Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

New shortcut, WP:NNC, for "Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content"

I've created this new shortcut, and new shortcut box. I think this is important to raise the level of understanding of this aspect of the notability guideline, because so many people talk about "removing non notable content", and such. -- BenBildstein 00:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This seems rather odd to me. Do you think that the existance of the abbreviated link will mean that suddenly people will understand the argument without you having to even state it? I think the shortcut may allow someone to intimidate an opponent though the clever use of an official looking unfamiliar abbreviation. --SmokeyJoe 08:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
If someone is removing non-notable content the direction should be to WP:RS, WP:TRIV, WP:V, or WP:NOR as appropriate which is what Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content says. So the WP:NNC is less then helpful. Jeepday (talk) 13:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

(reply to both SmokeyJoe and Jeepday) Of course I don't think the existence will mean that "suddenly people will understand the argument". But I do think it will raise visibility of this section, which my experience has shown is not widely known about. Additionally, without the redirect it is a really long link name: Wikipedia:Notability#Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content - not something your fingertips can just rattle off. These are the two reasons I made it.

Yes, there is a risk that people will intimidate opponents, but it's a very simple response for any reader to say "yes, but WP:TRIV and WP:RS still apply", etc. In fact, the "yes but WP:NNC" argument can only really be a response to the incorrect argument "this content needs to be deleted per WP:N". Do you see? If people start using it to make arguments like "YOU'RE EDIT CONTRAVENES WP:NNC!!!", they're way off, and I really can't see that kind of thing happening (even modulo my slight exaggeration). -- BenBildstein 23:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

(addendum) I just found myself using WP:NNC in contradiction to what I just said above. Here's the quote, form a discussion of Wikipedia:Notability_(years):
"Why are we specifying what's in the content of the page? ("the venue needs to have already been chosen before listing in an article"). This is not what notability is about - see WP:NNC."
I guess this is slightly different from a normal use, in that I'm not discussing content edits, but actual notability guidelines. I just felt I should point it out. -- BenBildstein 00:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I think we have this problem because we don't have a policy saying "If you're going to put something in an article (text, references, whatever), make sure it's relevant to the subject." People look at really minute facts or references that have nothing to do with the article and say "Oh, it's not worth mentioning here, ergo non-notable". Nifboy 15:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Nifboy. When someone removes content from an article as "non-notable", what they generally mean is that it's not relevant. Wikipedia:Relevance of content was a proposal for just such a guideline, but it was rejected. Black Falcon (Talk) 16:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Note: Wikipedia:Relevance of content is still being discussed in rejected status, but probably will become an active proposal again with some new ideas. As a possible alternative, I think we should pull together the various limitations on content into one guideline called "WP:CONTENT" including the better parts of Trivia, Relevance of content, and that part of WP:NOT which deals with content. Of course we should make sure that we are not being prescriptive etc. and reflecting the actual practice at WP. --Kevin Murray 18:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Isn't there something somewhere about not covering very specific things in too much depth, because it leads to a kind of bias? I think religion is one area where that has come up. For example that's useful if I come up with a new religion and want to get every WP:V WP:NOR etc. piece of information on it included in Wikipedia. Can anyone remember if this is true, or if I just imagined it?

I just read Wikipedia:Relevance_of_content. My opinion is that it reads more like an essay. It seems quite subjective.

I agree people usually say "non-notable" when they mean not relevant. But I think it is common sense that if content is not relevant to the topic it doesn't belong. But when it gets specific, people will no doubt argue about what is and isn't relevant. But I don't think you can codify that. (So yes, I'm just agreeing it's an issue, not offering a solution.) -- BenBildstein 00:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

In response to your first paragraph, I think you're referring to the "undue weight" section of the NPOV policy. — Black Falcon (Talk) 00:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Yes, I guess that's what I was thinking of but I guess it doesn't really apply here because we're talking about pages just becoming low-quality, rather than biased in their point of view. Hmm... -- BenBildstein 01:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I am not seeing consensus to keep WP:NNC Jeepday (talk) 12:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a useful shortcut to me. -- Lonewolf BC 17:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Where would be a good place

Where wood be a good place to get a set of articles checked for notability - eg those I have pointed too at WP:AN#Tolkien_literature_stubs_etc - I'd like to know in general what I can expect to see kept and which (if any) will be deleted? Have I already asked at the right place.87.102.88.218 14:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Inherent notability

Please help shape what topics have inherent notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Policy or guideline?

--Kevin Murray 23:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. My estimation is that it's pretty close to policy. However, the nature of the beast is that there are (and probably need to be) a fair number of exceptions (both ways) made for specific situations. Given the need for, and reality of, flexibility, I'm not convinced that it's necessary for N to be policy.--Kubigula (talk) 04:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd oppose a move to make Wikipedia:Notability policy, because I think there's just too much room for abuse if it's made policy. As a guideline, it should be followed in most — nearly all — cases, but as Kubigula says there are exceptions. If WP:N became policy I could easily see someone using it indiscriminately as a bulldozer, without considering those exceptions. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The whole concept of notability remains controversial, and exists under a delicate compromise that the community can live with it as a guideline. I think trying to elevate it to polcy would only open a can of worms. Dhaluza 03:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Proving that a subject is non-notable

What are good ways to prove or show that a subject is nonnotable? I feel that deletionism is too rampant on Wikipedia today, and people are using this guideline as a policy, and often excessively so. When something new crops up among numerous people, and the media has barely noticed it, but numerous chatrooms, message boards, and blogs already have information on the phenomenon, than how is it nonnotable? I think our guidelines for notability at the moment rely too much on official sources and mass media. — Rickyrab | Talk 02:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Blogs, chat rooms, etc are not considered Reliable sources. Before considering Notability (a guideline), you have to consider verifiability (a policy). In general it is not possible to pass Notability with out first passing verifiability. If the only sources are from blogs and such then the topic probably is covered by Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Content. Jeepday (talk) 02:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it is not possible to prove that something is not notable. But we do impose a burden of proof that articles be able to make some assertion of notability, and that there be some objective evidence to support this claim. We don't allow message boards and chats as reliable sources, because people can and do write whatever they like in these forums. Blogs are generally disallowed, but there is an exception for blogs where the author can be identified as a reliable source. Frankly, there is plenty of material from reliable sources that still needs to be included, so don't waste your time trying to add material from the extreme fringes of notability--it will probably only get deleted anyway. Have a look at Wikipedia:Requested articles for ideas on what type of material really needs to be added. 03:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhaluza (talk • contribs)
An aversion to online message boards is understandable, but I think the current wave of deletionism goes too far the other way. One of the appeals of Wikipedia relative to traditional encyclopedias is its speed and flexibility with regard to current trends and events. But by their very nature, knowledge of such things will be embedded mostly in people's heads, or in other online media, not in some traditional published source. An independent scholar might be ideal, but by excluding more involved expertise, Wikipedia cuts itself off from its potential strength. Unlike the 1911 Britannica, which happily invited experts to write on what they knew, quirky biases and all, in the interest of being a comprehensive survey of human knowledge and activity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.253.208 (talk) 07:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
It would be nice to have such comments from someone who is not anonymous...There are so many nice comments that come from anonymous editors, yet they are not taken seriously by the admins and sysops because of their anonymity. To too many Wikipedia editors, anonymous editors are simply vandals and thus not to be trusted. (While most vandalism does, indeed, come from the anon sector, there are solid edits that are also made by anons.) All the same, some of us wouldn't mind knowing at least an user name. — Rickyrab | Talk 14:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inherent notabilty

A link to this essay was inserted and then removed, from the seciton giving a list of essays related to notability . Listing such as essay does not endorse it, so the reason for removing the link does not appear evident to me. DGG (talk) 07:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I corrected the spelling err in the title, placed in an alpha sort in the list and added a short description. Jeepday (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. The essay is nothing more than one editor's listings of things he believes are inherently notable. There's not even any reasoning for why these should be considered inherently notable. The link should be removed at least until the essay is more fully developed. Chaz Beckett 12:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
It is a topic of ongoing debate, the essay needs work to move from a single point of view. There is reasonable cause for the essay to exist and there is nothing that says a work must be a finished product before it can be linked. Leave the link and develop the essay, otherwise who is going to decide when the essay is developed enough for the link? Jeepday (talk) 13:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
It's fine that the essay exists, but until it's more than a list of six topics that a single editor considers inherently notable, it shouldn't be linked from the article. It should be linked from this talk page (and other talk pages) to encourage more editors to work on it. Once's it's become a useful essay, providing at least some reasoning for each topic's inherent notability, I think it could be re-added to the page. Chaz Beckett 13:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it should be moved here until it can be developed a bit further. Chaz has a point about it not even explaining why such things have inherited notability. Since we have debates about this type of thing, it would be unwise to have a link to an essay that currently doesn't explain itself. It would open a door to arguments that all things inherit notability, without the necessity of explaination. I just think it sends mixed signals for the guideline if it doesn't explain itself.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I see it rather as a convenient summary of Common Outcomes. Probably it is a little too cryptic at present, but there is no endorsement implied by listing it here. It's an essay, and says its an essay. Personally, I'd like to see it developed into a guideline. DGG (talk) 05:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't state anything that would make it relevant as a guideline, secondonly even if it did it would be something merged into this page, and not something on its own.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I just posted a {{Disputeabout}} on the essay this morning. As it stands it is in conflict with logic and wiki policy. In it current condition I think it is more appropriate for User space the Wiki space. The essay is one persons perspective attempting to masquerade as Wikipedia consensus. I am leaning strongly towards Bignole's argument and wondering if it should be nominated for deletion and redirect to here Wikipedia:Notability. Jeepday (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

inherent notability and inherited notability

I see the next challenge for WP:N the addressing of inherent notability and inherited notability. There is a history of people insisting that inherent and inherited notability don’t exist, but this is not true. In practice, WP:N is only applied to a (large) subset of subjects. My impression is that, roughly speaking, subjects that are not of human creation are not subject to WP:N. Such things, apparently having inherent notability, include astronomical objects, living or once living natural species, or information from archeology, but certainly not theories of such things. Things of inherent notability are not required to have coverage in secondary sources, reliable primary sourcing is sufficient. Non-recent history articles also seem to have inherent notability, although such articles usually have no trouble being linked to secondary sources. WP:N seems to be especially firmly applied to things whose appearance in wikipedia may be motivated by promotional or self interest (aka spam?), such as companies, organisations, commercial products, theories, and software.

