Rossami (talk) 14:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying BLP applies to an organisation, but it seems somehow tangential to the organisation that one of its employees was charged with a crime. The person charged is not really notable - not like Ken Lay who is appropriately mentioned in the list of University of Houston people. WP:NOTNEWS is marked as rejected, so it can't really be cited here. It is reported, so it's attributable. What else applies? Gimmetrow 22:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (science) should this be a guideline?

Wikipedia:Notability (science) is a recent proposal which has received little attention pro or con, but it is being advocated for immediate adoption as a guideline. Please join the discussion. It seems redundant to me, but should be considered within the notability scheme. --Kevin Murray 23:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

"Non-triviality"

I have again deleted * "Non-triviality" is an evaluation of the depth of content contained in the published work, exclusive of mere directory entry information, and of how directly it addresses the subject.³

The "Non-triviality" assertion is not supported by the given citation, “notability” in the OED. As cited, the entry is clearly false.

The attempted redefinition of “trivial” and “notable” is, I think, the underlying cause of confusion over what WP:N says, and what it means to say. SmokeyJoe 23:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Current status

I'm very wary to make a change to the tag based on a straw poll, so I'll bring it here first: It's apparent to me that there's no consensus for this to be a guideline right now, so what should we do in the interim while we discuss the options? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• It is obvious from the poll that people see the need for a guideline here and see the need for changes from the current wording. So let's propose and discuss changes on this talk page. It may help to strike the "is permanent" section which appears to be disputed. Since most of the controversy here is based on recent changes to the paeg, it would probably help to go back to a version from one or two months ago, since the wording from back then was not controversial. >Radiant< 14:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • There doesn't really seem to be a significant dispute on the permanent section. The most disputed part actually seems to be the fabled PNC, judging from the discussion, given how it was implemented and how it's worked itself out in practice. I still think fixing up WP:AI and making that what this tried and failed to be might be the best option. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    • So we could go back to a version without the PNC, no? The PNC sounds like a nice idea in theory, but it doesn't really appear to match how Wikipedia works in practice. >Radiant< 14:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Theoretically, we could. I still question the consensus for this as a guideline regardless of what we revert back to, though. This is my larger issue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually, it does, and has done for a long time. Uncle G 16:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
        • This is completely untrue. The PNC was never part of discussions for notability, was crowbarred into a number of the subject-specific guidelines without the knowledge of many users, was put into here and treated as above other guidelines (also without consensus), and doesn't even come close to reflecting current practice or even basic reality given the archived discussion, contrary to your claims. The PNC is a failure in theory and practice. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
          • • Utter rubbish. The PNC has been in use at AFD for years. It wasn't "crowbarred" into the subject-specific guidelines "without knowledge". It was added by several editors gradually. Indeed, it came from two of the subject-specific guidelines in the first place. It was put into here after several editors asked for several things to be added after discussion on this very talk page (as can clearly be seen in the archives). Uncle G 17:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
              • And never discussed at the guidelines which have largely governed content, and never as some overbearing thing. It's not rubbish at all - in fact, it's the opposite. The broader focus on sources is relatively recent. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
            • As long as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, the primary criteria applies. I don't see how it's failed at all. Did you want a vote on it or something? Friday (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
              • The PNC has nothing to do with WP being an encyclopedia, I don't know where that idea comes from. Meanwhile, check the recent discussions if you have any question as to the failure of the PNC. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
                • The recent discussions are to a large extent solely the result of you repeatedly arguing here on this talk page. That doesn't indicate any more than that you, singular, object to it. In the meantime, in the rest of Wikipedia where the actual work is being done, other editors accept and employ the idea. Uncle G 17:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
                  • This is still not true, and not representative of any of the discussions around the encyclopedia. You have some strong support by some vocal editors - they do not constitute the majority, nor am I alone in my protests about how this has been used. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

In comparing WP:N and WP:INCLUSION, the general practical implications appear to be similar. I think the differences and areas of contention are in how the documents are phrased and whether we should attempt to define "notability" or instead should focus on making sure articles are "substantive and sufficiently referenced". Both roads seem to lead to similar places, it's mainly some of the details that differ. (See the thread WP:INCLUSION#WP:N and WP:AI for some more detailed analysis.) Dugwiki 17:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the only thing lacking consensus is whether "notability" is the right name for the basic requirement that we only have articles about topics covered in sufficient sources. The new inclusion is meant to strip away a lot of the crap that's grown up around it, but the intended result is basically the same. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I think, that both articles reach the same basic practical conclusions. The main differences are in some details on how the articles reach those conclusions, such as their relative emphasis on "notability" and "substantive articles", and in how various things are phrased, etc. Based on the comments so far at WP:INCLUSION I'm guessing that the two will be merged, although under which name I'm not sure yet. That would depend on which version appears to have the better overall structure, I think. For my part I'm just watching the discussion at WP:INCLUSION right now and thinking of it as a "proposed rewrite" for WP:N. The talk page thread WP:INCLUSION#WP:N and WP:AI has some good back and forth on what the two articles agree upon and what the differences are. I'm probably going to keep most of my comments over there, so that the WP:N talk page doesn't get too cluttered with things related to the merger. Dugwiki 22:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

suitable tag

From discussions well above, it is clear to me that WP:N does not have consensus as a guideline, and indeed never did. The most appropriate tag at this stage would be {{essay}}, to remain in place until it takes a form that is a realistic proposal for consensus. {{essay}} is useful in the interim to help prevent the frequent misuse for AfD of the argument, without elaboration: “fails WP:N”. SmokeyJoe 23:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

To be consistent with all the other subject specific notability guideline proposals which an editor recently tagged as "rejected" because he felt there was no consensus, what makes this one immune to the same tagging on the same theory? Sure would result in a lot more crappy articles being kept in deletion debates for lack of any guideline to point to that they fail to satisfy. Edison 03:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that {{rejected}} is too easy to apply, and maybe a consensus should be required. It is a dramatic thing to decide to give up. I’m suggesting a modified {{No-consensus}}, see Template_talk:Rejected. Am I trying to talk in the wrong place? SmokeyJoe 04:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD is a pretty dreary place, and the last thing it needs is more crappy articles, but I think that you are completely wrong about WP:N keeping crap out of it. The worst of the crappy articles are completely sourceless. They fail WP:ATT. Unfortunately, they are being deleted for failing WP:N, and nobody knows what WP:N means, certainly not the new contributors who write the crappy articles. If WP:N were not useful as an argument in AfD, then people would be forced to refer to policy. I’d prefer to see deletion arguments along the lines of: “no sources”, “no reliable sources”, or “the entire content is not really based on the attributed source”. Such arguments would serve to educate contributors what’s really needed, where references to a nebulous “notability” don’t. SmokeyJoe 04:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Edison, One reason is that this is a guideline not a proposal, where there are different standards for tagging. --Kevin Murray 03:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Joe, it seems that most of your changes are being adopted here. Do you object to the current version? I feel that your modifications just before protection make this much better than the older version(s). I'd like to see this trimmed about 30% in verbiage and then would support. --Kevin Murray 03:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I do object to the current version. There are multiple problems. While I suggest far above to discard, a lot of people don’t want to discard. I recognise that there is a lot of good intention invested here. Perhaps the situation is not as irretrievable as I think, so I am attempting to make improvements according to what I think is an excellent methodology to be found at Wikipedia:Consensus. I too can see use useful trimming to be done. SmokeyJoe 04:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Notability

I've noticed articles about Marketing, Management, Human resource management, Chemistry, Economics, Media and other similar topics are existed in wiki. Can any user write something new about these topics (Or totally new)? How can user judges its notability? Thanks--NAHID 07:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. The topics I mentioned above aren't available in wikiversity. Why? In wikiversity, sub topics are available.

Disputed

I've added the disputed tag. I'm aware this may open an edit war, in fact it already seems to have. That's not my intent. But I think anyone objecting to it needs to re-read this talk page. I did not agree with the way this page was protected, nor the length of time it was protected for, but this talk page clearly demonstrates that this guidance is in dispute. The page should reflect that. When a consensus is built in support for the guidance offered, or the guidance is amended to reflect a consensus, then remove the tag. Adding the tag will help drive people to participate in building the consensus and will reflect the situation. Hiding Talk 08:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

New Lead paragraphs

I took Smokey Joe's lead and condensed it. Hopefully for more clarity along with brevity. I removed the assertion that primary research can be used in the articles; this seems to conflict with higher level WP policy, although it seems reasonable to have some exceptions clarified in the detail sections below. Please consider helping this idea to evolve rather than reverting. Joe was bold, so I've been bold, hoping to fine tune his work without losing the spirit. --Kevin Murray 22:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm excited to see great progress in editing the new lead without reversions and much controversy. This might be evolving into something worthwhile. --Kevin Murray 18:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)

Back in February, WP:ORG was merged into WP:CORP . The merger occurred with no resolution of the wording of the former Wikipedia:Notability (organizations). The issue of "notabilty" for non-commercial organizations remains unresolved. Given that the final determination of the guideline may affect many articles and that WP:ORG/WP:CORP is oft-cited in AfDs, it would be helpful if more than a handful of editors participated in the discussion. Agent 86 00:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Require addition: English based

Seeing that many article that deleted is due to lack of english sources, I propose the following

• Sources must be from a creditable, english sources'

I know that it violated world view; however, many AFD, based upon WP:N (and inclusive, including WP:PORNBIO), got approved this way. No matter how we see this, the use of WP:N need to be rehaul, particularly when dealing with articles that is very popular or notable in other places Reasons that we need to clarify:

• We cannot assume the policy can apply to all countries. For example, Japanese culture make what constitute as reference very different from how we reference.
• It provide an easier way to verify sources

The main reason this argument is brought up is due to the need to save ourself future trouble when it comes time to defend or propose AFD. George Leung 22:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

God no. Horrible, horrible idea. Systematic bias in the worst possible way. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• In the name of all that is holy, no! Knowledge of a foreign language is equivalent to possessing technical expertise in a subject. I know little to nothing about quantum physics, but I will certainly not try to discredit these sources based on my inability to understand/interpret them. -- Black Falcon 02:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• No! Why should something highly notable in, say, India be blocked because it's not translated well? Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Inappropriate policy suggestion and it has no bearing on notability, so it is a double no. Jeepday 02:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Disagreed as well, plenty of editors speak languages other than English and are perfectly capable of using foreign-language source material. The fact that the only source material is in non-English languages should not disqualify the subject if the sourcing is sufficient and the editor using it can read it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Need I point out the irony of the broken English in this proposal? Anyway, Babblefish is your friend, and WP:CSB is a problem aggravated by this proposal. >Radiant< 15:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• I think that if you look at what George is trying to accomplish at a porn star's AfD, in context, this will fall into place as just confused attempt to manipulate the WP processes. Much ado about nothing. --Kevin Murray 17:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Absolutely not. Saying that something is more notable because its English instead of French is ludicrous. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not measured by editors’ subjective judgment.

Disagree. There are objective criteria that make a subject worthy of inclusion in the Wikipedia (i.e. "notable" in the context of this guideline) -- biggest, longest, richest, and first, last, only, etc.

But not everything that goes into the encyclopedia has objective merit. Editors look to subjective measures of importance, impact, or inclusion as an aspect of making the Wikipedia (or an article, list, or category) comprehensive in a context where being comprehensive is sought.

Editors therefore use subjective judgment in this regard to reach a consensus and that's the editing process, or at least what I observe and participate in.

Objective is employed here as a term of art that means once definitions are clarified and agreed to, there is an unanimity among sources as to what is a fact.

Subjective is employed here as a term of art meaning that editors can come to different conclusions about a decision to included or exclude consistent with facts (and source and attribution) not in dispute.

Frankly, any situation where editors accept a common set of facts as true, and yet come to different interpretations of them is exactly what "subjective judgment" is. So what's wrong with subjective judgment? patsw 21:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

What's good about deleting things that aren't famous (which could be one of those "subjective" measures you talked about), but may still be able to satisfy WP policy? Also, a better question may not be "is it measured by subjective judgments?", but rather "should it be measured by subjective judgments?" And furthermore, if everyone has a different conclusion on what is to be done with something, nothing can be done! mike4ty4 02:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

That's where consensus counts for something. There might be areas where only objective measurements are used. For examples, I can think of any "TOP 100" list The Top 100 Crime Novels of All Time (i.e. self-limiting in scope), or a list that needs to be comprehensive like Member states of the United Nations, but in the vast majority of cases, where there are not a priori objective criteria, the criteria are subjective, and editors reach a consensus on inclusion or exclusion.

But in those cases where no criteria apart from WP:N (which if it falls will be no criteria at all) exist, and it's 100% subjective, then who's to stop "I hate it!!!!" from becoming a valid argument? What sort of bar would be used? There needs to be at least partial objectivity. Otherwise it just sounds like a way to pick and choose what we want to keep or discard even if it has no actual benefit to the encyclopedia to do so. mike4ty4 05:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

For such a prominent declaration in the article (i.e It is not measured by editors’ subjective judgment.), I would expect better articulation and justification for it. I may just take the lack thereof as consensus to remove it. patsw 15:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

All "notability" is subjective. It's a simple fact. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that this sentence should be removed from the lead and discussed in some detail below. The problem is clearly identified in this discussion, that our standards virtually require some degree of subjectivity. I think that the ILIKEIT section covers this topic and it is not specifically germane to a discussion of notablility. --Kevin Murray 17:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Jeff's statement that "all notability is subjective" is not true. The fundamental point of WP:N is that something with multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources is notable. That is a completely objective test. Every key test in there is clearly defined by WP policies and guidelines - "multiple" meaning more than one, "non-trivial" meaning more than a passing mention, "reliable" meaning compliant with WP:ATT, "independent" meaning not affiliated with the subject of the article. It works perfectly, it is not subjective in any way, and there is no reason to change it. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 17:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The deeper that we get into this discussion the more clear it is that there is no way to define "notable" with purely objective criteria. The definition of "trivial" is absolutely open to debate, and is frequently subjected to subjectivity at AfD. --Kevin Murray 18:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Setting up subjective sub-tests doesn't make the notability criterion objective. Whether a particular source is "trivial," or how many sources are required to satisfy the "multiple" source requirement in any particular case, are both subjective. "Two or more published sources" would be an objective test. "Multiple, non-trivial sources" is subjective by definition. TheronJ 18:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

On a side point there are many of us who believe that although multiple is better, one very solid source can establish notability. The more current versions of WP:N reflect this option. --Kevin Murray 18:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It's an "objective" test based on a subjective decision that was made by a small group of editors. Why "multiple?" Why "non-trivial?" Entirely pulled from thin air. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I hardly think that notablity can be considered purely subjective. One can determine if a topic has press coverage or has in writen up in a book that has sold well. The problem is not the obvious cases like George W. Bush or Superman (which are notable), or the Woodburn Elementary School PTA (which obviously is not). Instead the issue is around the transition bewteen the two. So there needs to be some acknowledgement that a final determination may be somewhat subjective, but the underlying standards should be objective even if they are subject to interpretation in certain cases.

I am new to this discussion, but if what I am seeing of Wikipedia_talk:Notability (science) is any indication, one should be wary of the naysayers here as often they wish to have this type of guideline amended to obtain inclusion of a topic that they care about, but which legitimately is not included under this and other guidelines. --EMS | Talk 18:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, that's precisely what I'm saying.

• To TheronJ: "multiple" clearly implies "two or more". And "trivial" in WP:N does not refer to whether a source is trivial, it refers to whether the coverage is trivial, i.e. whether the source is mainly about the subject of an article. If the article is on X, then a news report solely about X constitutes non-trivial coverage; a one-line mention of X in a news report on something else constitutes trivial coverage. This is a clear and objective distinction.
• To Kevin Murray: no, one source is not enough. If Fred Bloggs, an otherwise non-notable student, appears in a human-interest story in one local newspaper because of his vast collection of Pokémon cards, then that doesn't demonstrate notability, however detailed and reliable the source. But if he appears in five separate news stories in different newspapers, in which his collection of Pokémon cards made the headlines, then he does qualify as notable. That's the essence of why we need this objective test. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 20:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

"Two or more" is necessary but not always sufficient to satisfy the "multiple" sub-criterion as it has normally been stated. Most versions of this page have explicitly stated that the specific number required to satisfy "multiple" will vary from page to page, depending on the "depth" of the sources cite. I do agree that if the page is edited to replace "multiple" with "at least two," then the only major subjective component remaining will be "non-trivial." However, I bet replacing "multiple" with "at least two" would fail specifically because people want to keep that element of subjectivity. TheronJ 20:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

And that's just the problem. People want to keep things subjective and murky to allow them to push their own points of view or to suppress things they don't like -- WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT are bad, baaaad arguments. mike4ty4 05:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Wild hysteria, not to mention a clear assumption of bad faith on the part of AfD voters. In terms of making "trivial" less subjective, see my comments later on this page. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 10:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Straw Poll

There has been lively discussion following page protection, and I think it is time to move the question. A few suggestions for a straw poll have been proposed above, and I have combined and modified them somewhat. I think the main issue before us is how to proceed once the page protection expires. So I have tried to summarize the various points raised recently into a taxonomy of five general areas. Please select one and add a brief explanation of why you think it is the best way to proceed. You can also add nuance to your position if you don't completely agree with one item, but please use another thread for extended commentary. With five choices and a diversity of opinion, no one choice is likely to get consensus on this go around, so this should only be considered a preliminary canvassing of the community, and a subsequent poll will probably be needed after alternatives with minimal support are dropped, and the choices refined. Please note that this straw poll specifically relates to next steps for this particular page only, and is not a poll on the concept of Notability or any other guidelines.

Keep

This guideline has broad and stable consensus, and consensus can be maintained with incremental improvement through the normal editing process. The concept and execution are good. It should continue to be tagged as a {{guideline}}:

Discuss

This guideline once had broad consensus, but the consensus is not stable because of a lack of consensus-based editing. The consensus can be restored by editing in a few problem areas following discussion of the issues, leading to a reasonable compromise. The concept is good but the execution has gone astray. The guideline should be tagged as {{Underdiscussion}}:

Revise

This guideline never achieved a stable consensus, and can not do so without significant revision. The text needs an overhaul. The concept has merit, but the execution has been poor. This page should be tagged as: {{Disputedtag}}:

Rebuild

This guideline has no consensus, and cannot achieve consensus within its present framework. The concept is fundamentally flawed and needs a rethink. The guideline should be cut down to a stub and rebuilt. The new guideline should initially be tagged as: {{proposal}}:

Discard

This guideline has no hope of consensus, and any attempts to rebuild it are futile. The concept is fatally flawed. This page should be retained only for historical reference. This page should be tagged as: {{historical}}:

--Dhaluza 16:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Delete

This guideline has no hope of consensus, and any attempts to rebuild it are futile. The concept is fatally flawed. This page should not be retained as it will be an ongoing point of contention. This page should be disappear and be salted.

• I added the last category, not that this is what I advocate, but if the consensus is to "discard" the whole notability infrastructure should be deleted and salted so we can look at other options for encyclopedic suitability. --Kevin Murray 16:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Suggestions

• Keep — This guideline should be kept, and we should think about making it an official policy. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 16:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)
• Discuss — I think this is probably an appropriate tag; the guideline could use improvement, but I don't see it as having never had consensus. It is a valuable part of Wikipedia and should be improved, not put on a track to repeal. --Brianyoumans 17:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)
• Rebuild — Although I suggested adding the disputed tag as a compromise, I don't see any signs of compromise from the hard-liners. Although I think that Notability will prove to be a Trip to Abilene, we should still try to create a guideline that works--but we are far from that, because the fundamental assumptions are off the mark. Also, I don't find evidence of consensus in the edit history. Dhaluza 17:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)
• Discard — Per Kevin Murray (below). The more I dig into the disgraceful edit history, and look at the arguments here, the less likely it looks that consensus is possible under this roof. I think we should just tag this as rejected, and move on. A guideline that discusses what should be included in this encyclopedia by clarifying and unifying policy, without expanding it, would be useful. But we can't get there from here, and need to start over. Welcome to Abilene. Dhaluza 17:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)
• Rebuild — Though I'm not sure if the proposal tag is appropriate. I think the page was best when it was still just an essay, and I would prefer that it return to that essay status. Notability does have some merit in AfD discussions and there should be a page describing the issue. But it shouldn't be an actionable guideline that permits editors to take hatchets to article simply for being non-notable or to override the subject-specific guidelines (which no one had problems with until this page became a guideline). --Farix (Talk) 17:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)
• Rebuild As per User:Farix "I would prefer that it return to that essay status...Notability does have some merit in AfD discussions and there should be a page describing the issue" Travb (talk) 08:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
• Revise or possibly {{discuss} or something in between. Without some at least temporary guideline the AfD discussions will become a total free-for-all. We have been using guidelines based on this, and without this the structure falls apart. The true dispute is whether we need the older strict guideline or this looser one--and having none at all satisfies neither side. We would at the very least need something to replace it. DGG 10:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
• Rebuild AfD discussions will not become a free-for-all in the meantime. Consensus can still be built on a case-by-case basis, and will still informed by the subject specific guidelines. This page should attempt to describe the "average consensus" that has been reached over all the AfD discussions that come down to an issue of notability. I think it should not be prescriptive, but descriptive - descriptive of what the consensus at the AfD discussions has shown. It should give old and new editors alike a feeling for whether an article would be deemed non-notable at an AfD if that AfD had not been informed by any "notability rule". Sanchom (talk) 10:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
• Keep, and consider making it an official policy.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 11:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
• Rebuild. Sanchom's position (2 comments up) is very close to my own. WP:N should be descriptive, not prescriptive.--ragesoss 12:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
• Discuss or discard. The wording sucks, the guideline is misunderstood, and it's being weilded to minimise the more important subject-specific guidelines. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
• Rebuild - the entire current approach to notability does not work, and should be abandoned in favor of an approach based on the question of whether we can write a good article on the subject. Phil Sandifer 13:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
  • If by "good" you mean attributable and encyclopedic, then the approach you suggest is the same approach suggested in the current version of WP:N. See the third sentence. Pan Dan 13:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
    • Actually, that's not what I mean - all of the problems with this page extend from the word "encyclopedic," a word we are largely incapable of working with on a level beyond "I don't like it, I think it's boring, I think it's trivial, let's delete it." Phil Sandifer 06:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)
      • "Encyclopedic" refers to WP:NOT--an official and pretty specific policy--not WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Pan Dan 09:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)
        • No it doesn't. WP:NOT nowhere defines "encyclopedic" except inasmuch as it discusses an "encyclopedic manner" of writing. It's a dreadfully vague term that is clearly at many points subjective. (See, for instance, "While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries.") In practice, encyclopedic has been a matter of "I don't find it interesting." There are no particular standards of what is encyclopedic beyond a tautology - what is notable is encyclopedic. What is encyclopedic is notable stuff. In both cases it amounts to "I know it when I see it," which is to say, "I don't much like it." Phil Sandifer 15:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)
• Rebuild or discard - it was created as an excuse for deletion when the nominator couldn't think of one that was actually in policy and has continued primarily to be used for this purpose. It's a possibly nice idea that's been hopelessly poisoned in practice. Burn it down - David Gerard 13:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
  • That's really not true... the basics of WP:N was created by Uncle G, who rarely nominates articles for deletion and who knows better than probably anyone else what policies to mention in an AFD. --W.marsh 13:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
    • Which is why this is puzzling, because it's very poor in execution. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
  • "an excuse for deletion when the nominator couldn't think of one that was actually in policy" -- but WP:N is a logical derivative of the core policies WP:A, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT. WP:N gives the nominator of article X a shorthand way to say "there's no way to write an attributed, neutral encyclopedia article on the topic of article X." It's the subject-specific criteria, not WP:N, which have no basis in policy. Pan Dan 13:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
    • WP:N isn't a logical derivtive of anything. It's a poor attempt at making a one-size-fits-all guideline for things that have different notability due to their subjects. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
      • As both my comment and WP:N itself (attempt to) explain why WP:N is a logical derivative of the Big 3, I think you should explain why you disagree. Pan Dan 14:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
        • Because "notability" has nothing to do with the verifiability of an article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
          • OK, now it's clear you're talking about notability in the sense of "importance" or "distinction." You're right, that sense of notability has nothing to do with policy. But this page is explicitly based on policy. You should really be arguing for renaming this page, not rejecting or revising its content. Pan Dan 03:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
            • No, this page has nothing to do with policy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 06:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
• voting is silly here. I don't really know what else to say... voting will not accomplish anything here. --W.marsh 13:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
  • Yes, this is rather ridiculous. (Also, I hope this is not a vote about what tag to put on the page.) —Centrx→talk • 14:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
    • You hope not, but it seems that way. As I've said, this is largely invalid without considering the guideline's use in practice-every user who cites notability is de facto assenting to the guideline. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 14:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
      • That sounds analogous to the description of a self-fulfilling prophecy to me. Dhaluza 14:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
        • Wouldn't say that, given that anyone who disagrees with a guideline around here is free to ignore it, subject of course to the community's decision on whether they should ignore it. If the community repeatedly says "No, that shouldn't be ignored in this case", they are supporting. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 14:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
    • As the tagging was a central issue in the edit war leading up to protection, that is an element of the poll. But I have tried to create a framework around each tag, focusing discussion around logical groupings of positions expressed by editors to get the sense of the community. Dhaluza 14:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
      • Pre-formed options are just several false dilemmas, and will not come up with any solution—that's what discussion is for. This is a waste of time. —Centrx→talk • 17:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
        • The fundamental law of navigation is that to get where you're going, you need to know where you are. Since we're not going anywhere now that the page is protected, it seems a reasonable use of time to try to find out where we are. Dhaluza 17:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
• Discard - It has become clear in recent months that these guidelines are arbitrarily and haphazardly adhered to and interpretations of it, even by single users, changes for reasons as frivolous as WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Key points in the guideline are changed and reverted like a United Airlines Terminal flight status indicator at O'Hare. In the end it is only confusing to new and old editors alike who have genuine interest in creating and maintaining quality and truthful information. --Oakshade 14:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
  • It sounds like you are referring to the many subject-specific notability guidelines. This discussion is only (I think) about one guideline, WP:N. You might want to clarify your comment. Pan Dan 14:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
    • I'm referring to the application of this so-called guideline which is frequently ignored by editors to suit their arguement. i.e. "Fails WP:N. This is not notable becuase it's not the subject of mulitple non-trival pulbished works" and the same editor in a different article talk page or AfD will say "It might have mulitple non-trival published works, but WP:N is just a guildline, and I think the subject is non-notable because [insert arbitrary argument]." --Oakshade 15:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
      • If editors are not applying a rule consistently, that's no reason to discard the rule. Should we get rid of WP:NPOV or WP:A because some editors don't apply them consistently either? Pan Dan 06:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
        • That's just it. The so-called "rule" isn't really a rule at all. It in effect invites inconsistant interpretation and application. --Oakshade 15:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

but discarding this will leave no standard at all, and thus lead to even greater fall of quality . The subject-specific guidelines are special cases of this one. Recent discussion on some of them has led to similar stalemates and a reliance upon the general WP:N, which is now about to disappear. DGG 14:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)

It seems I'm giving the wrong impression. These comments are about the inherent "Notablity" problem garnered by this core guideline. I agree that there needs to be some kind of framework of inclusion here, but so far with this I've only seen confusion, double-talk and "gaming the system" due to the arbitrary and ever-changing wording as to what is "notable." Do I have a solution? No. But something that is somehow "official" has got to be better than this. I have no problem of this being an essay. --Oakshade 15:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• Fnord. On reflecting, I don't care if this is a guideline, a wikispace essay, a policy every editor has to sign in virtual blood, a userspace essay, is tagged {{rejected}} or {{historical}}, or any combination of these. Its work is done. The idea that articles need sources, and that articles which probably can't be sourced get bitbucketed is an AFD commonplace. The WP:ATTers have gone further than that, and incorporated their message into the edit window boilerplate. Admittedly, people rarely read boilerplate, but rarely times large numbers of edits translates to quite a lot of reads, for the nutshell version at least. The content policies are covered at WP:5P and everything else is cruft. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)

What does Fnord mean? Travb (talk) 07:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Uh, why not look it up on Wikipedia: Fnord -- Dhaluza 07:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Ever notice how organizations, as they become more established, conservative, and selective, use certain buzzwords that only select members can understand? I hate that. There is a sociology term for this phenomenia, which I can't recall.  :( I still don't know what the fuck Fnord is. I think User:Angusmclellan is trying to be clever, problem is only veteran wikipedians understand his joke. :( Travb (talk) 07:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