The other thing is inherited notability. Basically, this seems to successfully apply to single subjects of considerable notability that spill over into satellite articles. The Tolkien articles, Harry Potter articles, scouting articles and Pokemon articles come to mind as examples, and I am sure that there are a great many more. These subjects have plenty of reputable secondary sources, but the secondary sources often do not have significant coverage for individual satellite articles. I have seen the phrase “AfD proof” used, but I think “inherited notability” is a better explanation.

I think that WP:N needs to explicitly allow for both inherent and inherited notability, because it happens in practice, and because it is a good idea. I don’t think the essay is of much help, as it stands. --SmokeyJoe 07:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I think "Inherited Notability" is used for familial relationships such as father and son where a son is guaranteed an article because dad has one. "Inherent Notability" is what you are referring to where geographic entities all have articles, weather or not someone has written about them, or not. Many are just stubs with census date. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
This is more flawed logic, if Sons have inherited notability because their father has an article then all of God's children would have inherited notability because of their relationship to Adam (depending on your religious perspective). Jeepday (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Does that mean we have to give the real Kal-El his own article, since his father is notable? I think people try and use Inherted Notablity for that reason, when in fact it's uncalled for. It's rare that one would "inherit" notability simply because they are connected to something that is notable, even with television episode articles (which is one of those commonly used excuses in their existence). If the only thing you can say about a person's child is that they are the child of a notable individual, then they don't need an article to themselves. What I see is that there is sometimes confusion about what deserves mentioning, based on that "inherited notability," and what deserves its own article because of that. You can mention the child of a notable person, under the guise that the child has inherited notability from the father, on that father's page. But, it's very different to say "we should have a page for the child since we have a page for the father," when the child probably has not done anything that would warrant mentioning in a separate article. It's one thing to have an overly long section that gets split off to its own article (which is one concept of inherited notability, which has nothing to do with actually inheriting true notability, but more along the lines that there's so much information about this one thing that it's cluttering up the page and it's worth separating on its own), and another to say "let's create a separate article from the start. You'd open the door to everything and anything having a page (no matter how trivial) because you can eventually link it to something that has notability (shall we do Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon?).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I would note however, that WP:SUMMARY does not allow for non-notable topics to be split off, it's not a free ticket to create articles about whatever we want. I have seen a lot of recent AfDs of material that has been split of per summary style. IvoShandor 06:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Reason for this "guideline" being so strict

Why is this "guideline" so strict? I find I completely agree with this edit: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, be a dick and ask for it's speedy deletion, because the last thing Wikipedia wants is to have a comprehensive guide to things that people could not gain information on otherwise; no, Wikipedia simply wants to regurgitate information that any idiot with a copy of The Encyclopedia Britannica could summon up."--Lobbyclose 09:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

well, this guideline doesn't quite say that. The standard for speedy is "no assertion of notability." There is no requirement whatsoever to have a source to pass speedy. There is not even a requirement to have a source to escape deletion altogether--see WP:STUB. DGG (talk) 10:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
DGG is correct, if the article says the subject is notable then it can not be speedily deleted for not meeting the WP:N guideline and it does not need a reference. But WP:V, and WP:NOR are policies that require references "for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged". If the statement of notability is challenged or likely to be challenged it May be removed if it is not referenced. Policy puts the burden of evidence "with the editor who adds or restores material". Unreferenced material may be removed at anytime per policy, but courtesy and WP:AGF generally direct an editor to either ask for references or make a good faith search for references before removing content. Jeepday (talk) 00:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Where to discuss notability?

If an editor insists on adding some facts of dubious notabity to existing article, where can this be discussed in a wider forum? WP:FRINGE comes to mind, but what if it is not a fringe theory, but just some unotable detail from local news?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Relevance of content may be a proposal of interest to you. The proposed additions (particularly "Relevance") to Wikipedia:Reliable sources may also be of interest to you. This guideline covers whether or not a subject is notable for inclusion. It does not generally address individual claims within the articles of notable subjects. Otherwise, you could seek assistance in settling the disagreement, as such a conflict is essentially a content dispute. Vassyana 02:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
It depends what you mean by "facts of dubious notability". Remember that notability does not directly limit article content. If it is actually that the information being added does not qualify under notability in its own right, that isn't actually a problem. (Of course, it still may be trivia, original research, etc.) -- BenBildstein 05:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (religious figures)

Hi! I've created a brief, extremely rough draft of a proposed guideline for notability for religious figures. Please feel free to edit and/or comment. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I really do not understand the need, at all, for all of these sub-guidelines on notability. All they do is reiterate the basic substance of WP:N with some specific examples for their field. Is there really a standing notability subarticle that does more than reassert the need for basic notability*? Vassyana 01:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC) *Primary coverage in multiple third-party sources, notable achievements and awards, etc.

Instruction creep

I've raised concerns at the village pump about the several subarticles on notability being representative of instruction creep. Feedback would be appreciated. Vassyana 02:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The function of an encyclopedia

An encyclopedia is a repository of knowledge; thus it, like other educational institutions, is a dispenser of information. Thus, it is impossible to merely remain in the background; an encyclopedia can inadvertently make a phenomenon more notable, and might somehow create notability by making more people aware of something. Because of this, usage of Wikipedia - or another encyclopedia - as a mere reflection of information might miss important phenomena going on in the background - phenomena which isn't recorded because nobody has bothered to write it down. How is someone supposed to get Wikipedia, or another dispenser of information, to notice such a phenomenon if all it is is a reflection of what other people wrote? — Rickyrab | Talk 02:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

See WP:NOT#OR Jeepday (talk) 02:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
And that's the very rule I found fault with: the burden is upon its defenders to defend it with reasoning and with logic. — Rickyrab | Talk 14:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
In any field of study, one must acknowledge the interaction of the scholar and the object of study. This is true in sociology, anthropology, medicine, physics, and even encyclopedia writing. For example, an intro to sociology course may discuss the duties of a responsible researcher, which should include a firm understanding of the fact that research does not go on in a vacuum - it can easily affect its object of study. The only encyclopedia that does not affect the world around it is an empty one. --Cheeser1 07:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Biased

Being a person whose article was deleted because its subject was "not notable" I believe that the definition of "notability" is way too biased (of course, being biased myself for the same reason.) However, I honestly do believe that while my article was about an artist whose contribution to music may not be recognized immediately further research may prove that this artist's efforts are distinguishable enough to warrant inclusion to the wikipedia for its uniqueness alone. You say you're not about "popularity" but I can find many musical artists who are in your wikipedia who I could not justify their existence based upon your criteria. Cpecot 06:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

short answer--when it does become recognized as notable, then it gets an article. And you are encouraged to propose deletion of subjects you think do not yet show notability. DGG (talk) 08:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
No, the short answer is that it gets an article when someone writes one and includes verifiable sources. Very simple. Notability is a guideline, not a policy. --Romanski 12:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Policy rewrite proposed

This section was arbitratily split from the section above by Happy-melon 08:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It is clear that Vassyana’s merge proposal is not going to happen. This is not to say that mergers on a case by case basis won’t happen, or that some notability guidelines need work to make them compatible with WP:N (or vice versa). I do not agree with deprecating guidelines to essays. If it guides, then it is entitled to be a guideline. An alternative to Vassyana’s proposal, with a similar objective, is the recognition of WP:N as policy, however, I think WP:N is not universally applicable throughout mainspace and so is incompatible with policy status. --SmokeyJoe 06:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggest a rewrite to meet policy standards. --Kevin Murray 07:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not familiar with the reasons why WP:N is not universally applicable. Could you extend this? Happy-melon 08:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
That is what much of the discussion on this page above is about. Please read through it. Regards, Nsk92 08:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC).
On the contrary. As far as I am aware (and I have been involved in the above discussion) the above discussion had no bearing on WP:N's status as a policy or guideline. I was requesting clarification as to why, exactly in the opinion of SmokeyJoe, this guideline is currently not suitable for policy status. Happy-melon 08:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, I don't know what SmokeyJoe's objection is... but mine would be that we don't need this to be policy - we already have WP:V and WP:DP after all. Mangojuicetalk 13:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Suggest those interested in a rewrite and/or merge work on drafts so there's more to discuss. I'd be happy to help. --Dragonfiend 11:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
The reason WP:N is not a policy is there is not really total agreement on almost any point of it. I do not mean that there is not general consensus, but each of the points is repeatedly challenged at AfD, and sometimes decided differently --in other words, it is "interpreted with common sense and the occasional exception." DGG (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The non-universal applicability of WP:N is something that seems to be true, but I am tentative.

  • Consider a hypothetical article on an asteroid (assume it is verifiable from NASA data, but never mentioned in a secondary source). Does the article need to satisfy WP:N?
  • WP:PROF specifies criteria that establish notability for professors. These criteria are not based on secondary sources. WP:PROF encourages the creation of articles about a person, even if no published source has ever written about the subject. So, for this hypothetical article about a professor who has never been written about, does WP:N apply, or does WP:N not apply because WP:PROF does, or is WP:PROF an implied elaboration of WP:N (objective evidence)?