That's because it doesn't mean anything, like my 42 !vote. Nifboy 11:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• Revise — As it stands, this policy is too open to abuse and misuse. A thorough debate needs to be held as to whether a policy like this is necessary and, if so, what better ways there are to implement it. -Xiroth 16:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
• Discard or heavily revise. In the early days of WP, notability's strength was that it was a catch-all for articles we agreed were not worth keeping but could not find any reason to delete under existing policy. Such fringe cases have shrunk as the realm of policy and guidelines continues to expand, making it pretty worthless to apply notability, much less have an objective definition of what is notable and what is not. It might be worth keeping this page if it's used only as a benchmark to determine what absolutely must be kept, and is not relied on to define what should be deleted. Also, I think the concept of notability would be relevant for those few fringe cases that fall through the cracks, but as these are so few in number, it's not worth getting worked up about them (and at any rate, this would not justify keeping a codified definition of notability). Johnleemk | Talk 21:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
• Keep and make official policy. Notability is an objective first step in assessing whether an encyclopedic article can be written. --Tbeatty 21:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
• Revise or Rebuild. —CComMack (t–c) 22:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
• 42, mostly in agreement with Angus McLellan. The lessons this page has to teach are more or less learned, even if it's not the best teacher. Nifboy 22:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
• Depreciate per Angus McLellan or Rebuild per talk page sentiment. In its present state, notability will remain prone to disputes and not applicable to all situations. If possible, delete and salt the page as contentious. There will always be a need for a guideline that can be used to prevent n00bs and oldies alike from adding nonsense to mainspace, just not this one. —davidh.oz.au 03:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
• Rebuild - I don't understand how I'm voting that "the concept is fundamentally flawed" but simultaneously am not voting on "a poll on the concept of Notability or any other guidelines." That said, the concept is badly broken, doesn't work, and makes Wikipedia the subject of ridicule. Can we start again, answering the basic question "What don't we include, and why don't we include it?" Stevage 05:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
  • It sounds like you agree with the concept of notability as defined in WP:N, and that you would approve of discarding the subject-specific notability guidelines. So why your vote to rebuild? This discussion is about what to do with WP:N, not the other notability guidelines. Pan Dan 06:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
    • No, I don't agree with the concept of notability as defined in WP:N at all. I'm not sure how you could get that reading from my statement. Stevage 18:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
      • WP:N answers the question "What don't we include and why." The subject-specific criteria--such as "has gone on an international concert tour or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country" (from WP:MUSIC)--invite ridicule, not WP:N. Pan Dan 07:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)
• Keep, perfectly sensible guideline for WP:ATT and WP:NOT policies, good encyclopedia writing. --Dragonfiend 06:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
• Keep as this guideline should be made an official policy. This project does not need articles about non-notables that write something on paper, and some feel that is enough for inclusion of an article about them here. Seriously, if you want to include non-notables in Wikipedia, we are all wasting our time as writers/editors. This is an encyclopedia, not an internet search engine that like a vacuum cleaner, picks up not just loose change from the carpet, but the dirt as well. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 07:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
• Keep. It's needed as a common point of reference to apply WP:NOT#IINFO to specific cases. Sandstein 09:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
  • Alternatively, we could just apply WP:NOT#IINFO directly to specific cases. That is possible by just saying in an AfD why the article under consideration falls into WP:NOT#IINFO and seeing what consensus agrees to at the time. Sancho (talk) 09:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
• Keep - Notability is a recognized and important standard that helps keep us from being swamped with unmaintainable cruft. Tom Harrison ^Talk 10:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
• Keep - as a regular participant in AfDs, I refer to notability criteria more often than to any other area of policy (particularly the "multiple non-trivial coverage" requirement). It's essential to have a generic page that describes the WP concept of "notability" and makes it clear, particularly to newbies, what we expect of a Wikipedia article. To be honest, although this is "only" a guideline, it functions like a policy; without it, it would be harder to control the flood of vanity pages with tenuous assertions of notability, articles on non-notable local bands and on non-notable corporations, and other pages created by new users who don't understand what Wikipedia is about. There's plenty of articles created every day that aren't eligible for CSD A7, but nonetheless need to be deleted; this guideline is an effective way of filtering them out. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 10:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• Discard or Rebuild, in agreement with Angus McLellan, this

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. All articles must follow our no original research policy and strive for accuracy; Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not a trivia collection, a soapbox, a vanity publisher, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or a web directory.

is and always has been enough. Notability as a concept is a band-aid generated by alarm at work loads and frantic claims that such and such articles aren't maintainable, etcetera. But notability is itself a judgment--one persons opinion on the basis of their experiences and values. So bubba, who the hell are you to tell folks what's important to them, what their values should be, or whether an unfamiliar topic is unworthy or worthy of coverage? Hell most leading edge science and engineering is not notable by these standards. They are severely flawed, put together by people with stars in their eyes and too much time on their hands, then somehow rubber stamped as a guideline. That's the bottom line, and the elitest mindset fostering this page and it's bastard children really are sophistry. Clever smoke and mirrors trying to sell respectable prejudice as 'is for their own good' to the poor ignorant natives. And all this sound and fury is for what? An attempt at trying to stanch blood-flow from a self-inflicted wound by another of the five pillars.

The real problem is 'totally open editing' of good page content, not that some article is put together for some wannabe personality with aspirations, or by some fans of a fringe topic, activity, or theory. If their is evidence that a few hundred or some small thousands of people are behind something, we should cover it, even hoaxes and wacko notions like "The US didn't land on the Moon", for they are also part of society, one of the fundamental categories in our own organizational heirarchy!!!

Many such articles serve wikipedia well by attracting readers as a monitor the pulse of the world society. Checking a fact on a wp article is and has become commonplace to a whole generation and many of their predecessors, AND their parents because of the shear breadth and depth of articles.' Limiting that dynamism is a bad idea and always has been, and that's all such a measure does and or will do. This is a tool of the deletionist, who apparently never connect the fact that their values are not someone else's, but nonetheless strive to impose their world views on the rest of us. Being noisy and energetic, they wear the rest of us down--then put together this sort of claptrap because they clique together and don't see the distress their demonstrative noise causes in the rest of the community. People avoid Afd for that very reason. It's wearing to experience so much negativism day after day.

So the policy change needed is not someone's content limiting values imposed on the world society, but whether or not Wikipedia can evolve to involve a multi-tiered editing policy that protects good and excellent content while still allowing that dynamic free for all spirit that built the whole collection in the first place, for that ladies and gentlemen, is what gets people interested in navigating the snake pit of way too many side-links and conflicting guidelines plus the technical challenges.

Then litte johnny deletionist comes along and says "Ho! This music group isn't notable. SPLAT - TAG - AFD! Violence to a lot of effort by someone that could probably turn into a better editor than little johnny ever will be, save someone bit them, and the rest of us let them get away with it! Where's the need to combine short one screen articles into huge masses of verbage in long composite articles? Where's the need to limit article counts, because it's not an topic covered in a competing media, dead tree or electronic? We are the trend setters, revere that fact, enjoy it and embrace it, but recognize that if such a standard were in place in the early days many of our best editors would not have stuck around to add tens and hundreds of core articles.

Bury this thing and all it's children and focus on the mission. This endless gum beating by this deletionist and mergist crowd is not the way to get article quality up, but by editing articles. Period! We don't need another guideline, but less. Jump into WP:CONCISE and the GAC/FAC processes and do things to help Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team, WP:CORE, and Wikipedia:Vital articles, and that will accomplish more given a regular consistent effort than any 100 policies. They really get in the way much of the time, as common sense does not. Most of all, the proliferation of all these 'guidelines' just steal peoples time away from adding or editing content. The underlying premise is plain--limit the number of articles. If you see wikipedia's way forward as a closed set of static articles, which repudiates how we got here, then keep (these) and this. If you see it as a dynamic energetic medium, as I do, then tell this cabal to take their elitism and shove it. // FrankB 10:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8) (refactored --edit conflict with below section added!)

Cutting is a necessary editorial task, just as much as writing is. This artificial "deletionist/inclusionist" divide does little good and probably a lot of harm. Not everything that's in any draft, should be, and Wikipedia is the ever-draft. Some editors look for that and prune it. Just as we should look to make the writer's job as easy as possible, we should look to make the editor/cutter's job as easy as possible. They both perform valuable functions, and to pretend that only one or the other is necessary is foolish. To add material without ever cutting is equivalent to cancer and will lead to a drastic quality decrease, to cut without ever adding means sooner or later nothing would be left. You attack those who do more cutting for "causing negativity", yet can you not see how your polemic and rather uncivil statement does the same? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 11:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• Keep and make it an official policy.Torturous Devastating Cudgel 13:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
• Rebuild. It links notability too much with sources. We need to decide whetehr a topic is suitable and then write about it if there are sources. --Bduke 17:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• Agree--WP:ATT covers this--it's redundant here. We should have a stand-alone definition for notability or suitability. Dhaluza 19:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• Revise. I favor a combination of the previous and the current versions. Essentially, I want it to read something like this: a topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself. I strongly oppose the notion that sources should be required to be independent of each other. In addition, I believe this general notability criterion should be sufficient, but not necessary to establish notability. Any topic that meets it is by default notable (reasonable exceptions can be made per consensus). However, a topic that does not meet it may still be considered notable if there is strong consensus for its inclusion (e.g., official settlements). -- Black Falcon 20:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
  • Addendum. I strongly oppose turning this into a policy given its proneness to not-unfrequent subjectivity and/or ambiguity and the obvious lack of consensus as to what should happen to it. -- Black Falcon 23:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
• Discard. As someone relatively new to wikipedia there's nothing I find more discouraging than the incessant abuse of the Notability guideline to attempt to delete anything and everything that some random editor decides he doesn't like. Verifiability and NPOV are sufficient. Notability will always be crippled by subjectivity and hence will almost always end up being synonymous with WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --JayHenry 21:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
  • Discarding this page will do nothing to prevent people from deciding about the notability of a topic. Articles were deleted for this reason long before the formal concept of "notability" existed and long before this page was tagged as a guideline. Articles will continue to be deleted based on notability regardless of whether this guideline is discarded, but without the advantage of the collective wisdom and objective conditions that this page codifies. Discarding it would do the opposite of what you want. —Centrx→talk • 21:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
    • If this guideline were discarded, technically closing admins on AFDs should disregard any arguments that just claim that the topic is "not notable", so it is less likely that articles would be deleted. Please note that I'm just writing this comment as a clarification and do not actually support discarding the notability guideline (I believe it should be revised). -- Black Falcon 23:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
• Discard. I agree with JayHenry above. 99of9 21:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• Keep per Walton and make it an official policy. Heck, make it a Wikimedia-wide policy while we're at it. At its most fundamental level WP:N should be a filter against articles that are inappropriate to an encyclopedia. This includes things that are of such minor importance that the outside world has not bothered to write "multiple non-trivial" (or whatever words we're using these days) stories about the topic. Wikipedia will be MUCH more abused as a marketing/MySpace/etc. tool if WP:N wasn't around. I agree with Seriphimblade and strongly disagree with FrankB. Cutting is a necessary part of the editing process. Zunaid©® 23:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• Keep Helps use define what is and what isn't notable...may need revision however.--MONGO 02:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)
• Rebuild. Notability is definitely an important matter to consider when discussing the suitability of various topics but I have two very strong objections to the policy as written.
  1. First, I think notability is a subjective term, indeed just as subjective as "a good article" is.
  2. My second and greater objection is the "primary notability" criterion, calling for "one substantial or multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other". The presence of this type of source is of course a good thing, but it is an issue of WP:ATT, not an issue of notability. With this notability criterion, we get a horrendous systematic bias favoring subjects and events in the developed world where the media is well-developed. A village of 1000 people somewhere in England will easily pass this notability criterion. A town of 2000 people somewhere in sub-Saharan Africa will probably not pass it. All fatal car crashes in a small country like Norway would be notable. A car crash somewhere else would probably not be. The reason for the discrepancy in getting hold of these sources is not a difference in notability, but a difference in how developed media coverage is. Although there is some correlation between the presence of detailed sources and the subject's notability, the systematic bias caused by using the presence or lack of sources makes that a very poor definition of notability. To go back to the village example, if a random village somewhere in the world has no sources whatsoever, then I would still call the village notable (as would I all human settlements), but unfortunately no article can be made which meets the attribution requirement (without any way of reasonably verifying the subject, we cannot keep it no matter how notable the subject might be). If the only sources we have are a map showing its location, the country, region, and the roads leading to it, and perhaps a simple entry on a census table, we have enough information for a valid stub which I am quite sure would be kept no matter how trivial the sources we have are.

I will make a small consession though: many scientific theories gain their notability due to attention from other scientists and/or the popular media. In such cases the presence of many or few sources may be a much stronger indication of the theory's notability. I realize that.

In short, I think notability is something we can have a guideline for, but I have objections to the current text. I think that definitions for notability are best reserved for more specific categories of articles, such as WP:MUSIC, WP:FICT or WP:WEB. Sjakkalle (Check!) 04:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• Discard or rebuild. The basic problem is one of execution: that this is treated as a deletion guideline when it should be treated as an organizational guideline. Although the text of the guideline itself is not too bad, its application usually results in deletion of material that does fit into Wikipedia (though likely not as an independent article), and is therefore rarely productive. Christopher Parham (talk) 12:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)
• Discard Based on the unwillingness of several people to compromise even on the smallest issue, and the reactionary votes to make this policy in the midst of controversy, I can't see any resolution within this framework. I firmly believe that we need some minimum objective standard for inclusion into WP, but this framework has become unworkable. I would delete and salt this location and begin fresh elsewhere under a name other than "notability" and in the interim suspend all sub pages of notability until we can design a workable core policy. In the meantime, XfD will work just fine on the continuing good sense of the participants and admins. --Kevin Murray 13:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)
  • I think you hit the nail on the head. How anyone can say in good faith that this guideline represents a broad consensus is beyond my comprehension. Based on the arguments, it does not even have rough consensus. I disagree with salting it though. I would rather see it rejected, and leave it stand as an example of how trying to force consensus with "the ends justify the means" arguments does not work. Dhaluza 17:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)

TALLY to this point: (counting full votes twice, this or thats one for each, fnords not at all, only bolded text): 22 Keep, 3 Discuss, 5 Revise, 21 Rebuild, 15 Discard. Brianyoumans 16:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• Comment. This really does show there is no consensus. There is a large group who want to keep the current page or make small modifications and there is a large group who wants a root and branch change or removal. I think the straw poll can end. We need to discuss how to handle this wide divergence of opinion. However, I think it is clear that the page can not be seen as an accepted guideline. --Bduke 17:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)
• Comment I think that we should keep voting for a few days. I think there is a definite split between the people voting on the first day or so of the poll - people who were involved in the discussion, who were largely dissatisfied with the guideline - and later, more uninvolved voters, who are more in favor of either keeping (or, to be fair, of discarding, as well). About 75% of the keep votes were on March 4th or later. --Brianyoumans 19:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)
  • Trouble is, this isn't a vote, and it's quite clear that there's no consensus among those who care enough about this policy to voice their opinion. Discussion would be more productive than voting. Johnleemk | Talk 04:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I agree with Brianyoumans... the more editors get a chance to participate in this phase and feel like their voice has been heard, the better the next phase will go. We've had WP:N for a while, so those who don't like it are at least used to it as status quo; no need to rush things now.--ragesoss 09:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