I appreciate Mangojuice’s objection to WP:N as policy, based upon it being redundant with WP:V and WP:DP. I have previously argued that WP:N is an interpretation of a combination of WP:V and WP:NOR. Perhaps WP:N could be considered a policy summary. Alternatively, perhaps it is insufficiently more than an opinionated interpretation, and should be an essay, to clarify that it is enforceable in itself. I have problems with WP:N as a guideline, because it doesn’t really function as a guide. What guidance I can see is in helping decide whether an article should be created, or deleted, and on these questions I believe that in every case it is better to refer back to WP:V or WP:NOR. --SmokeyJoe 04:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Example One: I think that we open the door for interpreting primary source information. --Kevin Murray 01:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Example Two: The problem is that the subpages are sometimes attempts to be more restrictive than N and other times trying to be less restrictive than N. The folly is that without satisfying N there generally isn't enough information for an article. I think that being more restrictive than N is counter productive to the project. So I say that all we need is N. --Kevin Murray 01:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
In our asteroid example, effectively any reliable source material is independent (the asteroid is not terribly likely to start sending press releases), so no independent source material effectively means nothing to work from. If its existence is verifiable, it may be suitable for a list, but we shouldn't have a full article saying "Asteroid 185DH5984 exists." As to WP:PROF, I've always disagreed with that and still do. I fully agree with WP:V: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." And that goes triple for living persons, if anything. I think an overriding requirement for good, substantial, independent sourcing is firmly consistent with verifiability, will help to lock out original research and prevent cruft from providing some subjects undue weight, and will ensure that, well, topics we write about are verifiably notable in the only way we can verify notability—they've actually been noted. It will also encourage trimming, merging, and combining. These editorial tasks are often significantly neglected, and even in an encyclopedia that's not paper, they are very necessary to ensure quality. Good editors (real editors and Wikipedia editors both) cut and cut and cut some more until what's left is a distillation of the best. Just because we're not forced to do this doesn't mean we shouldn't. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Kevin Murray and Seraphimblade on most points. My view is that WP:N offers guidance on how to apply the policies of WP:V and WP:NOR. It is therefore correct for it to be a guide. I have for a long time felt that there is a problem with the subpages of WP:N, in that they don't always follow the core principles of WP:N. WP:BIO is a particularly bad offender, as it lists reasons for notability that are not not based on reliable sources. According to WP:BIO, being the subject of reliable secondary sources is only one of many things that could assert notability. This concept is of course impossible to reconcile with the policy of WP:V. The same is true in all instances where the sub-pages are less restrictive than WP:N. These sub-pages could always be fixed, but the result would be that the guidance of WP:N would always take priority, which surely makes the sub-pages completely redundant. The only benefit of the sub-pages (as I see it) is if we deliberately wanted to keep and improve the instances where they are more restrictive than WP:N. I'm not entirely against that idea, and it would help clear up certain borderline notability issues, but I also think that would be a pretty massive shift in Wikipedia policy.
In regards to the asteroid example, I agree that NASA would qualify as a secondary source, as any primary sources would have to come from the asteroid itself.
—gorgan_almighty 10:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I find a lot of things to agree with in this section but one key point for me is that any notability guideline that is less restrictive then WP:N is fundamentally in conflict with most core content policies. So the only practical alternative is to make one more restrictive then WP:N, Kevin Murray (above) thinks that would be counter to Wikipedia's best interest I would say that if you find consensus for a more restrictive guideline there is probably a good reason. Jeepday (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

But WP:BIO is not significantly less restrictive than policy. I think the justification for this claim is the following criteria:

  • The person has been the subject of a credible independent biography.
  • The person has received significant recognized awards or honors.
  • The person has demonstrable wide name recognition
  • The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.

The first is the existence of a reliable source; the others, to keep an article, must be demonstrated, and the evidence will be reliable sources. (There's also one about has endorsed demonstrably notable products. This is more dubious; but the existence of the ads, and the evidence that it is the same person, not just a role, would be sources even here. If someone wants to go argue about refining the wording there, or even removing, fine; let me know. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not to merge

I don't see this argument made clearly enough in the discussion above; I may have missed it. Guidelines should have the same structure as articles: the bottom pages should be comprehensible by itself, with a link to higher level pages; higher pages should consist largely of summaries links to the lower pages. WP:NC is an example of this. If an AfD turns on the notability of a number, there should be a page which says everything essential about the notability of numbers; because many editors won't climb the tree to look elsewhere. Redundancy is not a vice; Wikipedia is not paper. It may be useful from time to time to check whether there has been drift between the two pages and import language from one to the other; but each case should be ccnsidered on the merits. Often the language on pages like this one is a generalization, generally but not universally applicable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability of skyscrapers and structures (existing and future, including canceled projects)

I have noticed several skyscraper articles, such as The Orion and Brickell Station (development), have been tagged for deletion because it was non-notable. It appears there isn't a lot of discussion about the notability of skyscrapers and structures and I think it's time to define a standard in order to prevent future conflicts. Right now, I don't believe there is a clear guideline because I've seen an stub-skyscraper article (such as The Orion) which didn't assert notability but had either an external link reference to Emporis was deleted, while there are many other stub-skyscraper articles lying around Wiki that don't state their notability. If there is a clear consensus out of this discussion, I also propose creating a notability guideline for skyscrapers titled something like "Wikipedia:Notability (Buildings and structures)". Please share your thoughts on this matter. Cheers. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 04:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I recommend that such a (separate) guideline should not be created at this time, but that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture#Create new articles section be appropriately expanded. Such a guideline could be split off at a later stage. (See this edit for my reasoning. G.A.S 14:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I also think a separate guideline is not needed, the general WP:N guideline should suffice. If you have substantial sources, fine. If not, don't just create a mirror of Emporis. Also note that canceling a project does not erase notability, as some may erroneously assume. If anything, it increases notability by providing additional sources (i.e. why was it canceled?). Dhaluza 17:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Many skyscrapers have very little information given, other than that provided by Emporis. Even many developer websites give very little information about actual project details. If the definition of "a mirror of Emporis", or SkyscraperPage for that matter, is a stub-page that only gives information about height, location, address, dates, architect, developer and possibly an image, then I'm afraid that many existing skyscraper stubs would fall into this category. Would these therefore not meet notability guidelines, despite having two reliable sources and possibly a third from the developer? Rai-me 03:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Question

Do skyscrapers have any inherent notability on Wiki, just like mountains and lakes? Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 00:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

A quick search at my library turns up plenty about Brickell Station from sources like The Miami Herald, Sun-Sentinel, Miami New Times, etc. We don't need a new guideline for topics that already meet the current guideline. --Dragonfiend 02:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
But again, back to HI's question: do skyscrapers have inherent notability on Wiki? If information about a skyscraper is given on Emporis, SkyscraperPage, and a developer/architect website, but the building is not covered widely (or at all) in the press, does that make it less notable than a skyscraper that is mentioned in the press? Rai-me 03:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
No group of things (other than I suppose "those things whose importance has been covered by reputable sources") has "inherent notability." The difference between a "notable" and "non-notable" building, mound of earth, person, etc. is that reputable sources have made note of the former and not of the latter. --Dragonfiend 03:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thank you for the clarification. But would references to Emporis, SkyscraperPage and possibly the developer website make a skyscraper article notable? These would all three be considered reliable references, but at the same time it would mean that stub articles that some would classify as "mirrors of Emporis" would meet guidelines. Rai-me 07:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I would hope so. We should not have an article for each entry in reference books that include every instance of Class X. We should not include an article on every skyscraper; often the city article will say everything that needs to be said. In parallel, we don't have, and I hope we never will have, an article on every baronet who ever lived, although the Complete Baronettage has an entry on them all; we have articles on each baronetcy, with a succession table, and a sentence, paragraph, or section on each individual baronet, if they did anything interesting. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability Vaguness

"In particular, a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability." The article never really defines what long-term or short-term are. And then provides this comment. So should we delete all articles on products with short lifespans. For instance, a video game or a movie is usually only notable for few months. Musicians, particularly, one-hit-wonders also have the problem. It seems like notability defined by news coverage makes almost every article non-notable in any real sense of long-term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.1.156 (talk) 02:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

My answer would be that a burst of new coverage nearly always means the mere reporting of facts without commentary, analysis or the consideration of alterntive perspectives. In other words, news bursts are primary sources. If nobody, anywhere, ever "says something about" the subject, then the subject is not presumed to be sufficiently notable for wikipedia. --SmokeyJoe 07:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Page hits

Forgive me if this notion has discussed before. But here is something that I was wondering: often, when articles are proposed for deletion, the protagonist will declare that their subject is "not notable". I wondered if wikipedia has any facility not recording hits/views of articles. Such a system might give some sort of vaguely usuable benchmark of how many people were looking up a particular topic... in which case this may add weight to its claim of 'notability'? Thoughts...?--feline1 15:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki contains the feature to count page hits, although it seems to be disabled on Wikipedia for obvious performance reasons -- and the fact that such a thing isn't really that useful. However, page hits aren't necessarily an indicator of anything, as these can easily be skewed by a few people who can easily force-reload the page, and thus such a system would easily be abused. Also, an "addict" to the page can score as much as, say, five to ten times the hits a "passerby" would. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 18:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
What about counting searches for a particular phrase on the wikipedia "Search" box?--feline1 16:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know, Mediawiki doesn't have the capability of search counting. Plus... popular ≠ notable. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 18:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, if lots of people have been looking something up in wikipedia, cos they want to find out about it: surely even pedantic wikilawyer would have conceed that virtually a definition of notability? Or am I wrong?--feline1 18:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
People will do a search based on what interests them at the time, so in that respect such results would be biased. Doing a search "cos they want to find about it" doesn't necessary mean that the subject of their search is worthy of notice. In fact, sadly, with your idea, we run into the exact same problems as the "Google test", which will always be inherently biased towards current events, regardless of whether or not they will be notable in the future. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 21:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
MediaWiki does have something somewhat like that, used by m:WikiCharts. But I don't think it would help much, similarly to the Wikipedia:Google_test#Notability. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's a separate tool that's not part of the basic MediaWiki software. Actually, I wasn't aware of it until you mentioned it. :-) Of course, it runs into the problem of the "Google test" and shouldn't be used for notability, although there are other uses for these results beyond that. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 21:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

When to use the Notability tag and when the Refimprove tag

When an article has:

  • a list of publications (listed as further reading) that establish the subject's notablity
  • but no references inside the article
  • ... like most STUB and START articles

Should an editor in that case use Refimprove tag and not a Notability tag? I am arguing about this around the Management cybernetics article. I strongly oppose to the use of a Notability tag, because the subject itselve is proven notable. For outsiders, the readers, that seems like a wrong signal? So what to do? - Mdd 00:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Does notability degrade?