The problem is, that most of the !votes are not going to be very well informed about the debate. Just look at the one below. If you read the comment, it more of a discuss or even revise comment. --Farix (Talk) 14:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• Keep. We need this guideline to help set limits for what we include, though maybe it can be tweaked some and improved. --Aude (talk) 09:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

NEW TALLY to this point: (counting full votes twice, this or thats one for each, fnords not at all, only bolded text): 24 Keep, 3 Discuss, 5 Revise, 21 Rebuild, 15 Discard. Brianyoumans 17:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• Keep per Walton above. PubliusFL 21:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Discard. WP:N is misquoted, misused and pseudoscholarship. A poorly defined, wikipedia-specific "notability" was created, and it doesn't match real-world usage. Everything useful in WP:N is covered by WP:Attribution, with WP:5P providing a succinct summary covering content. Specific exclusions should be covered specificly, by WP:Not, for example. WP:Notability, and all its spawn should be rolled back. SmokeyJoe 03:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Discard for all the reasons SmokeyJoe mentions right above this post. - Peregrine Fisher 06:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep until something better is formulated This debate is now so lengthy that achieving or assessing consensus is going to be challenging. The essential point is, as we all really accept if we stop to think, is that there are many articles submitted on a daily basis to the encyclopedia which are clearly wholly unsuitable. And while many fail under other parameters, a large number can only be defined as non-notable. We could re-name the category as "unimportant", or "trivial", or "uninteresting", or even "non-encyclopedic" but any of these alternatives run a risk of falling over WP:POV, and all of them depend on subjective assessment. As does the current policy. But if subjective assessment of the worth of an article is not allowed, then the project will be swamped with meaningless trivia and its value as a reference work will evaporate.--Anthony.bradbury 11:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • But if we make it totally subjective and "up in the air", then WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT suddenly become valid, and Wikipedia will become a freeforall where everything and anything is kept and deleted at a whim. Just look at something the wrong way, and *poof*, it is gone. There must be some sort of agreed-upon guidelines to limit how far subjective judgments can be taken. "Worth" needs to have some definition, there needs to be some general idea of what makes something worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, and it needs to be put into a set of guidelines. mike4ty4 02:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Discard — Using notability as a guideline is flawed, and hinders the primary mission of Wikipedia (see discussion above). While citing and sourcing the material is essential, deleting otherwise informational articles based on notability is counter productive. Without even looking very deeply, I was able to come across multiple cases where notability was used as a cause for deletion, without any sense of depth of research in actually verifying that cause. Doing a quick google search does not qualify as a notability qualification! If you can't be bothered to actually get involved in the topic, then don't try to delete it. 24.18.184.129 02:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• 'Delete - This notability page can, no matter how hard it tries, be little more than subjunctive. Furthermore, I doubt there will ever be consensus. I think maybe this will be the only point in the history of Wikipedia where Jimbo will have to flip a coin for us. Honestly, we're never going to agree. Kopf1988 01:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Question

Would it be appropriate to AfD 2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game? I mean individual football games. So what if it's the first meeting between the two teams, the game seems inherently non-notable. I hesitated to be bold because it looked well-sourced but in theory any article about any individual sports contest could be well sourced. Any thoughts. IvoShandor 09:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I got a second opinion from another user and went ahead and AfD this article. Thanks anyway. IvoShandor 10:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Chart Logistics Discussion

• • • • By the way, this chart is completely screwing with my display, making this very hard to read. Why you need it to be huge on this screen, I have no clue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
        • OK Jeff, I've made it smaller. --Kevin Murray 19:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Well, it's a little better, but thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
            • Jeff, I've gone back to the original and tried to make the text bigger relative to the graphic and reduced the width of the original. Is that better? I have a wide screen and I probably see things differently, but I want it to work for all. --Kevin Murray 19:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
              • Riiiight. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

---

N/A to article-content (continued)

(Continued from 'Does "notability" apply to the content of articles? -- Proposed add to guidelines: "N/A to article-contents"',above.)

Fifth draft

This is what was added to the guidelines 21:22, 20 February 2007 by Lonewolf BC, but then deleted from them 03:32, 21 February 2007 by Centrx. It's of two parts: The upper bit went at the end of the introduction of the guidelines, and the lower part was a last section of the guidelines.

Note that these are guidelines for allowable article topics within Wikipedia, not for allowable content within Wikipedia articles.

....

== Notability is not needed by particular article-content ==

These and all the notability guidelines are for allowable article topics within Wikipedia, not for allowable content within a legitimate Wikipedia article. Although issues of article-content are sometimes discussed, on talk-pages, in terms of the content's "notability", that is not exactly "notability" in the sense of these guidelines, which do not directly apply to such matters: "Notability", in the sense of these guidelines, is not needed in order for particular information to be included in a Wikipedia article. For such article-content issues, see the guidelines on verifiability, reliable sources, and trivia. (Note also, though, that within Wikipedia's guidelines, generally, the term "notability" means what it means in the notability guidelines.)

Discussion of 5th draft

Centrx's reason for deleting it (copied from "Problems with recent changes", above):
Also, as explained above, notability is relevant to whether article content is included. The notability of the information and the reason for the notability of the subject is explicitly referenced in WP:BLP and WP:RS, and otherwise is the major factor in whether information is included in an article and how it is organized. —Centrx→talk • 19:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Centrx, I believe that the aspect of notability of your concern was taken into account by the chosen wording. If you think otherwise, you must be more specific. Please either explain what you mean well enough that I can better accommodate it, or write a draft yourself that does so. Naturally, I have already consulted BLP and RS. I really do not see what problem you see. -- Lonewolf BC 01:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Okay, I think I might see your problem, now. You are construing the fifth draft as saying that notability, in the common sense of the word, is not a consideration for article-content, or at least you are worried that it might be construed that way. That is not the intent. The intent is to make clear that "notability", in the special sense of compliance with the notability guidelines, is not needed by each piece of article-content. (Indeed, this whole business arises from equivocation upon "notability" -- its common and special senses.) I'm still not positive I have rightly understood you, though. -- Lonewolf BC 18:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC-8)

One thing to consider is that if garage bands are not notable, would an article on Garage bands in the Detroit metro area be notable if it was just a compendium of non-notable article content? I would think no, but that is just MHO. And of course, if there were multiple feature stories on the bands as a group, that could make it jump the shark. Dhaluza 04:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Notability, in the special sense of the word, is relevant to whether article content is included. Article content must be relevant to why the topic is notable in the first place, especially for any biography of a living person and any weakly reliable source. Articles do not simply contain any and all verifiable information about a topic. —Centrx→talk • 07:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Your response leaves me puzzled, and thinking we have not been understanding one another at all well.
Who said anything about "...any and all..."? Certainly I did not, and that's not at all what I'm driving at. Nor do I think that any of the draft versions have implied such a thing.
I think we must have different ideas of what "the special sense of the word" is. I used it to mean the requirement for multiple, non-trivial, independent sources. If you mean that same thing by it, then you would seem to be saying that all article content must have multiple, non-trivial, independent sources. This goes right back to my initial question (now archived, unfortunately), and would answer it contrariwise to the way a number of other people did. I somewhat doubt that that is really what you mean, but if it is not, then just what do you mean? Likely it would help if you told me what is your understanding of the "special sense" of "notability". I'm thinking (and hoping) that it is something like what I mean by the "ordinary sense of notability" -- "worthy of note" -- which of course is relevant to what goes into an article, although not in an all-or-none way.
This brings me to your middle sentence: I believe that you are misinterpreting the other guidelines that mention "relevant to notability". For example, JRR Tolkein is notable for his fiction, not really for his career as an academic, and certainly not because his father-side ancestors were craftsmen with roots in Saxony, yet these are covered in the article on him, which was lately a front-pager. Scarcely anyone is notable because of where they were born, and in most cases the exact place makes no difference to their notability, yet birthplaces are ordinarily given in biographies. Rather, there are particular classes of potential content that need to be "relevant to notability" (controversial matter about living persons, particularly). -- Lonewolf BC 23:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Sixth draft

Notability guidelines do not specifically pertain to the content within an article. For content issues, see verifiability, reliable sources, and trivia.

Seventh draft

Notability guidelines pertain to article topics, but do not specifically limit content within articles.

• This one seems to be the clearest and most supported by the notability criterion: "a topic is notable if ..." -- Black Falcon 11:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Eighth draft

Notability guidelines pertain to article topics but do not specifically limit content within articles. For issues of article content, see especially the guidelines on verifiability, reliable sources and trivia.
I think that is still not immune to the pig-headed, but it would be better than nothing. -- Lonewolf BC 23:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Ninth draft

(to add at end of introduction)

Notability guidelines pertain to article topics but do not directly limit content within articles.

(to add as a last section)

== Notability guidelines do not directly limit article-content ==

These and all the notability guidelines are for allowable article topics within Wikipedia, not for allowable content within a legitimate Wikipedia article. That is, not all material included in an article must, in itself, meet these criteria. For issues of article content, see especially the guidelines on verifiability, reliable sources and trivia. Note also, though, that other guidelines refer in places to "notability", meaning notability as defined by these guidelines.

-- Lonewolf BC 09:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Induction vs. Deduction / Subjective (Dis)Like

A number of the comments on this page seem to be of the type: "Well, I want articles on topic X to be kept/deleted, so let's adjust the notability guidelines accordingly" or "Well, articles on topic X obviously do/don't deserve to be in an encyclopedia, so let's try to find a way that excludes them". This is really nothing more than adjusting guidelines based on WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I think it is counterproductive to try to change or keep the general notability criterion in order to allow/exclude certain topics.

Shouldn't the issue at hand simply be: is there enough information available on this subject to write (at least) a stub-class article? That there is plenty of information on Pokemon cards (an example from this talk page) or other subjects that some editors consider "crufty" is no reason to try to find ways to devalue those sources (that's a subjective preconception that Pokemon is inherently unencyclopedic). Conversely, that there are no independent, non-trivial sources on a Carthaginian general to allow us to write at least a stub-class article on him/her is no reason to try to find ways to get this individual included by changing guidelines (an example similar to one in discussion above). Exceptions can be made under WP:IAR, but the whole premise of a guideline should not be to make a positive or negative exception for articles on a certain subject. I urge all of us involved in this discussion to keep this in mind. Thank you, Black Falcon 11:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Actually there's more to articles than just whether or noth there is enough published verifiable information for a stub. For example, I could theoretically write a stub or greater size article summarizing everything discussed for a given issue of the New York Times. I could list all the headlines, give a short synopsis of every story, sum up all the editorial opinion articles and letters to the editor for the day, and provide a run down of any other notable bits from that day's paper. Clearly such an article would be verifiable and, so long as I kept everything objective, not original research. I imagine such articles could be reasonable in length, too. I also don't see anything that it would violate in WP:NOT either.

But despite meeting all those policies and passing the "stub" test, I'm fairly sure we have good consensus that Wikipedia isn't supposed to have an article for every daily edition of the New York Times or any other paper. So the question isn't just whether there "is enough published information for an article", it's also "is there more than just a few days interest in this specific subject?" Dugwiki 12:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I do not mean to suggest that sufficiency of information to write a stub should be the only criterion, but rather that it should be the minimal criterion, from which we may then move on. I am fairly confident the NYT example you bring up is a case for WP:NOT#IINFO point 6: Wikipedia is not an "annotated text". In any case, my comment was intended as a criticism of comments of the type, "well, this guideline allows for articles on topic X, which are inherently unencyclopedic, so the guideline must be changed". Such judgments about the inherent (un)encyclopedicity of topics are inherently subjective, except in cases of pre-existing definition. By "cases of pre-existing definition" I mean cases which are directly relevant to the Enligsh-language definition of "encyclopedia". For instance, the definition of an encyclopedia precludes it from being a dictionary (I realise that the former developed from the latter, but this development took place long ago and the distinction has existed for over a century). This distinction is expressed as WP:WINAD, but WP:WINAD did not create this distinction; it existed long before Wikipedia even came into existence. -- Black Falcon 13:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I think we're almost in agreement. I would say that there isn't a "single minimal" criterion for articles to be kept, but rather there are a handful of two or three loosely related criterion. One of these criterion is, as you said, that there should be enough verifiable information to produce more than a couple of sentences for the article. A second minimal criterion, though, would be that even if an article is verifiable that the information should be of less than completely fleeting interest to Wikipedia readers. That second requirement is defined in part under WP:NOT, and WP:N also is intended to help futher refine the definition.

Now obviously people are going to have different opinions on exactly where lines should be drawn in borderline cases. But I think almost all the editors agree that most (not all) articles which have at most one verifiable reference should probably not be included in Wikipedia as a practical matter for various reasons, even if they otherwise meet the policies. It's not simply a matter of "taste" or "bias against cruft", etc, but more of some actual limits on editorial maintainence, fact checking and helping readers by filtering out information that the vast bulk of the readers will probably never access. That trimming helps keep the encyclopedia more efficient for both readers and editors alike. And the guideline WP:N comes into play by trying to help make those trimming decisions as consistent as possible. Sure, editors don't HAVE to follow a guideline, but by and large its in editor's best interests to try and follow guidelines unless a good case can be made for an exception. That way article authors hopefully don't have a "moving target" they need to meet to avoid a possible editorial consensus against keeping their article.

For my part, my opinion is that WP:N should hopefully represent a bare minimum level of sourcing that almost all editors can agree to. That allows us to use WP:N to filter out the "worst case" offenders efficiently and focus our possible deletion discussions on the borderline cases. It also represents an increased challenge for borderline articles to be deleted, because if they meet WP:N there is an implication that by default the article should probably be kept unless there is some important reason not to do so.

My appologies for the somewhat rambling reply. Hopefully I was able to explain the points I was trying to get across. Dugwiki 14:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I would generally disagree to the "stub" test, we shouldn't have permastubs (articles which could never be expanded beyond a stub). We should be able to write a comprehensive article using only secondary sources about a subject, with primary sources relegated to a limited role. In terms of localities, above, census data and the like is not a source which allows a comprehensive article. Books and such on the location would be. Nothing is notable "because it's a...". It is either notable because significant amounts of secondary sourcing have been written about it, or non-notable because that has not occurred. That is not a bias. It is a prevention of bias. It places the determination of what's notable or not squarely out of the hands of editors, where it does not belong, and into the hands of those who write our source material, where it does belong. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 15:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)

User:Seraphimblade, I think you make some excellent points. :) Travb (talk) 08:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I think Seraphimblade's argument that "census data and the like is not a source which allows a comprehensive article" is demonstrably false. For example, see: Centre County, Pennsylvania. This is just one sample of thousands of similar articles created using only U.S.census data. It is far more comprehensive than many notable WP articles. Also, based on his argument that the guideline should reflect the consensus of what the community actually does, this means that the standard of notability that requires multiple secondary sources does not have consensus. I think the multiple secondary sources standard is applicable to a wide range of subjects, but as I have been trying to point out repeatedly, it is not universally applicable to all. Dhaluza 11:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)

WP:ATT (derived from WP:V and WP:NOR) is an official policy, the work of widespread consensus, and specifically states that primary sources should be relegated to a limited role, and should never be the sole basis for an article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 11:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Yes, but that is a relatively recent addition. When these articles developed, they were consistent with policy. And I think that the recent crusade to change these policies is misguided, as the example I presented is clearly encyclopedic, and it's loss would not improve WP. Continuing this would should not require following WP:IAR. Dhaluza 12:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I disagree with your declaration that WP:ATT specifically states that primary sources should be relegated to a limited role, and should never be the sole basis for an article. It specifically states both that Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible and that (m)aterial from self-published or questionable sources may be used in articles about those sources, so long as the article is not based primarily on such sources. Let's let the policies speak for themselves, rather than use our inferences of what they mean, it keeps everyone on the same page. Hiding Talk 12:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Agree with Hiding. While it may be possible to make such a restrictive interpretation of WP:ATT, that interpretation is not explicit in the policy and such an interpretation is most definitely not policy. older ≠ wiser 13:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Ah, but it states that more specifically. "Material from self-published or questionable sources may be used in articles about those sources, so long as: ... the article is not based primarily on such sources. (emphasis mine)." So yes, it very specifically states that primary sources should be relegated to a limited, supplementary role, and not used as the primary basis of any article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 13:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I think the point is that you appear to be conflating "primary sources" with "self-published or questionable sources". They're two quite different things. While self-published or questionable sources may also be a primary source, that does not in any way deprecate quality primary sources. older ≠ wiser 14:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Yes, I saw that. But here's how that works. If only very obvious information from primary sources is put in with no interpretation, we've got a directory entry or indiscriminate collection of information, which fails WP:NOT. On the other hand, if interpretation is performed which is not from a secondary source, it must have been performed by an editor here. That editor's interpretation is a questionable, unreliable source. So either way, articles cannot be based solely or mainly upon primary sources. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 14:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Well, in a sense that leap in reasoning you made there goes to the heart of the perpetual confusion on WP about what exactly is a "primary source" as well as other contentious issues. As a reality check, would articles about music albums that contain only track listings and production note and perhaps some sales figures would fail your test? I think that is probably a clearer example of the use of primary sources than place articles based on Census or Survey data. older ≠ wiser 14:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Yes, if that's all that's available, the album should be merged and redirected to its parent band, not covered in its own article. (We can even redirect straight to the album section, "anchored" redirects now work.) That's a very clear example of primary-source only articles. (Of course, if secondary source materials are later found, and the album can be expanded, it may then merit spinning back out.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 14:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

To a degree, I agree with this. But I wouldn't want to see it promoted as some sort of general rule (that stubs should always be merged) or even as s simplistic algorithm to determine which stubs get merged and which don't. Such merging requires a fair degree of skill to do it well. Besides, there are problems with anchored redirects that place limits on their usefulness. Subsequent editors may not consider the merged material to be sufficiently relevant to the parent article and delete it or whittle it away to a point of making the redirect useless. Or the section heading may be altered, making the redirect not go to the right section, leaving a reader wondering why a link took them to an apparently random article. older ≠ wiser 15:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

As one of the authors of that complicated policy, I'd like to pipe in here. I certainly am not claiming priority in interpreting what we were aiming at, but it was a very long, complex, adversarial conversation that led to the wording. Let me say, that *if* an article is based entirely on primary sources, then it probably does not pass the bar that states that it must be "the subject of multiple, non-trivial, third-party...". In other words, the issue should not come up *here* at all, since it cannot pass the lower bar. My second point is, that if I were to read an article which was evenly divided between paraphrasing secondary sources and quoting primary ones, that is 50-50, I'd have no problem with it. In fact I'd think it's quite good. And yes, I advocate, in all cases, quoting primary sources, not paraphrasing them. That way leads to madness. Wjhonson 13:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

So are you saying the example listed above (Centre County, Pennsylvania) "cannot pass the lower bar"? Dhaluza 13:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I don't think the sole criteria would be the amount of text attributed to primary sources, but rather their importance to the article. In some cases, an article 50-50 split between primary and secondary might be very clearly based on the secondary sources, in others it may mainly use the primary ones. As to Centre County, I'm sure plenty of secondary source material is available on any US county, scholars and analysts study at a county level all the time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 13:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

In this particular case, I quickly reviewed the article and note several statements of fact that could not come from Census reports. Simply because the Census bureau doesn't collect some of the facts that this article sports. So apparently there are other sources. The sources for the article are not named. Perhaps a tag could be added to try to tease them out. Wjhonson 13:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

FWIW, I don't think Census Data really qualifies as a "primary source", at least not in the form released by the Census. The actual survey questionaires and the raw tabulation, yes that is unquestionably "primary" material. But the data released for public consumption by the Bureau has been processed, even some corrections made, and I would hope some level of verification that the released data is accurate (at least to the standards used by the Bureau). It is not a primary source in the same sense as a collection of a correspondence or unpublished notes or a transcript of a dialog. older ≠ wiser 14:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

FWIW, better think again. From WP:ATT/FAQ: "Examples of primary sources include...census results..." Dhaluza 14:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Hmm, while I respect the hard work people have put into WP:ATT/FAQ, but it doesn't necessarily get everything right. It is not policy and isn't even an actual guideline yet. My point, if there was one, is that there are different types of primary sources and it does not help to treat all primary sources the same way. I mean, yes, census numbers are pretty much just data, and are primary in that sense. Drawing conclusions from the data is interpretive/analytical work. But re-presenting the numbers without additional interpretation is not a problem. I guess your objection would be that if the article contains nothing other than census data, there's no encyclopedic value. I disagree, and I think repeated !votes in the past to delete the Rambot-generated articles have failed, usually be a wide margin. I think a consesnus has developed within the community that such articles about populated places are valid encyclopedic topics and justifiable as placeholders for eventual expansion. older ≠ wiser 15:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Let's start a categorization

I've started this page to help us out in the case that we decide to rebuild this guideline. I think the steps on that page would allow us to write something useful and informative. The plan that I've outlined there obviously isn't in stone... feel free to tweak it. I've started this ahead of the outcome of the above because it will take some time to do thoroughly and with consensus at each stage. The first part doesn't take any time for people to contribute to: it's just a categorization of a bunch of topics onto each side of the notable/non-notable dividing line. Please add to this list. We might not end up using it if the decision from above is not to rebuild but it will be good to have in the case that we do. Sancho (talk) 10:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I don't understand what you are trying to do. We could just look at precedents from AfD, rather than building an arbitrary list. There is a page that covers this already: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. Dhaluza 10:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• Okay, we could populate it with common outcomes, that would make sense. I was trying to make a specific list of topics from a bunch of people so that we could see if other policies explain the division already. Hopefully people will put borderline cases that they feel aren't explained by the other policies. Then we would know exactly where the other policies are deficient and have clear direction for what this guideline needs to add that the other guidelines/policies don't cover.Sancho (talk) 11:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

The answer is easy anyway, without picking out a whole bunch of arbitrary examples.

• Notable for an encyclopedia: Anything on which we can write a good-quality article (not just a stub, stubs are acceptable, but not if that's all that can ever be done), from the use only of reliable secondary source material, with primary sources relegated to a limited, supplementary role.

• Not notable for an encyclopedia: Anything else.

Really, it is that simple. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 10:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• If that is the simple answer, why has it not been agreed to by consensus on this page? Sancho (talk) 11:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Why are stubs not acceptable? Won't they eventually get merged or expanded? Isn't that the point? And how do you know a priori that a subject will only support a stub? Do you already have a more comprehensive definitive reference? Dhaluza 10:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I'm thinking that he probably means "if it cannot be expanded beyond being a stub". In other words, if all we can write that satisifes Wikipedia policy -- especially the two core policies of WP:NPOV and WP:ATT -- is just a stub, it doesn't belong, as a stub that cannot be expanded is pretty much worthless. 74.38.32.195 12:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

When you write stub here, you clearly don't mean the same as Wikipedia:Stub. On some subjects you could write a thousand words, and it still would be a stub. On others, a hundred words might be the limit of the possible, so that a stub version there might be two sentences. The state of being a stub is only tenuously related to article size. People keep taking stub tags off articles because they're big, and adding them because they are small, but that's entirely wrong. The only way you can tell if an article is a stub is by trying to expand it. Easy? It was a stub. Hard or impossible? It wasn't a stub. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Then replace all instances of "stub" in my post above with "article which is very short or does not cover the subject comprehensively," the exact definition of "stub" was not the point I was trying to make. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 10:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Well, the point I am trying to make is that this is supposed to be a collaborative effort. Making an article comprehensive is a shared task, and we should not put an unnecessary burden on the original contributer. Dhaluza 10:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Please do not respond to a straw man argument, but to what I actually wrote. I specifically stated that stubs should be considered acceptable. What should not be considered acceptable are permastubs, subjects on which, using secondary sources, we could never write a comprehensive article. Not for lack of collaboration, not because no one's done it yet, but because the sources simply do not exist. There's a difference between saying that an article is now very short or uncomprehensive, and to say that the article will always be very short or uncomprehensive because we just can't do better. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 11:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Seraphimblade, could you give an example of what you mean by "permastub"? I think Wikipedia should have articles that will always remain short (say, 15 sentences) as long as their content is comprehensive. This seems to be the same as what you're saying, but could you please clarify with an example? Thanks, Black Falcon 11:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Well, hit "random article" ten times and you'll see plenty. I hit one the first time, have a look at Pierre Planus. The only thing I can turn up is mirrors of our own article, and some very basic, directory-style information on the guy. WP:NOT a team-roster directory, any more then it's any other kind. That article could not realistically be expanded beyond where it is now. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 11:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

L'Équipe has sixteen articles that mention him. Sudouest has 31 with his name in them. This turns up the interesting fact that Planus's brother Marc is also a footballer, and has played against him. That's the sort of stuff that fills up the Saturday sports pages, and sure enough, Sudouest had an article last year entitled "Planus versus Planus". His signing with Angers must have made the pages of Ouest-France. He may not be David Beckham, but Angers are a fairly significant team within the area that Ouest-France sells, and a new signing in the off-season will have generated press. It's a stub, and like any other stub, it can be expanded. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Having one's name in an article does not imply non-trivial coverage, nor do random bits of trivia imply that an article is not a permastub. I'll see if I can find another example with sources I can read though. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 11:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Here's several more hits of random article, let's see what pops up. SERVO Magazine, permastub, directory entry, I can find no secondary sources that mention the magazine. Next hit is Miss BC World, which is quite evidently notable and not a permastub. Grote Nederlandse Larousse Encyclopedie, it's a stub now, but I seem to find a lot of material in Dutch on that, so that's probably not a permastub. Estimated Family Contribution should be merged to FAFSA if the information can be sourced (which I'm sure it can), I'll probably do that myself shortly. It is a permastub as a standalone article though. Alabama (song), it's a state song and I'm sure secondary sources are out there regarding its history, adoption as the state song, etc. Certainly would not be a permastub. Val Fuentes, only things I can find on him are name-drops, should be merged to his parent band. Standalone, it's a permastub. Albarella, I can't find a thing for secondary sources on that, appears to be a permastub (and borderline G11). Oliver Dohnányi, currently is a terrible mess, but there is enough secondary material for an article. Not a permastub. Dexter Smith, permastub, all I can find is some directory/statistics information and a couple of very short quotations from him in sports media. Royalton Hotel, all I can find for it at first blush are ads, but there might be something on it. That one's unclear, but certainly may be a permastub. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 12:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• I am still a little unclear on what this attempts to do, but if it seems to be what I think it is, I oppose it: we should not build a guideline based on what topics we think are or are not notable. That is a purely subjective exercise that will only result in an outporing of expressions of individual likes and dislikes per WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I do believe (as I'm sure all of us do) that some topics are inherently notable or non-notable (such as heads of government and the scratching habits of my next-door neighbour's cat, respectively). However, I would not want these to be expressed in the form of a guideline or policy (in fact, I oppose notability being a policy at all). A suggestion to work our way down (e.g., continents are notable; countries are notable; provinces are notable; etc.) until we reach a lack of consensus would have been better, but I'm even ambivalent about and semi-opposed to that. -- Black Falcon 11:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
  • The purpose of this is to check if other policies already explain the division that we want to create. Sancho (talk) 11:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• • I agree with this approach. We have consensus and precedent that towns and villages are notable, but things in the town like buildings, shops, local streets, etc. are not. Heads of state are notable, but the mayor of a small town generally is not. In the military, the lowest ranking soldier can be notable for valor in battle, but most officers get promoted through the ranks while leading an undistinguished and non-notable career, so there is no particular rank that confers notability. Why can't we boil these non-controversial principles down to their essence, and create a reasonable guideline that really can archive a true, broad, and stable consensus? Dhaluza 11:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
    • This is also an direction that would be worth following. Sancho (talk) 11:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

And how do you know what is a "perma-stub"?

Without a WP:CRYSTAL ball? Dhaluza 11:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Well, it would be easier with a flowchart, but for a very simple test:

1. Is the article currently very short or has very little information? (Yes) go to 2. (No) go to 4.
2. Does the article cite any secondary sources? (Yes) Go to 3. (No) go to 5.
3. Could those sources be used to expand and flesh out the article beyond a stub? (Yes) The article is not a permastub. (No) Go to 5.
4. Is most of the information in the article based off primary sources or no source whatsoever? (Yes) Ignore all primary-sourced or unsourced information and go to 5. (No) The article is not a permastub.
5. Can more secondary source material be found with a reasonable search (Google, Google Print, other subject-specific searches?) (Yes) Examine those sources and return to 3. (No) The article is a permastub.