Please see here. I'm just curious about what is the official word and view on this. Fame certainly could be seen to degrade. For example, J. Frank Dalton was famous for claiming to be Jesse James. He died in 1951, and it's certain these days that his "fame" is somewhat non-existent. His notability, however, hasn't degraded I would think. Fame = constant recent news and coverage (Google News non-Archive link). Britney Spears has both fame and notability currently. Assuming she lives to the ripe old year of 2051, will her notability degrade over time?

Or, once "notable", is Britney's article a permanent placement, assuming that Wikipedia is around through 2051 and beyond? If she dropped completely off the map now, in 2007, would she be any less notable in 2100? Less famous, certainly--P.T. Barnum isn't famous in the sense of Britney today, but he will be eternally notable. Someone trying to AfD either of them would fail, I would hope. Just looking for some clarification on this. Thank you! • Lawrence Cohen 16:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Today's news is tomorrow's history. This is a question which has been discussed without a perfect solution. It seems the consensus is that there should be some standard which divides notability from newsworthy, but there is no fine-line defined. --Kevin Murray 16:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Would it make sense or help to simply apply the notability standards to events, as well as people? As in... someone could have a possible article at Their Name, assuming they are covered by multiple non-trivial sources. For what are they covered, though, becomes the question. If the specific events and facets of their lives are covered by multiple non-trivial sources, would that be sufficient? Perhaps such as: John Phinneas Smith was a truck driver. Not notable for that, but if 4-5 news sources all covered his truck driving, well, he's a notable (and at least for a time) famous truck driver. If he allegedly happened to rear end a small Volvo while driving, causing it to explode, but it was only covered in a lone news source (or repeated from the one--such as a Reuters story being copied all over the world), the Volvo Destruction would not be notable. However, if multiple sources covered the event/action/thing as well as the person, then the person would be notable. Would that be a good bar to set? It would certainly seem to separate the famous from the notable. • Lawrence Cohen 16:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Presumption

A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.


The highlighted expression isn't explained (although all the others are), and probably should be. It has led to misinterpretation in some cases.

Proposed explanation + footnote:


"Presumed" means a rebuttable presumption. Suitable coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable, however many subjects with such coverage may still be non-notable - they fail WP:NOT, or the coverage does not actually speak to notability when examined.[1]


[1] For example, adverts, announcements, minor news stories, and coverage with low levels of discrimination, are all examples of matters that may not be notable for the purposes of article creation, despite the existence of reliable sources. For examples of other circumstances also agreed by consensus to override this presumption, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.


Would something like this be okay to add? FT2 (Talk | email) 11:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That sounds entirely appropriate to me. It would certainly go a long way towards getting rid of 'Read it on Google News/in my school newspaper/on my local radio station' 0:) ~ Riana ⁂ 11:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I like that very much. I would suggest changing "suitable" to "significant" in the proposed language. Suitable implies the opposite of what the sentence resolves to, whereas significant would refer to and echo the standard already in place for the page (as in the past, I think "substantive" would be a more appropriate word, but that conversation appears dead).--Fuhghettaboutit 12:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
That looks very good to me. We have had far too many articles recently at AfD where the fact that they're sourced is taken to mean that they're automatically notable. ELIMINATORJR 13:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Much better than the old version. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 13:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
The shortcut must be expanded. Other than that, it looks good. Happy‑melon 13:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I am for it as well. I think it strikes exactly the right tone as to what a presumption means. However, I also agree with Fughettaboutit that "significant" (or "substantive") should be used instead of "suitable". Good suggestion!--Kubigula (talk) 21:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


Definition added. Minor variations for clarity:

  1. I have BOLDed the key words, for ease of reading the list.
  2. I have edited to "substantive" as two editors have suggested (in preference to "significant" here)
  3. Split 2nd sentence into two, starting a new sentence at "However".
  4. Add full policy name (per discussion).
  5. Final sentence changed from
"Satisfying this presumption of notability indicates a particular topic is worthy of notice, and may be included in the encyclopedia as a stand-alone article"
to
"A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia."
(Intention is clarity again, mostly again regarding "presumption", and highlighting that WP:N is only one of several criteria for an article to be included.)


Afterthought:

If a source discriminates poorly or not at all, it will be unable to reliably evidence that topics it covers are not "indiscriminate information" (as required by WP:NOT).

Add this to WP:NOT? FT2 (Talk | email) 23:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it is better not to add it to WP:NOT — I believe "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." already says the same. There is no need to over complicate WP:NOT. G.A.S 11:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Loosen up a bit?

As an end-user, Wikipedia is my first line to answer the question, "Who, what is _____".

Isn't this search evidence of notability? If I am curious about the topic, surely others are or will be.

I was driven to write this suggestion after encountering several topics that were deliberately removed or marked for deletion. Somebody has information to share about a topic, someone else like me wants to find out about it, but somebody else judges it not notable.

When it comes to skyscrapers or defunct companies, things that someone will want to learn about, things that someone cares enough to start an topic for, does it really hurt to have an article about it in Wikipedia? It's the user-centered mentality.

Shouldn't the standard for exclusion be MUCH higher than the standard for inclusion? When in doubt, why not err on the side of keeping the article?

Finally, how about considering demand for the information as a measure of notability? How about looking at a topic's Wikipedia search history stats, or even public keyword stats? (For example Digimarc is flagged for deletion, but Overture says that 400 people on the planet searched for it in one month.)

(I hope this is the right place for this. Please cut this noob some slack in any case.) 71.141.112.200 06:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

A concern is that your idea is the thin end of the wedge in accepting all sorts of rubbish/opinion/trivia. See Wikipedia:No Original Research. --SmokeyJoe 06:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Well stated. I concur. --Coolcaesar 18:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Rename the notability guideline

Why don't we just throw away the overloaded term "notability"? The primary notability criterion does not quantify notability, but instead determines how well the subject would stand up to the core Wikipedia policies — this is argued by almost every essay on the notability guideline. And it is not the same as the meaning of the word "notability" — even the primary criterion admits this: "A topic is presumed to be notable if [...]".

In my opinion, part of the reason why the notability guideline is so often misunderstood by newbies is its name. I can't count the number of times I've had to explain that the purpose of the guideline is to guarantee that included subjects could pass Wikipedia's verifiability and neutrality. And yet they still come back a couple of times saying something in the lines of "but the subject is clearly notable, why are Wikipedians saying that it's not?"

The underlying reason, as I see it, is that people take offense from Wikipedia editors doubting the "notability" of their subject, and maybe even get denial. So instead of constructively following the guideline, they ignore it and attempt to prove that the subject is notable in terms that they quantify notability — which is of course often irrelevant to verifiability/neutrality/etc. This also ties in with WP:BITE -- we should not insult potential new editors by claiming that their beloved subjects are so "un-notable" that they should be deleted from Wikipedia.

The obvious contender for the current name would be "inclusion guideline", but there could very well be more appropriate ones -- please do not form your opinion based on this alone. -- intgr [talk] 00:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

An excellent point worth looking into. Ideas for better names escape me now, but I'll definitely keep it in mind. This kind of reminds me of the rename for Wikipedia:Fair use. -- Ned Scott 03:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. Skimming through the discussion page, it seems that most of the oppose voters were objecting to the content of the proposed guideline, but considered the name change to be a positive thing. Any ideas why this was never discussed further or implemented? Did the participants just lose interest? -- intgr [talk] 18:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Ideas for why it was destined to falter?
It was a fork of WP:N. Forks are unproductive.
The term “notability” is so deeply entrenched that its use will continue regardless, and the renaming of WP:N would lead to the term reverting back to being poorly defined. --SmokeyJoe 04:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, there is the definition that the english language gives it. The point of a rename would be to show that we're not actually defining normal notability, but notability in the context of Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 05:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Editors can implement a limited version of this already if they choose - I generally link guidelines in my PROD and AFD nominations as: Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for web content, etc. JavaTenor 16:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
However it was an interesting idea, and might be useful to pull it from the vice of rejection, rewrite it but maintaining it's original spirit, and thrust it into the fires of dispute to make a consensus form. It is a good idea. mike4ty4 20:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability on Wikipedia has nothing to do with the real-world definition of notability, so it would be nice if another term could be found. It may be deeply entrenched but people would probably stop using it eventually. Realistically I doubt consensus could ever be found for such a change though.P4k 07:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

But that does not mean it is bad to try. I'll give it a try some time. mike4ty4 20:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article inclusion criteria or simply Wikipedia:Article inclusion. I like the extra word "criteria" though, it sort of nails down what the guideline is trying to do. The title tells you immediately what the content of the guideline is going to be about. It is also very clear, especially to newbies, why articles have been nominated for AfD (for failing to meet the "article inclusion criteria". What could be clearer than that?). Zunaid©® 11:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

With a sense of cynicism, I think it is a bad idea that will only fork the concept. You might talk about “article inclusion” and others will continue with notability. I think we have done well-enough to have tamed the concept of “notability”, which is entrenched in the culture, deletion policy and CSD. As for AfD, I, in agreement with User:Uncle G/On notability, believe that “not notable”, or even “fails WP:N” should not be used as reasons for deletion. Reasons should be more specific. Eg. “No secondary sources from reputable sources exist”; “No secondary sources are independent of the subject”; “All sources are primary; no evidence of notability, from secondary sources or otherwise, the article is entirely original research”. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 12:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
In the same way as "fails WP:N" is a poor deletion reason, so too will be "fails WP:AIC". One always has to state reasons why an article fails the criteria. This will not change the status quo. It is simply a rename which brings the title in line with what the guideline actually is. The content of the guideline has nothing to do with notability (in terms of the dictionary definition), it is de facto a set of article inclusion (and exclusion) criteria. Renaming it simply makes that more obvious, and if it corrects the mistaken perception of what this guideline is and makes it easier for newbies, we should make the change. Zunaid©® 14:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Definition required?