Very easy, and no crystalballery involved. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 11:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• OK, so if I read this right, would this be an example of a permastub: College Township, Pennsylvania -- Dhaluza 13:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• I'm able to find quite a few secondary sources on it, so no, that's not a permastub just because those aren't currently cited in it. Permastub means "not enough source material exists", not "not enough source material is currently cited". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 13:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• OK, that was probably a bad example. I took a random article walk as you suggested, and came across this one: Malé Ozorovce. Is this a better example? Dhaluza 13:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• The answer there is, probably not, I find a good deal of material, but since I can't read most of it I can't comment definitively. I posted some examples down below that I found on a random walk, hopefully those will be somewhat clear. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 13:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• I don't doubt that you can find lots of examples of articles we should not have on a random walk. But if you want to make a guideline (and especially if you want to promote it to policy) it has to be universally applicable. I think your method fails at step 5, because you are relying on the "Google Test", and although this is widely applicable, it is far from universally applicable. It obviously does not work with subjects not covered on the web, and with subjects in foreign languages, especially with a non-latin alphabet. So although you may believe in good faith that something is not notable, there could be plenty of source material in a specialized library somewhere not accessible from your keyboard. Dhaluza 13:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• Really? Non-latin subjects often have the subject written in that language, thus faciliating google searches even if one can't read that language. However, finding reliable sources is a different matter entirely. Plucking a random example, the first seven or so pages of the google search for Aiko District, Kanagawa gives nothing but maps, hotels, weather and places to live - stuff that would actually be relevant to people wanting to go there and stay. jawiki has quite a bit of (unsourced) history in it, so I'd imagine the info is somewhere in some history book. I do think this is of concern though - it just doesn't seem comprehensive, but I can't find an example where this would be the case (if someone wants to try, I'd suggest starting from Oceania and working your way up.) ColourBurst 14:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• Well, generally with foreign subjects, if someone known and trusted to the community claims to have read a foreign-language source and can explain why it's reliable and comprehensive, I'd tend to defer to that person's judgment. However, with Fuentes, he could easily be covered under his parent band, until/unless someone found enough secondary material to justify a separate article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 15:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Was this a bad idea? I thought the best way to learn a classifier of topics into the categories notable and non-notable would be to first find a collection of training examples, then to extract the features from those training examples that are most discriminating as regards their class membership (notable or non-notable), then to build a classifier that performs best on our training examples as well as a set of test cases that weren't considered during our building of the classifier. Is there a better way to build this guideline? If there is a better way, or if you just don't like this idea of learning an accurate classifier, then I can request that this categorization page that I started be deleted. Let me know... Sancho (talk) 13:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Don't worry, there are no stupid questions. I didn't mean to suggest that your approach was a "bad idea", just that I didn't understand it. And it started a somewhat tangential, but nevertheless active discussion. Dhaluza 15:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I don't think examples are generally a bad idea. I posted this above, but maybe it's more appropriate here.

Here's several more hits of random article, let's see what pops up. SERVO Magazine, permastub, directory entry, I can find no secondary sources that mention the magazine. Next hit is Miss BC World, which is quite evidently notable and not a permastub. Grote Nederlandse Larousse Encyclopedie, it's a stub now, but I seem to find a lot of material in Dutch on that, so that's probably not a permastub. Estimated Family Contribution should be merged to FAFSA if the information can be sourced (which I'm sure it can), I'll probably do that myself shortly. It is a permastub as a standalone article though. Alabama (song), it's a state song and I'm sure secondary sources are out there regarding its history, adoption as the state song, etc. Certainly would not be a permastub. Val Fuentes, only things I can find on him are name-drops, should be merged to his parent band. Standalone, it's a permastub. Albarella, I can't find a thing for secondary sources on that, appears to be a permastub (and borderline G11). Oliver Dohnányi, currently is a terrible mess, but there is enough secondary material for an article. Not a permastub. Dexter Smith, permastub, all I can find is some directory/statistics information and a couple of very short quotations from him in sports media. Royalton Hotel, all I can find for it at first blush are ads, but there might be something on it. That one's unclear, but certainly may be a permastub. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 12:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• • Supposing I wanted to dispute your examples, I could say:

1. Servo--I see no reason why there might not be articles referring to the magazine in reliable moderated robotics blogs. I accept these as a source. But i found two university official sites using it as a source, one for class assignments. 2. Dutch Larousse. I find refs to articles in it, but the others are just listings in library or book dealers catalogs. 3. EFCA is how to do it, and I doubt its encyclopedic nature or the authority of the interpretation 4. Alabama, OK I cannot find a way to dispute that one. 5.Val Fuetes, I see a few reviews in what might be reputable online sources. 6.Albarella. should be in at least 2 printed or online tourist guides. Just a lazy article that didnt bother to look. 7. Dohnany, yes. , but people have tried to delete similar as unsourced because they dont recognize the name & assume the links are spam. 8. Dexter Smith, again, I would need to check specialized publications. Many athletes below our usual current level will have articles somewhere 9. Royalton, there will certainly be travel guides. and given a history in 1898, printed newspaper sources. So it is possible to find agreement on some of the most notable. But not necessarily on any of the others. Its the others that are the problem. I'm not saying my arguments are necessarily right, just that arguments can be made, I can't decide on borderline cases at an article/minute. DGG 14:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

(I presume you agree on Miss BC World). The thing with the borderline ones there is, though, they could probably all be easily dealt with, if people would just leave it alone when someone does. SERVO probably would require deletion if nothing were available on it (blogs aren't reliable, even if moderated, they have to be editorially-controlled and fact-checked. Similarly, a name-drop of the magazine on "You may want to look at this" doesn't make any source material for an article). Dutch Larousse I honestly can't comment intelligently on, since most of the source material I found I can't read. If you can, I'd defer to your judgment on that. EFCA, yes, but certainly anything which is verifiable could be merged, anything else could be left out, and the article title made into a useful redirect to FAFSA. For Val Fuentes, I wouldn't say reviews alone are enough to write an article unless they're very in-depth, he'd still probably be better covered under his parent band. If someone can find tons of material later in the future, it always can get spun back off. Albarella, I did look. Tourist guides are probably biased sources, and shouldn't be considered reliable, everything else I could find was basically advertising. Probably handled better as a one- or two-liner mention in the parent geographic region (and, again, spun back out if better material can be found later), and in the meantime redirecting to the region. For Dohnányi, trust me, "I've never heard of it, delete" drives me just as crazy as "You hear about that everywhere, keep". For Smith, maybe he does, but he could be covered in the meantime under his team, and that article could redirect to the team. Once again, if a ton of sources come around in the future, it can always be spun back out. Royalton, same thing, probably could get a one-liner under its parent locality, redirect, and be spun out later if it turns out you're right.

I'm probably as much or more a mergist as a deletionist, I've got no problem with a merge and useful redirect when possible. What we need, though, is some way to make a merge "stick", and not just have people reverse it (which I've had happen more then once), or say "The parent article is too large" (if a parent article with very little secondary sourcing is very large, it needs cutting, not to have the unsourced information spread around to get even bigger). It's great that we grow so much, I just wish people would give less grief to those who cut. That's as necessary a part of editing as the writing itself is, but everyone seems to take it as some type of personal insult. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 14:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

And a thankless job it is. I have no problem with removing unsourced material that is questionable or controversial. And if there is nothing left, then the article should be deleted. But there is nothing inherently unencyclopedic about using primary source material. Yes, it's a great fancruft filter, but it is not applicable to everything. Dhaluza 15:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

This were mentioned as possible arguments, not as the views I would actually take. The comment about Dohnányi was merely mentioned as the sort of absurd argument that unfortunately is actually seen. But the question of RS for travel guides illustrates my point that the failure to have good N guidelines will turn the discussion to RS, sorry, ATT, and will not help much in resolving disputes--we will just learn to use different words. What we really have at issue is not wording or dividing up the policies, but basic differences about what the encyclopedia should contain. DGG 16:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Stubs

I am puzzled by all the discussion about stubs and permastubs. If you look at paper encyclopedias, you will find very long articles and very short, even two sentence articles. If there is little to say about something, but the topic is separate from other topics and the name is something a reader might search for, then we should have a small article. There is no need to merge it to something else. We can take off the stub tag, particularly if it is going into WP 1.0 or some more stable version. --Bduke 14:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Or we can merge it into a parent article, and redirect to that section (anchored redirects to sections are now possible, thank the developers!) That way, we've got the subject explained in context, we've added more information to an article which is about a notable subject, and the reader searching for something there still finds something. In a paper encyclopedia, "see related entry under X" type "redirects" are clumsy and awkward for the reader, as the reader may need to go pull out a whole different volume, find the other subject, find where under that subject the desired coverage is, etc. For us, redirects are effortless for the reader. If we design them properly the reader gets taken right to the heading in the other article. We do more of a service for our readers that way, since that makes the context readily available. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 14:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Yes, but that is mixing apples and oranges. Whether to merge or split content is an editorial decision that is based on the content and how it fits with other content. It has little to do with notability, which is the filter for what content to include. We should not merge the article about your car into the article on the make/model, we should delete it. Dhaluza 15:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Very true. But what should be in a separate article of its own should be based on notability. If the information is inappropriate period, as with the car, it should simply be deleted. If it's appropriate and sourced, but just insufficient for its own article, it should be merged. If a stub has significant, clear expansion potential, it should be left alone. That's somewhat related to notability, and maybe should have a place in the MOS as well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 15:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I still think you are mixing separate issues. If it's appropriate, then where it goes is an editorial decision. It can stay as a short article if there is no logical place to merge it. If there is some place it can be merged, that does not mean it should be merged just because it's short. It should be merged there only if it makes sense. Encyclopedias can have short articles, there is nothing inherently wrong with that. It's better than sticking a round peg in a square hole. Dhaluza 15:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I'm not seeing that, I guess...those things in separate articles should be separately notable. Those things which are not notable on their own but are relevant to a parent article should be merged to the parent article. Those things which are just totally inappropriate or non-notable should be deleted. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 15:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Yes, I agree, it just has nothing to do with being short. Dhaluza 16:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I agree with Dhaluza. There is no need to merge something that is self-contained and notable. Anyway, how do you determine what the parent article is? --Bduke 16:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Here's an example: Zax (tool). It's a short article, but what else needs to be said? Where would you merge it, to Slate? That makes no sense. Dhaluza 16:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

That one looks like a dicdef, probably a good candidate to transwiki to Wiktionary. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 16:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

You're not serious, are you? Just in case you were, here is the dicdef Wikt:Zax. Dhaluza 16:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I think he's totally serious. I think I'll slap a prod on it right now; that's not an encyclopedia article, it's a definition. Brianyoumans 17:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I was indeed serious. It certainly looks to me like little more then a definition, what appears to you to be more? (I would encourage Brian to remove the prod, though, obviously Dhaluza does not agree.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 17:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

One is 12 words, and the other is over 100. Can you see why so many people think this nonsense is elitist? Dhaluza 17:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I guess I'm not understanding what's "elitist", no. Everyone is allowed to participate in deletion discussions, policy discussions, everything else you can imagine. The only time we tend to get unilateral action from "on high" is on things that could place the product in legal jeopardy. That seems to me about as anti-elitist as you get. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 17:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

(To respond to Bduke) Sometimes it's pretty easy to determine (for example, a non-notable album by a notable band would be merged to the band article, a non-notable book by a notable author merged to the author bio, a non-notable fictional character from a notable work of fiction merged to the fictional work's article, a non-notable corporate officer from a notable corporation merged to the corporation's article, etc.) Of course, if there is no parent article and the subject has no notability of its own, that's a good indication that deletion may be in order. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 16:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

and if there is no parent article and the subject has notability that is a good reason to keep a brief article when only a small amount of material can be written about it. --Bduke 18:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Well...that depends how you reason notability. If you go with subjective guidelines, such as WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO, and the like, yes, that situation could arise. I define notability as the ability to write a comprehensive article, though I suppose sometimes an article could be comprehensive but extremely short, I would imagine that to be a rare case. (Also, unlike many who are more toward the deletionist side, I adore lists for certain purposes. The above "Zax" would probably fit very well on a "List of construction tools" or the like.) Lists would provide an acceptable solution to many short articles, so long as the concept is not overdone to the point of (removes beans from nose, this better never turn blue) the good old List of non-notable people. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 18:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I encourage editors to read the section on dealing with non-notable subjects in these guidelines again. Deletion is not the only way to deal with non-notable subjects. Nominating zax (tool) for deletion in order to make a point was poor form. The problem with that article was that no-one had yet written an article with a broader scope into which it could be merged. It is only as of today that we even have an article about the trade of slater. The zax is discussed in published works in discussions of slater's tools as a whole. The guidelines say very clearly to rename, refactor, or merge articles where the subject is discussed in published works as part of a broader scope, and to create any necessary broader-scope articles if they don't already exist. Stop treating deletion as if it were the only tool in the toolbox! You are Wikipedia editors. You can write articles, too, as well as deletion nominations. Please follow the guidelines. Uncle G 04:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• My nomination may have been a bit hasty; on reflection, the solution which you implemented was in fact the most sensible one. I guess I have been a bit discouraged by attempts to work through a merge, by, for instance, the hate messages I received about merging many of the Notre Dame dorm articles into a list (which I need to redo someday soon). Taking something to AFD gives a merge decision a stamp of finality and officialness which can sometimes short-circuit ugly tedious edit wars (especially ones that involve long complicated merges). And, I really hadn't seen something like Zax (tool) taken to AFD before and was curious to see how it would go; if there had been firm support for deletion/merge, I would have worked on merging more tool articles. After the AFD, I don't think I will, despite your own post-afd decision to merge. --Brianyoumans 05:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)
  • You shouldn't AfD things just because you're "curious to see how it would go". That's even more WP:DISRUPTive than {{prod}}ing it to make a WP:POINT. Dhaluza 05:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)
    • Well, without a comprehensive policy on what is suitable for Wikipedia and what is not - which I think we can all agree will never be formed short of dictates from above - I'm not sure how one is supposed to determine the sense of the community about a certain type of article except by sending it to AFD (or looking at the results of past AFDs, which is frankly not an easy thing to do, I've tried - ever try looking through the archives for a particular obscure type of article? Tedious and difficult.) If the community wants to keep a particular class of article, I don't try to delete them - I don't try to get rid of run-of-the-mill high school articles any more, for instance, although I personally don't feel they have a place on Wikipedia. On the other hand, after several AFDs of elementary schools in British Columbia passed, I am now slowly prodding the other 130-odd articles (at least, the ones where I can't find any possible notability). --Brianyoumans 06:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)
      • Well for starters, you knew I used it as an example, another editor de-proded it, and another, though sympathetic, thought you were being too bold. Did you try discussing it further outside of AfD to draw out other opinions first? Dhaluza 06:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)
        • I wasn't sure whether the opinions of people here represented the opinions of editors at AFD; as it turns out, they did. I thought the process was pretty quick and efficient, really - only 4-5 people posted to the AFD discussion before I withdrew the nomination. Is that much different from asking 4-5 people their opinion on their talk pages (and getting whatever sample error from choosing people who I selected?) And I would point out that, although there were better ways to do it, the somewhat anomalous end result - the merge to Slater - seems to be a solution that no one here is complaining about, and I feel is an improvement. Let's let the subject rest, or take it to my talk page if people wish to continue to chastise me for my wicked deeds. Brianyoumans 06:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)
• Excellent job, Uncle G. You actually went to the trouble of looking it up, rather than just saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT and trying to get rid of it. I'd say this misguided adventure in elitism was more than poor form--just look at the AfD discussion. Maybe this helps explain why so many people object to this Notability guideline and how it is misused. True, this case was based on a misapplication of WP:DICDEF, but it is illustrative of the larger problem. Dhaluza 05:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Wikipedia:Availability

I created this as a separate page, although it's mainly a renaming, in an attempt to clear a lot of things up about notability, and to hopefully replace it with a leaner, (not really) meaner policy. Ideally, we'd throw out all of the stuff that we use to explain to newcomers that "no we don't really mean the same thing by notability as the rest of the world" and make it explicitly clear that what we're talking about is a standard of availability of sources. I realize some may disagree with my characterization (those who view notability as a bar of historical significance or other higher standard than basic sourcing), but this is mainly meant to remove the subjectivity. If people really want significance as a standard, it shouldn't be conflated with sourcing. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Will our readers be interested?