Hi.

I saw this:

" "Presumed" means a rebuttable presumption. Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable. However, many subjects with such coverage may still be non-notable – they fail What Wikipedia is not, or the coverage does not actually speak to notability when examined."

But how is coverage that "speaks to notability" defined, anyway? I do not see a definition. This only serves to make the notability thing a subjective free-for-all where someone can claim based on their own opinion, "yeah that speaks to notability", "nah it doesn't", and then you get "I like it" and "I hate it" type arguments which pretty much defeat the whole point of notability/inclusion criteria anyway. This needs more objectivity and more definitions. What does that statement highlighted above even mean? Does it mean the source has to say "blah blah blah is a notable blah blah blah" right there like that? Does it mean that not only is the source detailed, but very detailed? What does it mean? See, you need to have that otherwise the "guideline" is useless -- anyone could claim XXXXX is notable or not notable because they think the sources say that. mike4ty4 20:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

My opinion: Coverage that speaks to notability is any independent secondary coverage. Independent secondary coverage shows that someone else has already considered the subject sufficiently notable to write about it. There are then more questions that can be debated. For example:
  • Is the secondary coverage sufficiently substantitive/substantial/significant/deep/non-trivial?
  • Is the source really secondary (Is there commentary/analysis, and it is not a mere report of facts)?
  • Is the source really independent?
These three questions lead to a much healthier debate, focused on the sources and not on opinion about the meaning of notability. --SmokeyJoe 22:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

These points are helpful, but I have problems with the use of the term "secondary". People use the term as if it is quite clear, yet it is not. Is a an article in a peer review scientific journal secondary or primary? I have seen two views: (1) Yes, it is secondary and the laboratory notebook is primary, and (2) it is primary and a review article commenting on it is the secondary source. I also have problems with the notion that the notability guideline is objective. I think the three points by SmokeyJoe show that answering them is complex and therefore in part subjective. --Bduke 22:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I’m glad you consider my points helpful, and I agree that they are not a simple solution. I think they are an appropriate and useful deconstruction of the nebulous question “is it notable”.
There is indeed occassional confusion regarding “secondary”. That word by itself has a hopelessly large number of uses. The two words “secondary source” must be used inseparably. In the humanities, especially history, the term “secondary source” is well-defined, well-accepted and well-used. Consider the results of a google search on “secondary source”. The mainspace entry secondary source and the section in Wikipedia:No Original Research are also in good agreement.
The term "secondary source" is not usually used in the sciences. In the sciences, the word “secondary” is frequently used, but not in combination with “source”.
I accept the point that there may exist ways to demonstrate notability without reference to independent secondary sources, and I am happy with the current text that explicitly opens this door.
I also am uncomfortable with assertions of objectivity. I think it is not true, and even if it were true, it is not helpful. I don’t know that it actually hurts, but it doesn’t help. I believe the WP:N would be better to make no assertion regarding objectivity or subjectivity. --SmokeyJoe 12:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:N does not assert any subjectivity or objectivity. That was not the proposal. The proposal was to give meaning to the phrase "speak to notability". mike4ty4 20:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that makes a lot of sense, but in any event, I am going to have to leave the discussion with you. I fly to London from Melbourne tomorrow and I will have little time to get involved with these discussions for the next three weeks. --Bduke 13:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


Part of the problem is that some key concepts the community wants to endorse are by nature, a little subjective in application. How "notable" are different views, and is something "notable" or not? The bottom line is that whatever opinions individual editors may hold on it, the community seems to feel there is a line which needs to be judged in each case, and probably can't be defined well. So guidelines like this try to set out both sides of the line, without making either side unduly exaggerated, and yes, there is ambiguity. It might be undesirable or unsatisfactory to have a definition that says beyond a certain point "you have to get the idea and decide"... but that's always going to be the case given the scope of topics and the community's consistent rejection of bright line rules to specify it. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
But if it does not define even a reasonable bound that the line should be in, or how to decide where the line should be, then that's a problem, as then what's to stop one from drawing the line wherever one pleases? Although the definition may need to be "loose", it should also not be too loose. And "too loose" includes "no definition at all". An example is this. If one were to define "speaking to notability" as "depth of the coverage", then there would be a "looseness" since it is not specified exactly how deep the coverage must be, and hence it would be a judgment call and still determined by precedent, but there is still a definition, as one has an idea of what "speaking to notability" would be referring to. It's like saying "the sources should zazz." But what's "zazz"? There's nothing to say what the phrase even means. There's nothing to even allow you to "get the idea", there's no "idea" to get to start your deciding. How would you decide on whether a source zazzes, by the way? mike4ty4 20:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Afterthought: This is probably hard to avoid. For example asking "Is the secondary coverage sufficiently substantitive/substantial/significant/deep/non-trivial" actually has the exact same point, that a subjective decision is called for, and whether you label that as "is it sufficiently notable" or "is it sufficiently substantitive/substantial/significant/deep/non-trivial", it seems to me, that as long as we know what we mean, the decision is basically equally easy or hard. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Other afterthought: The question you raise actually isn't a problem. What it's saying could be paraphrased this way:
"Our rough criteria is to try and judge the problematic category 'things that are worthy of note'. If something's been seriously noticed by independent reliable sources, then it's probably worthy of note from an encyclopedia point of view. But not always. Some independent reliable sources mention things - and commonsense tells us it doesn't actually indicate anything about whether the thing was seriously noticed by the outside world, or worthy of note, which is what we're typing to judge. For example, adverts. So be aware of that possibility."
Does that help? FT2 (Talk | email) 00:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I suppose. So then it means gauging how much notice the thing has attained in the world outside Wikipedia, hence what one is looking for to see if the source "speaks to notability" is to see if it would really indicate a serious amount of attention being given. For example, if you found really extensive sources with all sorts of references to dozens of papers on the subject by all sorts of different independent parties, that would likely be considered as speaking to notability, since common sense would suggest a lot of attention was being given to the subject (what with all those papers being pointed to.). In other words, one is looking for how much attention the source is indicating, not just how much coverage the source itself gives. mike4ty4 20:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

notability in a fictional content

as noted in WP:PAPER, wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and should not be as restricted in content as a paper encyclopedia would be. to that end, i think the notability criterion for fictional content should be different then the notability criterion for current events. for example, Captain Picard is not going to be mentioned too often on cnn.com, bbc.co.uk, or whatever, yet because he is notable within the context of Star Trek, he should have an article.

i'm aware that this contradicts WP:NOTINHERITED, but i do not agree with WP:NOTINHERITED. of course, there should obviously be a limit to this, as well. captain picard's notability is inherited. anything that would inherit from something else that's inherited should not have a wikipedia article and thus captain picards heart doesn't qualify even though he, himself, does.

thoughts? comments? if people agree, could maybe WP:N be amended to make this clearer? 209.209.214.5 23:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not confuse "Not paper" with "Free range to write about whatever you want". "Not paper" means it isn't restricted by space, like a paper encyclopedia is, not that it isn't restricted by content. Please see WP:INDISCRIMINATE.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
maybe you should go back and reread what i wrote. what i proposed does allow discrimination. i even gave an example of an article that wouldn't be allowed, but hey - if you want to engage in red herrings by introducing unrelated minutia into the fray, don't let me stop you 209.209.214.5 02:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Your example of Captain Picard is moot. You are assuming that CNN and BBC are the only reliable sources that establish notability, they are not. Picard is not notable simply for being a captain of the Enterprise. Though the article may not show it, I'd be willing to bet that there is significant coverage outside the main source for that character.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
oh - that's right - i forgot New York Times, Washington Post, ABC and NBC. let me quote from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fan translation. "If you can find a BBC, CNN, New York Times, Washington Post, ABC, NBC or any other important coverage, then it may be worth a note. If not a single reliable site find the information newsworthy, nor we." 209.209.214.5 04:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Again, there are more reliable sources than simply the ones you listed. Just because some editor listed those sources as ones people should look for, does not mean those are the only ones. I believe the beginning of that quote was him/her discussing how RPGamer wasn't considered reliable. So, as said, if there are reliable secondary sources covering the topic, then you're all set. I'm sure Picard has plenty of reliable secondary sources out there--I see at least 3 secondary sources already on his page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Rather than complain that there aren't any sources like The New York Times, etc. for the Captain Picard article, you could just go to your local library and find that on page 22C of the October 5, 1987 New York Times it reads "The new captain is Jean-Luc Picard, and he is played by the fine British actor Patrick Stewart, formerly of the Royal Shakespeare Company. Among the captain's more endearing quirks: he doesn't feel comfortable with children. This is significant because the new Enterprise travels with a small city of families ..." etc. --Dragonfiend 05:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Not to quibble too much, but to me, that's a very weak secondary source: sure, it's written after Encounter at Farpoint, but that really doesn't establish Picard's notability in the real-world; it helps to support a brief characterization of Picard in a larger Characters on Star Trek: the Next Generation article or within the ST:TNG article, but not Picard alone Stating that Patrick Stewart is the actor is not sufficient. That's not to say there aren't notable sources for Picard, nor that the NY Times article couldn't be used in such, but notability should be a stronger support. In my opinion, of course... --Masem 05:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the point was that with what appears to be very little effort, Dragonfiend was able to find a reference by simply looking for at his local library. Thus, who knows what else is out there, with a little bit of work. -- Ned Scott 06:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
i think you overstate the ease with which such a task can be accomplished. try a google search for picard. all i see are fan sites 209.209.214.5 13:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
a better search. Try Google news search for references from the popular press, and Google scholar for references from scholarly publications, as well as or instead of the usual Google web search. And sometimes a more specific search string helps. —David Eppstein 15:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thanks for the tip! what about for stuff like DNA Resequencer, though? it seems like the press is more prone to discussing characters and the actors who play them then they are to discuss fictional items. i did a google news search for dna resequencer and didn't get any results, yet i whole heartedly think that it deleting it would be wrong because, as explained in the article, it is, within the context of the stargate universe, notable. 209.209.214.5 15:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, for reams of reliable sources, a Google book search is more fruitful Jean-Luc Picard. As to the post above, you're conflating the use of the word notable as we have defined it for Wikipedia purposes, with the vernacular definition. Notable here means significant coverage in reliable sources. Notable "within the stargate universe" doesn't speak to what we mean by "notable." Remember that verifiability (which is an unwaivable bedrock policy) requires all facts in articles to be verified through reliable sources. Notability is a companion guideline that speaks to whether the subject, rather than the facts about the subject, has received sufficient publication. Jean-Luc Picard meets both in spades as is easily seen by the above searches. DNA Resequencer may not but what you are looking for to see whether it is notable is not subjective.--Fuhghettaboutit 19:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
"Notable here means significant coverage in reliable sources." within the context of stargate, episodes are reliable sources. if the official wikipedia definition of reliability doesn't adjust it's standards depending on the context, then i would like to dispute that definition. there is no need for all article subjects to be notable in the "real world" per WP:PAPER... 209.209.214.5 20:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Episodes are Sewage processing facility#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources|primary sources, not secondary sources. Primary sources usually don't provide insight as to why something is notable. Again, please do not misunderstand WP:PAPER. WP:PAPER means that we don't have a size limit to what we can talk about, not that we don't have a restriction on what we can talk about. It even says at the bottom of that section: "This policy is not a free pass for inclusion".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
i'm not saying WP:PAPER does give a free pass for inclusion. please stop misrepresenting my point. i even provided an example of how you could exclude articles. why do you ignore it? to suggest that i'm suggesting that all articles be given a free pass is absurd.
that said, even if i did agree with you, i'm not sure why you people care so much. an article on an nn-person is liable to be subject to liable. an article on an nn-real world product is liable to have its importance overstated. but what's the harm in fictional stuff? wikipedia isn't going to be sued over liable because of an article about a fictional object nor is it going to be spammed. it, in short, doesn't do wikipedia any harm to allow it, yet disallowing such articles do, in fact, harm wikipedia. you have people who, for whatever reason, enjoy a subject enough to write loads of articles about it. by deleting their contributions, you're liable to make them resentful. you may think their contributions are stupid, but they don't, and because of that, all you're really going to end up doing is turning them into vandals. "wikipedia's policies don't care about me, so why should i care about them?", they might think.
so i just have to wonder - what is it about these articles that makes them so terrible? why do you people think it's preferable to have vandals then it is to have articles? 209.209.214.5 20:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
You keep using PAPER as if it states that we can have an article on anything and everything, which it doesn't. Your example of Picard has already been refuted, as many editors have pointed out that there are plenty of reliable sources on Picard--and that there are sources outside the small list you provided. As for the "deleting of contributions," when you come to Wikipedia anything you add is subject to review by any number of editors. You do not own any article, nor does your edit have to be there. If people turn into vandals at the slightest hint that their "work" has been deleted, then it means they didn't have any intention of becoming responsible editors in the first place. My work has been deleted before. I've had plenty of senior editors, when I was more newbish...and sometimes now, revert, correct, etc etc my edits based on policies and guidelines I was not aware of. I didn't turn to vandalism. That's like saying that if I get an "F" on a paper I'm going to go commit crime. It's called learning the rules of engagement. We have many systems in place that dictate how we edit. Just because people see "anyone can edit" and interpret that as "nothing should be deleted" doesn't mean we should change our policies and guidelines. Wiki isn't an indiscriminate collection of information, and how we determine what "makes the cut" so to speak is by our notability guideline.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
you are an idiot. you don't like the picard example? fine. here's another one. by my proposed criterion, the dna resequencer is fair game for an article, but the button's on the dna resequencer are not. in this way, articles are being excluded, despite your claims to the contrary.
do you seriously think my whole bloody proposal was contigent upon picard? that was an example. it can be replaced just as easily with another one just as easily. or maybe you think that this example doesn't apply? please. do tell me how i don't know what is an isn't an example of what i'm proposing. please. because i'd enjoy the opportunity to laugh at you and your idiocy.
as for the rest... i can't comment on the articles of yours that you've had deleted, but i think your "That's like saying that if I get an "F" on a paper I'm going to go commit crime." line is quite disingenious. just because you write a paper doesn't mean you take pride in that paper. just because you've been told by your teacher to write a paper doesn't mean you enjoyed it so much that you would have done it on your own. if, however, you did take great pride in the paper you wrote and you got an "F", it would not be unreasonable to be insulted and to be angry with the teacher. and who knows - maybe at the end of the class, if you're asked to leave anonymous feedback to the teacher, you might be fairly mean spirited in your own feedback. that's basically the same thing as vandalizing wikipedia. your suppisition that people would go out and commit a crime is absurd. that's sorta like saying... ooh.. my wife cheated on me with person a, so instead of being cold to person a, i'm gonna go kill person b, whom i've never met! wheeee! it's fun to think like BIGNOLE!!! 209.209.214.5 23:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Wow, getting a little testy. Let's lay off the personal attacks. I have no idea what the DNA resequencer is, I don't watch the show, but if the only thing you can say is "it's in this episode and it was important in this episode" then I have to say that it isn't notable to the real world. It may be notable to you Trekkies, but to the rest of the world--as Wikipedia wasn't built for fans--it is irrelevant. It has no relevant information beyond what Trekkies would find important. We have other outlets for that kind of information. I think its funny that your view of people is so cynical that you believe that people lash out so easily because they "had a lot of pride" in what they created. I'm sure they would be hurt, and probably a little spiteful, but I don't believe that it would turn someone into a vandal if they didn't already have the intention to be a vandal. That isn't saying that I think they were going to edit in good faith long enough to vandalize later, but that they are probably the type of immature editors that come along and if they don't get their way they start lashing out because of it--like making personal attacks toward editors, or blanking pages. I've seen people vandalize and attack editors just because they were adding original research (a policy) or not verifying their work (another policy)...no matter how civil the other editor was to them by assuming good faith.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
why does something have to be real to be on Wikipedia? and your whole "Wikipedia wasn't built for fans" line is quite disingenious. no one ever claimed it was. the english wikipedia recently hit two million articles. if, let's say, 1,000 of those articles were dedicated to Star Trek, that'd be .05% of wikipedia that's dedicated to star trek. and yet you somehow construe that to mean that, all of a sudden, wikipedia is little more then a trekkie fan site?
i'm curious - who do you think won the United States presidential election, 2004#Grand_Total? maybe David Cobb? he got .096% of the popular vote. since .05% is enough for you to dismiss wikipedia as being a star trek fan site, you must also think that David Cobb's .096% should have been enough to make him win the election? and if you don't think that, why not? why do inflate a fraction of a percent, on wikipedia, to 100%, and not do the same for united states presidential elections?
also, your opinion as to its relevence is irrelevent. to me, the United States presidential election, 1824 is irrelevent. heck - in today's day and age, it's irrelevant. to you, star trek is irrelevent. what makes your take on relevancy better then anyone elses?
that said, i will concede your point about how an editor who vandalizes a page is being immature. that, however, doesn't mean that you should goad them. if you have reason to believe that someone would become a vandal if they didn't get their way then you have to ask yourself... is "their way" really so offensive that doing something that'd turn them into a vandal is worth it? 209.209.214.5 15:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Something doesn't have to be "real", it has to have "real world content". Even fictional things are biproducts of actual events. A television show is a biproduct of the production that went into making it. Notability was a biproduct of the significant coverage that show received. Johnny killing Amber isn't real, it's made up and it should not be presented as such. You are the one miscontruing things. You bring up examples of articles that have not even been questioned as "non-notable" (as from what I saw, had plenty of reliable sources attached to them. Could they use cleaning up, most definitely, but there didn't seem to be a question of notability). Your examples keep going back to Star Trek. What you are missing is that just because there are 1000 Trek articles, there could be 10,000 Trek editors. Hell, you only need maybe 20 Trek fans, who edit Wikipedia, to be present during an AfD, and no matter how much an article should not exist, there could be enough fans voting to keep it. AfDs shouldn't be about voting, but they generally turn into that.