As I noted in the straw poll above, I have serious issues with letting the availability of sources dictate our notability requirement (short version: the primary notability criterion confuses the concepts of notability and verifiability, and it leads to a lot of systematic bias since media coverage around the world is uneven). I have written down what I think is a better standard for notability, although I freely admit that it is highly subjective, and will be debated on a case by case basis if it were the only criterion. Here goes:

A subject is notable if we can reasonably expect a sizable number of people to be interested in finding an article about it in an encyclopedia.

I think this will include all towns and villages, as well as most islands, lakes, rivers and streams of reasonable size. People expect articles on settlements and major geographical features in encyclopedias. It will not include most car crashes because even though media might cover them, almost all people would turn to a newspaper and not an encyclopedia if they were interested in reading about such events.

As the only notability criteria, this definition sucks of course. I can see that right now, but if you want to point it out as well, then by all means do so. If this were the only criterion, we would never have any agreement on whether or not a sizable number of readers are interested in reading about an individual elementary school (it doesn't seem we are getting one now either but never mind that). I hold this standard only as a first iteration to defining notability in the context of Wikipedia. I am very much in favor of more specific guidelines for narrower categories such as WP:MUSIC. (Note how that guideline, instead of focussing on independent media coverage, focuses on things the musician has released and sold and performed, instead of what that is the type of thing which might make a person interested in seeing an encyclopedia article.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)

"Will people be interested in it" would be terrible. We don't have a means to survey and check any of these, so all we have is people's personal opinions. Why do we need a stricter criterion anyway? WP:NOT#PAPER, after all. We have room for all of those things, and the car crashes too. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I suggested "encyclopedic suitability" for a name-I think there should be some concept that stories are suitable for an encyclopedia, not just a newspaper. (We've currently got that going at WP:NOTNEWS, but I think it could be integrated into notability, or its replacement, with just a paragraph or two.) Also, WP:NOT specifically states some things are inappropriate, whether or not they're sourced-dicdefs, directory entries, howto manuals, and so on. We certainly could always add WP:NOT the newspaper there, and it would work. This project might not be paper, but that doesn't mean there should be no scope limitation, it just means that we should cover anything that falls within that scope. It doesn't mean we can't say "Well, that really falls outside our scope." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 08:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Why do things have to fall outside our scope? Dicdefs, howtos, etc. are a matter of content -- not enough content, or the wrong kind of content for an encyclopedia article. But if a topic has sufficient content available for an encylopedic article, rather than original research or pure plot summary, for example, WP:NOT#PAPER says that we don't have to limit the topics we cover. Every tiny town in the united states, for example. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Generally, unless there's some secondary coverage, pure coverage from statistics/census data/etc., maybe with GPS coordinates, is a directory entry. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 09:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Census data is secondary (since we're looking at it as description of the town, rather than writing about the census), it's just unanalytical. But you're right about many of our bare town articles being more directoryish. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)

"Primary" doesn't only mean "non-independent", though that's one way a source can be primary and that's a common error. A source is not necessarily secondary because it's independent. Raw statistics without interpretation are by definition a primary source (and also generally an independent one). Of course, if the Census Bureau then publishes a report interpreting those statistics (or a sociologist does so in a peer-reviewed study, or the NYT comments, or...) then those would be secondary sources. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 10:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Another problem with this concept is its circularity. Wikipedia, by its very existence, has already redefined what people look for in an encyclopedia. (I admit that I look here for TV episode guides, for instance.) We have a high enough profile that people will come here looking for whatever we provide; if we got rid of WP:WINAD, people would use Wikipedia as a dictionary.

If the idea is to restrict Wikipedia to things people would be interested in finding in a traditional encyclopedia, then it really just boils down to "articles must be encyclopedic", using readers' interest as a measure of what is encyclopedic. Since, as Night Gyr points out, we can't really measure readers' interest, I don't find that helpful. —Celithemis 18:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)

In many ways a valid point. I realize that the definition involves a lot of hand-waving. But we can for instance assume that if there is a musician with numerous released albums which sell reasonably well, there will be readers interested in reading about that person. Therefore, a musician which releases albums which sell well passes the WP:MUSIC guideline. Due to the sales, the musician will probably also receive the "non trivial references" in published sources. However, I think that it is not the sources we might gather which make the musician notable. It is the released albums which sold well which make their creator notable. (Sources do make the article verifiable however, which is also very important, but a different story.) I feel that the basic goal the community aimed for when constructing category-specific notability guidelines was distinguishing the subjects which readers do care about reading from subjects which the readers don't care about reading and where such articles would only make Wikipedia look like a random website where anyone could post their private resumes. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

You nailed it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 09:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Disagree with Jeff. I'm sure people are interested in reading a lot of things that aren't suitable for placement here. I know a lot of people who would be interested in reading the Seattle bus schedule, a directory of websites that sell music, the full text of Les Miserables, song lyrics, dictionary definitions, and a thousand other things. What we're doing is building a reference work. That means, above all, we must have references. We are also building a tertiary work, with a strict prohibition on original research, which also indicates that the vast majority of our sources should be secondary. This guideline assures we stay within scope. Yes, WP:NOT paper, but how quickly those who throw that overlook on the very same page that WP:NOT indiscriminate either. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 09:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I do disagree with you - references are absolutely necessary for accuracy, but have nothing to do with the things you mentioned. This guideline has nothing to do with staying in scope - if it did, it would have realistic expectations for "notability" instead of arbitrary hurdles. The subject-specific guidelines handle notability much better because of this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 09:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I guess I'm unclear on how this guideline is arbitrary (it requires that an article have sources, we're required to work from sources, I guess I see that as easily keeping us within scope), while the other guidelines (two gold records? Why not platinum? Why not one? Why not five? A "large fan base or cult following"? Who decides large?). Personally, I liked your "sufficient" idea, so long as we can agree on a definition of what's sufficient. "Non-trivial" is the only thing I see having any degree of arbitrariness or interpretation to it left in this guideline. I agree with you that a lot of people misinterpret notability (ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT, ITSPOPULAR/ITSOBSCURE, and many other similar ones), but that's the fault of the person, not the guideline. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 09:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Because sources don't indicate notability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 09:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Then, what does? And more importantly, how would we write about a sourceless topic without using original research? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 09:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

It depends on the subject. And I'm not saying we should keep sourceless articles around, I'm saying that we shouldn't be removing them because of notability concerns, but rather verifiability issues. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

So rename the page to Wikipedia:Applying policy to AfD. Done. Nifboy 12:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

What about Wikipedia:Encyclopedic suitability? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 12:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

No, because it again implies something that isn't true. I'd be fine with a rename to that if we rewrote the whole page - one section pointing to WP:ATT, the other to the subject-specific guidelines, but as currently written, it has nothing to do with policy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

The one thing we seem to agree on...

We need a page for, if nothing else, discussing AfD. There are a number of pages that discuss what gets deleted, and then there are the pages that describe what we want in an article. Lastly, there's a lot of sand in between where we draw lines.

What we don't agree on is whether the criteria, as written, does a good job of tying all these pages together. Nifboy 20:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)

However, letting someone crow "DELETE! Non-notable!" with no further explanation or policy-based argument and considering that a valid !vote is silly and unprofessional, in fact it is totally counter to the goal of a real encyclopedia. Making rules is easy, getting people to follow rules is not. We could have the most precise and exacting notability rule ever, but if everyone is allowed to say "It's not notable because I say so" and be accepted, then it does absolutely nothing but look nice. 74.38.32.195 12:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

please put up yiddish interwiki link

like this: [[yi:װיקיפּעדיע:מערקווערדיג]] thanks--yidi 06:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Done. —dgies^t_c 22:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Rewrite this page completely.

Per above, there's a few things we now know:

1. There's really no consensus for this as written or proposed to be written.
2. We can't really come to an agreement on this using the current template.

So I'm proposing a radical change to this entire page. The page is to exist at Wikipedia:Article inclusion (this text actually exists there now, and this should become a redirect) It should be in three sections. The first, the intro/lead section:

"Wikipedia has a series of tests that Wikipedians use to judge whether an article's subject is worthy of inclusion. These tests, based on various policies and guidelines reached by consensus, form Wikipedia's standards on encyclopedic inclusion."

The second section:

"All articles on Wikipedia must abide by our policy on attribution - articles should be well-sourced and verifiable, preferably with independent third party reliable secondary sources.

"All articles on Wikipedia should generally meet a standard for notability for the subject matter it falls into. For example, a musical act's notability is judged by our guidelines for music subjects, while web-content is governed by our internet guidelines. In the absence of a subject-specific guideline, sufficient third party information on which to base an article is generally enough to establish notability."

"Biographical articles on living people are held to a much stricter standard, due to legal and ethical concerns. While there are many nuances to articles concerning living people, the guiding principle, especially for controversial figures, is "Do no harm."

"Most importantly, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and subjects must have encyclopedic value. As Wikipedia is not a web host, a directory, or a dictionary, it is possible that some contributions may belong in other Wikimedia projects, such as Wiktionary or a Wikia site."

The third section:

"Articles that do not meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion are handled in a variety of different ways.

• "If the information is useful in a different article, or a number of smaller articles may be useful as a larger treatment on a subject, merging may be the most appropriate option."
• "Articles concerning unencyclopedic topics or subjects may be handled via deletion. Proposed deletion is a form of deletion for uncontroversial subjects, articles for deletion is a forum for discussion of an article's encyclopedic worth, and many articles qualify for speedy deletion if they do not assert basic notability, lack context, or are believed to be spam."

And that's IT. Finis. Done. Add some links to the bottom, don't tag the page, and we've reached a workable compromise - the subject-specific guidelines continue to act as the arbiters of notability, we have a page that reflects our policies for inclusion, and there shouldn't be any problems. So why not? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

The problem is, this is an unworkable compromise. Others would see the compromise (including me) as far simpler.

First and only section:

An article's subject is appropriate for Wikipedia if sufficient secondary source coverage is available to write a comprehensive, non-stub article on it. All articles written on subjects which do not fit this guideline should be merged into a parent topic or deleted as appropriate. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 14:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

"My way or the highway?" So how is it unworkable? Nifboy 14:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I think it's important to note that sources should be both independent of the subject (to avoid autobiographical bias) and have multiple sources that weren't written essentially simultaneously (to weed out things like sports articles about day-to-day games and local minor crime stories that were written about in multiple local papers). I think it also should indicate that it's possible to have an exception to the guideline, but such exceptions should have a strong rationale for why they are kept despite not meeting the guideline.

That's where the individual guidelines come in. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I like Seraphimblade's version because it's pretty concise and easier to understand, but I'd want to modify it slightly to address the issues I mentioned above. I could probably get behind something like this -

"An article's subject is appropriate for Wikipedia if sufficient independently written secondary source coverage is available to write a comprehensive, non-stub article on it. Such sources should be independent of the subject to avoid autobiographical bias, and should not all be written in the same one or two day period (to avoid things like local sporting events and crime stories that might have multiple independent articles about them at the time of the event). Articles written on subjects which do not meet this minimal sourcing guideline should be merged into a parent topic or deleted as appropriate unless a strong reason for an exception is presented."

That's just a possible suggestion, but it would get to about the minimal bar I'd prefer to see. If Jeff's much longer version could be modified to address the multiple independent non-simultaneous sourcing issues I mentioned, then I could probably support it too (although I think it's a big long). I'm also ok with the current guideline as is, since it meets my minimal general sourcing recommendations for keeping articles. Dugwiki 15:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I'd go for that as well. My main concern is eliminating the concept that subjective "secondary" guidelines can provide an exception to the sourcing requirement. We should work from secondary sources, no matter any other considerations. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 15:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Again - for establishing notability, sources are not the be-all end-all. I cannot stress this enough, and I cannot be clearer on it. Articles that are notable but still lack secondary sources will still be deleted for failing the core policies, so your concerns are unarranted. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

The idea is not to have an overreaching notability guideline - a one-size-fits-all approach doesn't work. I don't mind similar wording in the intro (I'm going to try and incorporate it now), but the idea is not to have a one-size-fits-all, but note that article inclusion is based on a number of factors. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I have gone and added some of what you wrote above. The last sentence duplicated information in the final section, and your nod to recentism is, IMO, unnecessary, as it's covered adequately elsewhere, but I think it ties together the section nicely. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Jeff's version seems like a good start, but note that WP:RS is now a redirect to WP:ATT. I prefer Jeff's version to SeraphimBlade's because I've seen the future, and it sucks as far as relying on WP:N goes. The webification of government means that any guideline which rests solely on the availability of independent reporting runs in to the OFSTED problem: every school and kindergarten in the UK is notable because OFSTED writes statutory reports on them. Regulatory agencies abound, and although most do not make their reports available on the web—not yet—they will. If a health inspectorate did, every kebab shop and curry house in Hackney might suddenly be notable. As written, every UK care home, and every temp nursing agency, and many more health service entities, would be notable. The statutory reports are on the web, and they are comprehensive. So let's not pin all our hopes on a sufficiency of independent sources. Mentioning NOT, and ENC, and ATT, and BLP, and so on, is a much broader approach, and less open to abuse. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

OFSTED reports are primary, as would be health inspection reports, so those wouldn't much matter. What we should be looking for is that someone who is not affiliated with the subject, and is not required to write about the subject, did so, in depth. Web or not shouldn't matter though, we should certainly be able to use offline sources as well as online to establish that. The only requirement is they should be secondary. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 15:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

OFSTED reports aren't really primary for the purposes of sourcing - they're secondary for the subjects they're writing about. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

As for WP:RS, I forgot about that. But it's apparently going to some FAQ, so that can be fixed when the time comes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

OFSTED reports would be primary per WP:ATT (and the normal academic definition of a primary source). They're a government report on a government entity. An example of a secondary source would be a sociologist using an OFSTED report as part of a study of a school, or a newspaper mentioning the results in context with an article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 15:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Reading the section at WP:ATT, I disagree, but that's really neither here nor there for the purposes of this discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

(Major edit conflict - I'll add it and then return) I have concerns that the phrase "sources should be independent of the subject" keeps being said without realising that this removes a great deal of material from articles and articles themselves that are perfectly encyclopedic. It over-complicates things and is far from what we actually do. I agree about autobiographical details. These should be avoided. I agree that some non-independent sources are biased or advertising. However in many cases they are just more accurate and more detailed than independent sources. One example I know about is that some readers want to know about a Scout organisation in a particular country. I do not come from the US, so let me talk about the Boy Scouts of America (BSA). Readers want quite a bit of detail and we provide it. Secondary sources, are by and large incomplete and inaccurate. This is not surprising. Why should a newspaper or magazine article go to a lot of detail? Books will only cover parts of what is needed such as biographies of key people. To get accurate material we go to BSA sources. These are perfectly OK. The crucial point is that independent sources should be required if anyone challenges anything in an article. Until they do, almost any kind of source is adequate to avoid OR. Verification is needed if a statement is challenged. I suggest the same should be done about suitability criteria. Let the Projects define it. Put their pages that do so in a category and let them stand until someone comes along and challenges one of them as leading to inclusion of material that is unsuitable for an encyclopedia. In fact the challenge would be best as a specific AfD proposal that challenged a Project's criteria. A successful AfD would lead the Project to modify their criteria.