Please show me where I said "Star Trek is irrelevant." I don't recall saying that. Also, American history, if you're American, is a cornerstone of education...I don't think Star Trek is. That being said, I still retain that I didn't say ST was irrelevant. If anything, parts of it are not relevant to Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't here to be a mirror for the shows that aired. Wikipedia is not a substitute for watching, reading, etc Star Trek. This is why we have policies regarding said things. Do we need an entire article devoted to something that could be condensed into one very nice, full paragraph? If that's the case, then no. We have another page devoted to concise information on Wikipedia.
As for the vandals, I'm sorry, but if "their way" violates policies and guidelines, I don't care how immature they are, it will be corrected. There is a difference between "goading" someone, and calmly explaining that we have guidelines and policies that regulate our actions on Wikipedia and trying to educate them on proper practices. If someone wants to be immature, even when you are being civil, then I'm not going to bend to their will just because they don't want to play by the rules. This is why we have "time-out" (in this case, a couple hours blocked from editing), and since Admins are the only ones that can block, you cannot argue that anyone "got someone else blocked by goading them into vandalizing". First, they have free will...they chose their actions. Second, Admins review the case based on the evidence, if their is sufficient reason to block then its done. But we are getting way off topic. Your initial concern for notability was about notability of fiction being different. At first I thought you were aware of the correct page, but were bringing the argument to the general page, but I've come to think that you must not be aware that we have a Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), and a Wikipedia:Notability (films) page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
saying that you're opposed to star trek articles is my sound-bytey way of saying you're opposed to articles about star trek that don't have real world references. as already noted, captain picard has real world references, so he doesn't apply. the series, itself, has real world references, too, so it doesn't count. what i've been saying is that i think the real world reference requirement is too strict, but you disagree with that.
so i guess my succient summarization of your point was too succicient and i apologize for that... 209.209.214.5 18:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Adding another point: Notability does not decrease over time. The 1824 election WAS important, in 1824 - there's even a secondary source on that page from 1825. But, notability has to merited by real-world influences. If, at some point in the future, a fictional television show becomes the basis for a world-wide religion, then it has earned its notability. --Masem 18:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
i disagree with your assertion that notability does not decrease over time. Bildad may have been notable when he was alive, but is he notable, now? will his article ever be anything other then a stub?
i'm not saying he should be deleted, but he isn't exactly the most important person in the universe, now, either.
also, i'm not sure what you mean with your last sentance? are you citing a futurama episode as evidence that star trek has become the basis for a world-wide religion??? 209.209.214.5 18:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
And another point why this is all important: Wikipedia is otherwise considered a laughing stock for some of the excessive details: 3 of the 8 links in this article point to excessive fictional elements (though I'd argue the 7th Heaven list is actually ok). --Masem 18:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
looks to me like they're laughing not at wikipedia, but at the articles. and really, who cares? conservatives dislike digg.com (which is where i first saw that story) and think it has a liberal bias. liberals dislike fox news and think it has a conservative bias. you're not going to be able to please everyone and it's asinine to try.
say all the articles they complained about were shortened or deleted. then the people at cracked.com would be happy, but not the editors who contributed to those articles lengths. but better people hate wikipedia for pissing on their pride enjoyment then people laughing at wikipedia, right?
besides, anyone who would condemn wikipedia as being crap for 5 articles (out of 2 million) is being a fag. they're going to laugh at wikipedia no matter what wikipedia does and the only way they're going to stop laughing is if wikipedia closes up shop 209.209.214.5 19:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I would say that Wikipedia has way more than 5 articles that have problems. I would put money on the idea that 90% of the television articles fail multiple policies and guidelines. Regardless, there are other outlets. No one said you couldn't write about an episode, the concern is that most do not warrant separate articles. Smallville (season 1) clearly shows you can write about an entire season, include relevant plot information, real world content, and keep things fairly organized. We have respective Wikias for more detailed in-universe information, which would be more important to fans of the respective shows, than to the general public. Also, notability does not decrease or erase over time. Notability is notability, and should not be confused with popularity. Something can be popular one minute and not the next. If Bildad was notable yesterday, it will be notable tomorrow. But, if Bildad is not popular with the culture (or all cultures for that matter) ten days from now, he hasn't lost his notability...he's simply lost his popularity. I would beg to argue that no one cares about how this country (USA) came together any longer--it's a sad truth, which is very apparent in society's knowledge of said event--but I would also argue that this country coming together was and will always be a notable event. Whether people care about it now is irrelevant to the fact that it was very important then.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
how do you distinguish between notability and popularity? if cnn.com mentions something, does that suddenly make it notable? why couldn't it be popular, instead, but not notable? 209.209.214.5 03:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikt:Popularity - Wikt:Notable? Kidding. Popularity diminishes with time, notability lasts forever. When Britney Spears first started out, she was popular. What made her notable was the impact she had on the music world. People may not listen to David Bowie any longer--as his popularity has basically diminished in regards to his music career--but he was a notable musical artist of his generation. How he impacted the music world then is still notable today, even if his music itself isn't popular any longer. Popularity changes with the times, but the events that shaped that popularity can never be changed. People can hate Michael Jackson all they want, and he could never sell another record again, but that doesn't change the fact that he was a phenom of the music world 20 years ago. We cannot change history, and that is why it never dies over time.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Re what harm there is in too much fictional or otherwise non-noteworthy stuff: see The Library of Babel for a cautionary example, in which nothing important can be found because it's surrounded by too much cruft. —David Eppstein 21:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Anon, I presume you are speaking of libel in the case of a real person. Fair enough, Wikipedia is not about to be sued for libel by a fictional person. However, it can be accused of copyright infringement and tribute plagiarism over many of its acticles about fiction. Retelling plots and character histories is actually illegal; speculating about fictional worlds can also (justifiably) annoy authors and provide them with grounds to cry intellectual plagiarism or even, be taken themselves as libel (assigning motives to an author which they don't have). The only legal/fair/appropriate way to discuss fiction (except that which is in the public domain, of course) is by writing articles from an out-of-universe viewpoint, (ie. how this work is important in the real world), something impossible to do without secondary or tertiary sources. Primary sources (ie the work itself) is only useful for providing context for the OOU discussion. Fictional notability (in a Wikipedia context) is dependant on secondary sources. Gwinva 22:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
that was quite a convincing argument, Gwinva. thank you 209.209.214.5 23:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Gwinva is right. But to nitpick, it is legal to discuss fiction in an in-universe style, IF it is done as a form of satirical comment on the fiction. However, that wouldn’t be suitable for wikipedia. --SmokeyJoe 01:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
However The Law(tm) does not have "notability" written in it as some sort of exception. mike4ty4 04:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Ooh, now I see what your objection was. Notability is required not because the law requires it, but because it ensures there are enough sources so the article can be written in a way that is acceptable under the law, while at the same time satisfying Wikipedia's content policies (especially verifiability and no original research), the latter of which is required in order for the article to be encyclopedic. So to write about a non-notable subject yet comply with the law, one would have to stray into unverifiable, original research, and the harm that causes is well-known: it would make Wikipedia less of an encyclopedia and more of a dump for all sorts of opinion and junk. mike4ty4 04:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose that the notability subguidelines be deprecated to essays (and merged appropriately) and the salient points (of which there are few) be incorporated into this main guideline. A sensible merging would not result in more than a few statements being added to this guideline. Notable awards and field (or industry) recognition would generally cover the relevant points made in the subguidelines. We don't need ten subguidelines to cover two basic points. Nearly a dozen guidelines to explain one guideline is just ridiculous! That's practically a perfect example of instruction creep. There's not even a need for ten essays explaining how to judge and practically apply notability. Thoughts? Vassyana 00:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree. You seem to be on a campaign against these guidelines. Please do not rush to implement your suggestion. I suspect that you will not get consensus for it, but it may take time to emerge. I think many editors support the subject guidelines. I will comment in more detail later, but I'm busy right now. --Bduke 01:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Well I obviously think that 10 guidelines to describe 1 is more than a bit excessive. As for a "campaign", I don't see it. I raised my concerns and made my proposal. Though I suppose cross-posting on 11 pages might be campaigning, when there's the village pump plus ten subpages, it's a bit difficult to do otherwise. I'm in no rush to implement the suggestion and I'm seeking discussion to reach a consensus. That's why I posted on each notability subpage and on the village pump. Please show a little good faith. Vassyana 01:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Seems like a good idea. We can have specific sections that deal with specific aspects and consolidate all common wording in one place. Nothing will be lost and will be much easier to maintain. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we should look at them one at a time. My feeling is that at least some of them are useful in helping to pin down what is meant by notable in different categories, but I'd have to review them to be more definite about which ones. Dicklyon 01:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Not saying I support or reject this proposal, but looking positively, at least we wouldn't have a problem with sub-guidelines contradicting the main one.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that you have to look at where the guidelines emerged from historically. The project originally had problems concretely delineating what was and wasn't considered notable. The main guideline needs to cover all possible notable subjects, and so it's very amorphous and non-specific, which is understandable. I believe that the Music notability was one of the first successful ones to emerge, because it gave several clear parallel criteria which most people agreed were collectively satisfactory to admit what consensus deemed notable while keeping out cruft and spam. Other groups followed suit, understandably. Different fields need different concrete criteria; the general notability criteria provide an overall framework from which to adhere to in the specific guidelines. Girolamo Savonarola 01:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd propose a middle approach - call it the "small bang" in contrast to Vassyana's "big bang" proposal. First, do no harm - to make sure the ten don't increase, take an active role in opposing further creep: there are several active notabilitity proposals that are competely redundant to the general notability criterion. Second, pick off the most egregious of the ten (WP:PORNBIO, anyone?); Kevin Murray did a good job of coordinating the merger of a bunch of separate notability guidelines into WP:CORP/WP:ORG. Third, focus on the most egregious differences to the general criterion (both WP:BOOKS and WP:MUSIC have a big dose of inherited notability: if the group is notable, all their albums, all their songs, all their labels are also notable). I think this incremental approach is superior to the merge-all method. UnitedStatesian 01:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
That's more likely to be generally acceptable. My own thought would be a slightly bigger bang - the general guideline plus one additional page to capture notability precedent - perhaps Wikipedia:Notability Precedent? The precedent page could contain a few of the salient points from the subguidelines as well as the stronger precedents from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. The precedent page wouldn't be absolutely binding - consensus can change after all - but it would allow for some consistency and respect for precedent.--Kubigula (talk) 01:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
That would be generally in line with what I would like to see and would be quite agreeable to me. Vassyana 02:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Vassyana because the style and use in practice of the notability guidelines is too much like rules to feed articles to AfD than guidelines to help improve the product. Where special guidance is helpful, it is better done elsewhere than under the notability umbrella. For example, Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) are both trying to accomplish the same thing, but the first implies enforcement by deletion at AfD as a threat, while the second merely recommends a better style.