A few other points:

• what does "is not required to write about the subject" really mean? A newspaper editor says to a reporter "Go and write about X". Sources are sources. Use them until the information is challenged.
• what is wrong with some primary sources if they give information that should be in the article. Again, use until challenged.
• The notions of primary and secondary sources are blurred. In science articles we use original research papers as well as review papers. Even review papers often include new work by the author or work that is cited as "personal communication".
• Angus McLellan is essentially correct. If we rely on sources, we will have articles that are really not encyclopedic. We need to decide on encyclopedic and then find sources to write an article. A good start is a whole series of things, like "teams in major leagues (defining that term specifically)", "country and state associations of international movements, but not individual groups/chapters/whatever in one town or village" and so on. All need debating by people who know the subject.
• badlydrawnjeff's ideas are closer to what I think is needed than anything I have seen so far. --Bduke 16:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Several things were added while I was writing the above leading to an edit conflict. I agree with badlydrawnjeff in the new discussion. --Bduke 16:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

This still does not address the subjectivity issue. Nothing I've seen, other than a single, uniform notability guideline, based on secondary sourcing and secondary sourcing only, addresses the subjectivity issue. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 16:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Notability is inherently subjective, so this isn't an issue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Regarding your concerns about independent sources, I should clarify that better and will do so following my reply here - I need to make it clear that the secondary is necessary only to establish notability. Regardless, pointing to WP:ATT is the important step there, so feel free to reword it. Regarding 'is not required', I don't know where that's coming from. Hopefully, I can get your continued support. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

(edit conflict again - in response to Seraphimblade) A single uniform guideline does not do it either. First, we decide what we are going to write articles about. Second, but more importantly, it is likely to be too brief to cover everything and we still have to decide whether the sources are reliable, or non-trivial. I remain convinced that consensus is the only way. We are writing an encyclopedia. We include stuff that is encyclopedic, with sources. Someone comes along and says "This kind of stuff is not encyclopedic". We discuss it and come to a consensus. We also already have a great deal of stuff that does exactly that - "a school play ground soccer team is not encyclopedic" and so on and on. We codify and build on what we have. Material based on "secondary sourcing and secondary sourcing only" can still be not encyclopedic. It may simply be too local or too trivial. --Bduke 17:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

But we should still write down an agreed definition or set of definitions for what "encyclopedic" actually means, instead of letting it be totally subjective, ranging from "I like it" to "6000 hits is kinda nice", "it's known in my hometown", "10 books were written", etc. even if it's not a single brief guideline, but a whole bunch of subject-specific guidelines. Relying entirely on unwritten rules is not a good idea. If we decide that X is non-notable and should be deleted simply because it makes our tummies queasy when we read it... Discuss and come to a consensus, but have consensually-agreed rules that provide rational, logical bounds for what can and cannot be a notability criterion. We cannot just have a free-for-all that changes with the wind and the phase of the moon. 74.38.32.195 20:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Above I have suggested that WikiProjects have a set of criteria and they stay until challenged at AfD. There could be other "subject" pages that are not covered by WikiProjects, although they are getting fewer by the day as more Projects are created. Anything not covered by a Project can be handled by AfD. Let people who know about a topic propose criteria. There are too many AfDs with inappropriate comments because the editor making them does not understand the topic. --Bduke 20:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

But "I like/don't like it" should never, ever be a good criterion. Also, N criteria should best be proposed on the N-related pages, not on AFD discussions. Also, are you saying that you (or whomever) may dismiss criteria simply because you think the proposer does not know enough, without any other argument or challenge to the proposed criterion itself? 74.38.32.195 22:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

That is essentially what I said. There would be N-related pages with criteria. However some articles may slip through the cracks and AfD could handle them. I understand AfD or Vfd predates WP:V and dealt with deletions perfectly well. No, I am not saying what you suggest about dismissing criteria. I am suggesting that good criteria will come from people who understand the area and the range of articles that exist and could exist. I think this is true whether we are talking about webcomics or quantum theory. I am not asking for "experts" to determine this. I am talking about the people who participate in a project because they are enthusiastic about the area. For example I am an expert, of a kind, on physical chemistry, having taught it for 40 years, but I am an enthusiast on wine but not an expert. I know about the articles on wine that do exist and might exist and I have some ideas about how detailed criteria could be written to allow some wine topics and disallow others. The criteria would need to gain consensus by the Wine Project, which has members who also have this enthusiasm and together have a broad international view of wine. Others would need to respect this by doing some serious work before rejecting the criteria, and not just say "It is'nt like the criteria for comics" or even "It is'nt like the criteria for food". We already have a lot of detailed criteria of the kind I am talking about scattered around, and it is often respected on AfD. We need to formalise that process and expand it, building consensus in the Projects and where necessary more widely. --Bduke 22:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Let me share with you a bit of history, specifically WP:WEB, which started off as the "webcomic inclusion criteria", and is probably the noisiest sub-N guideline in existence. Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics was started when someone in the webcomics community suggested that all webcomics with 100 or more comics should have a Wikipedia article.

We (in the loosest sense) haven't gotten along since. Nifboy 23:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

But how would one handle the AFD discussions when no N guidelines are in place for the topic yet? The thing is we cannot allow "I like it/I hate it" to be used. It's too subjective and free-for-all-y. Also, if a good criterion comes from a non-expert, it will still be considered, right? Expert contributions should be valued, yes, but less-than-expert people can still make a good contrib here and there. You also said that there are criteria scattered around -- should these perhaps be collected, formalized, and put together into a comprehensive "notability rulebook" of some sort covering all sorts of topics, with WP:N serving as a primer and "table of contents" to it? I'd also suggest it should provide pointers and procedure perhaps for dealing with topics where no subject-specific guideline set exists. 74.38.32.195 21:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

In particular the people interested in Webcomics have not agreed ever since. The debates on this articles at AfD show a consistently great disagreement about both the basic principles and their applications. If even in this one pioneer area there is no consensus, how can we expect to build a policy from individual subjects? The arguments about schools is another example--the basic ideas of what ought to be in included have never been resolved, and the same repetitive views are repeated time after time. There is a particular scientific subject--not chemistry--where many of the qualified specialists have very high standards for inclusion--much more so than those in other sciences--one even expressed the view that almost all university professors in the field are not notable--including himself. Shall we therefore base our selection accordingly, with sharp variation by subject? How narrow shall we go? The Wodehouse specialists may want standards of their own, and so may the Buffyverse fans. The people interested in different sports seem to have different standards. DGG 23:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

(Not sure where in the thread to put this, so I'll put it here at the bottom) There seems to be a some disagreement over whether OFSTED is secondary or primary, but that discussion is sidetracking the problem presented: that there will be a systematic bias in how many sources we have available between different countries and regions. OK, instead of OFSTED, let's look the Bergen Byleksikon (Bergen City Encyclopedia, definitely not a primary source) which gives a comprehensive coverage of all the geographical features in Bergen, Norway (which is my home town). This book has entries on

1. Every school in the city, including elementary schools. (Entries for high schools are longer.)
2. Every street, road, driveway, and alley in the city, with an description of where the road runs, and at least a short history describing when the road was named, and why it was named as it was.

Would this mean that every street, road, driveway and alley in Bergen is notable? I know there are some who regularly call for the inclusion of such articles, but in general AFD precedent has been to delete minor roads. Saying that all these roads became much more notable in 1994 when that book was published (thereby creating a secondary source was made which gave non-trivial independent coverage) simply does not make sense. Saying that the roads in Bergen are notable while the roads in Hamar are not notable because there is no Hamar Byleksikon simply makes no sense. Nothing changed about the roads themselves when Bergen Byleksikon was published. Whether or not those roads or streets are notable today, if they were not notable in 1987 they are not notable in 2007 either. The roads play an equally significant or insignificant role in Bergen as they do in Hamar. The difference between them, whether or not a source is published, does not do a good job of discriminating the notable from non-notable stuff in this situation. Sjakkalle (Check!) 23:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Notability criterion should involve sourcing?

Hi.

I noticed this on WP:ATT: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true.. On the old WP:V page, it said "The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth.". So, it's official policy:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true."

So, according to this, I think then that a source-based notability criterion for topics where there are no subject-specific criteria, like the one we have now, would make sense given Wikipedia's Official Policies. 74.38.32.195 22:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I suggest that this is talking about including the material. Of course it has to be sourced to be verified. Notability is somewhat different. It is the prior decision. Should we even consider adding this by trying to verify it through sources? The problem to me is that material can be "attributable to a reliable published source" but we still do not want to have it in the encyclopedia. This is why there is so much discussion about notability. We all agree that we are adding verifiable stuff, not necessarily true stuff. We agree stuff should be sourced. We do not seem to agree about what fits into an encyclopedia, although we agree about a lot that does not fit and about a lot that clearly does fit. We are undecided about criteria for a relatively small amount of stuff in the middle; the stuff that often turns up on AfD. --Bduke 23:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Part of the problem with this Notability guideline is that it conflates what should be included with sourcing. We already have the WP:ATT policy that deals with sources, so covering the same ground here is redundant at best. And a guideline should not modify policy, so there is no sense defining Notability in terms of sourcing. Despite the repeated drum beating over multiple secondary sources, they are valuable, but not essential. UncleG merged zax into slater using one tertiary source, not multiple secondary sources, in the example we just saw, so let's drop that red-herring. Dhaluza 00:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Again, notability is different from verifiability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

To reply to Dhaluza, you can write articles that meet all the tenants of WP:ATT but which are routinely considered inappropriate for inclusion. For instance, you can write an article about a local sports match that has multiple articles from the sports pages of the related cities, but we don't have articles about such games. WP:N is intended to present a minimal standard for the quantity and quality of references which otherwise meet WP:ATT and thus provide a minimal rule-of-thumb guideline that articles should meet. It is not redundant with WP:ATT, since WP:ATT deals with the reliability of various types of sources while WP:N is more of an extension of WP:NOT in that it handles articles which are verifiably accurate but which should nonetheless probably not be included in Wikipedia. Dugwiki 08:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Can't find info online proves what?

There's an AfD going on for Fazal Mohammed right now, and it illustrates one of the problems with this guideline. Basically, wikipedian sit at their computers and use google to decide the fate of articles, which leads to bias. There are a few mentions of Fazal on the web, but not enough to satisfy notability. He's from Trinidad, and he died in the 40's; of course he isn't going to have a large presence on the web. This page talks about how notability is generally permanent, then basically makes it impossible to save articles about subjects that are pre internet and not from the devoloped world. Can't we do better than this? - Peregrine Fisher 00:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

The problem you point out is real, but this article is not a good example, because it does not include even one source. If the person is worthy of inclusion, there must be something to verify their existence and claim to notability. Dhaluza 00:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Basically, Dhaluza said it. The "fate of articles" doesn't rely solely on Google; if you can provide appropriate secondary sources, such as magazine articles, reviews and so on, to demonstrate the notability of this person, then the article will be kept. Google is only used as a fall-back option for those articles with no sources, to test whether there may be sources out there that haven't been added to the article yet; an article will never be deleted solely on the basis of a low ghit-count when there are sources in the article to demonstrate notability. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 01:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Ditto the other responses. Verifiability is an important characteristic, in my view more important than notability, for any Wikipedia article. Even if a subject is notable, lack of verifiability can still doom an article. (This does lead to a systematic bias as well, but for something as important as verifiability, that is a price we must pay.) However, I think there is a fairly good chance that one might find some paper sources for the article if someone has access to a local library. Even if the article is eventually deleted for lack of verifiability, but someone then finds sources to verify the article, then the situation has changed, and that will be a definite thing people will care about on a DRV nomination. Sjakkalle (Check!) 02:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Fundamental misunderstanding of consensus

If we try to dig down to the root of the problem with this guideline, past the disputes over tags, and wording, I think you find a fundamental misunderstanding of how a consensus based organization works, and how that applies to a wiki. People who can quote chapter and verse about how you can't write a WP article without sourcing, seem to completely miss the corollary that you can't write WP policy and guidelines without consensus. Just as in journalism where "you can't write the, story you want to, you have to write the story you have the sources for" in a consensus based organization, you can't write the policy you want to, you can only write the policy you have consensus for.

Since policy has to reflect consensus, you can't beat people over the head with it, and maintain consensus. So it's futile to think you can get your ideas written into a WP policy or guideline, then quote that at AfD claiming it represents consensus, and get away with it for very long. That's just not going to fly. And I think that's what has happened here. Enough people saw enough nonsense at AfD, traced it back to the source, and said that's enough!

So I think it's time for people here to get off their soapboxes, and start listening to the different points of view, and look for common ground. If this guideline is going to survive at all, it's time to stop pushing pet theories, and see if there is anything we can agree on. Dhaluza 01:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I think the point is more that this shouldn't survive. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)