Where appropriate sources for specific subjects requires elaboration, this would be far better done as an extensions of Wikipedia:Reliable Sources than as a proliferation of interpretation of the meaning of notability. The notability test is better stated as a question of existence of sources, usually secondary sources. Different categories may require different sorts of sources, but it is still a question of existence of suitable sources.

Historically, as Girolamo notes, there is a mess of interpretation of the nebulous word “notability”. Due to the history, “notability” is entrenched in wikipedia culture. The best we can do from here is keep notability simple, and where there are issues, focus on the root of the issue, which is the issue of appropriate sourcing. --SmokeyJoe 02:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I had not particularly thought of it in those terms, but this is a very good observation. Vassyana 02:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an ill thought out proposal. Vassyana, in your zeal for simplicity, you are overlooking that not everyone in existence is as capable at deducing specific applications from general rules as you presumably are. Specific guidelines for specific cases are needed so that we can make our policies clear to everyone, rather than turning them into esoteric messes that only the Wikipedian elite understand the true meanings of. (Also, regarding the above-mentioned specific case of WP:FICT, it's my personal view that notability and style are so interweaved in that area that we should have one guideline which discusses both.) --tjstrf talk 02:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The snarky attitude is unnecessary and unhelpful. That said, there is very little of substance in the way of criteria in the subguidelines, and it can be generally covered by two points (as mentioned above). Additionally, I've openly supported the existence of a subguideline or essay on how to specifically and practically judge notability. If you think my assessment is incorrect or that the proposal is otherwise flawed, provide constructive criticism. Please take more care in your future comments. Vassyana 03:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
A lot of that non-substance is because the individual guidelines for some reason feel it's necessary to restate half of WP:N, and it could be dealt with by simple trimming and telling people to read the main guideline in their intros instead. (They should be reading it anyway). --tjstrf talk 04:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Do you feel that my assessment of what substance, or distinct criteria, they posses is correct or incorrect? What do those subguidelines contain that cannot be merged into the main guideline and a single dependent guideline/essay? Vassyana 04:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
No, I really don't. Most of the criteria on the specific guidelines are not just restatements of WP:N, or at least not intuitively obvious ones. Plus, there are cases where the notability guideline has to deal with other issues as well. Like the corporations guideline, which has to also discuss issues with advertising and COI, or WP:FICT, where the argument doesn't boil down to "there's nothing attributable to say so you can't write about it" like in most other subjects.
How would a giant 100+ bullet list of every unique bullet point from all the notability guidelines make our policies less confusing anyway? --tjstrf talk 05:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The corporation guidelines says absolutely nothing about conflict of interest. The advertising section is about flaws that essentially boil down to poor, or no, sourcing. There are tons of such flaws and they're not related to notability except in the requirement for reliable third-party sources. The fiction guideline makes no such claims or assertions. It quite clearly, and repeatedly, emphasizes the need for reliable third-party references to establish notability, in line with general notability. Please take a good look over the subguidelines as you've an acute misunderstanding of what they state. Vassyana 07:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Regarding WP:CORP, you may be correct, as I probably haven't read the page since the Arch Coal deletion debate last year. Regarding WP:FICT, you misunderstood my point, which was that the reasoning is inherently different: in all other cases notability is an extension of the attributability principles (an article which fails the primary notability criterion will by definition lack any substantial attributable content). In the case of fiction, it has to do with Wikipedia preferring to keep its focus on the real word. --tjstrf talk 07:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I sincerely apologize for the misunderstanding. That was utterly my fault in assuming, instead of asking for clarification. The FICT example just seems to add only the third criteria that would need to be added to the main guideline. At this point, I count notable awards and industry/field recognition as indications of notability, and a restriction that says fictional subjects must have a real-world impact reported by third-party sources. What else is unique to the subguidelines, in your view? Vassyana 08:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think a merge is a good idea. There are important differences between how each of these subjects should be treated, and that will not be expressed correctly in a merged page. - Peregrine Fisher 04:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Can you provide some examples? Which of the subguidelines contains guidance that cannot be incorporated into notability and a single dependent guidance page? Vassyana 04:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Peregrine, what do you think of the idea that the differences are better approached from the perspective of appropriate sourcing? --SmokeyJoe 04:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I cannot support a proposal of this type without seeing much more detail of how it is to be implemented, e.g. a draft merged guideline. There is a big range between having a guideline that is pretty much what we have now in WP:N, versus one with long subsections for each merged topic, and I don't have a sense for which end of this range you're aiming for. Is the aim to centralize the places one needs to look for guidelines, that is, to reduce the number of different guidelines one needs to view, or is to to eliminate the distinctions that have arisen in how to apply the notability standards for different subjects? I am neutral on the former as I see it as mindless rearrangement, but opposed to the latter: these distinctions are important and useful. —David Eppstein 04:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

David, on the question of distinctions in how to apply the notability standards for different subjects: Can you give some examples of such distinctions that are important and useful? --SmokeyJoe 05:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so let's look specifically at say WP:NUMBER. It includes specific guidelines for whether to include an article on a particular number, such as 27 — obviously we can't include them all, and there have been many AfDs and other disputes about whether some specific number is too big and boring to include. The guidelines in WP:NUMBER say, among other things, that to be the subject of an article, a number should have three interesting and unrelated mathematical properties, a rule that has greatly helped to focus and make consistent the AfDs on these topics. But this rule of thumb is not codified anywhere in WP:N, and doesn't make sense to apply to many other topics even within mathematics. What do you propose to do with rules of this type? —David Eppstein 06:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I propose to scrap such rules as incompatible with WP:NOR. Basically, such rules encourage original research at the expense of reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a mathematics journal, and it does not enlist verifiably credentialed reviewers. Wikipedia is only as good as its sources, and anything not based on published sources doesn’t belong. If you cannot find a source that discusses a certain number, then you should not be creating your own material to write about it. Finding a suitable source shouldn’t be too tricky because the primary/secondary source distinction doesn’t really apply to them. --SmokeyJoe 06:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
That's completely twisted logic. There is no original research being done in saying "Wikipedia will only accept articles on numbers with at least 3 verifiable unusual properties". It's an editorial rule. --tjstrf talk 07:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
But you forgot to say "verifiable" the first time; so he nailed you! Dicklyon 07:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Or me, actually. But since this is WP:N not WP:V... —David Eppstein 07:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
So unless we can find multiple reliable sources that are about that specific number, it gets deleted? Fine. I strongly oppose your proposal. It raises elegance of rules as a priority higher than any pragmatics of having a useful encyclopedia with a good selection of articles. That seems backwards to me. Thanks for the clarification. —David Eppstein 07:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The rules about numbers were just a concession to calm those hysterics who say, "Oh my god, they did an article on 42, the article on 156874642314543 is next!" Anton Mravcek 23:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC) P.S. I agree with Dave on the importance of a good selection of articles over the elegance of rules. Give people a chance to act with commonsense and they'll do it. Anton Mravcek 23:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, silly articles like that are created quite frequently. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1000000000000 (number) 2nd nomin, which has been deleted by two different AFDs. And 124000 (number) has just been created; it needs to be merged elsewhere. There is good reason for the number notability guideline. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
you need to be caerful if your gonna call a number wit religiuos significance silly, specially if your talking bout Islam. any number tahts stated with precision in a sacred text is theirfor notable. here's a much better esample of a silly number aritcle: 987651838543200011. anytime something taht black an white gets created, a deletionist is on the case, nomnating for deletion just seconds after creation, so teh rest of us can worry about actual gray zone cases, like 124000. Numerao 16:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Basically I oppose for the same reasons. The rules should serve us, not the other way around. Also, I'm getting the feeling this isn't a merge proposal, but basically an AfD for all the sub specific Note guidelines. What parts are we going to keep from them, exactly? - Peregrine Fisher 07:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Section break

I support the idea of merging the notability guidelines together for consistency and ease of use. --Dragonfiend 05:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You could incorporate stuff from the subs into the main, but I doubt that's going to happen. We'll end up with a page that just says "Significant coverage." For instance, with corporations I think we need more leeway than that. The vast majority of reliable sources are effectively out of our reach. Most newspaper articles go behind a subsription wall after a few weeks (internet archive does not help), not to mention all the years of newspapers and magazines that have never been converted into electronic form (and would be subscription only anyway). Until we have some way of judging the absolute, true existance (or not) of reliable sources, we need leeway. If you could include some generalized version of "However, chapter information is welcome for inclusion into wikipedia in list articles as long as only verifiable information is included." from Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), that would be cool. I don't think that's where this merge proposal is going though, and if it is, it's probably dead in the water. - Peregrine Fisher 05:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

“reliable sources are effectively out of our reach” What a shocking statement to read! If so, then what did the editor base his contribution on? Are editors making stuff up, and then sticking a dodgy reference at the bottom. Editors need to be encouraged to start their contributions with the reference information (which WP:N supposedly makes them do). Editors deserve to be trusted to not be lying about the existence of the references they claim to be using, and if they lie, they’ll be caught eventually. Luckily, we have edit histories. Yes, old newspapers become harder to access, but not impossible. Some of us have subscriptions, and major libraries keep major newspapers and magazines. --SmokeyJoe 05:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Foreign languages. --tjstrf talk 05:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant "significant coverage" is out reach. I don't think you'll find anyone that has problems with WP:V, other than the parts of WP:N that have been added to it. I didn't say impossible, I said they were effectively out of reach. I could learn a new language, pay for newspaper articles at $3 a pop, or scour my cities public libraries, but I'm not going to just because someone AfD'd an article that shouldn't be deleted. - Peregrine Fisher 06:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Research requires a minimum investment of time and/or money. It's not at all out of reach. Get you to a library. Regardless, the core policies, such as Wikipedia:Verifiability, are predicated on references to reliable third-party publications. Remember, if you want to add a claim, the burden is on you to provide a reliable source. Vassyana 06:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Also remember that there are tons of legacy pages from back when sourcing really wasn't expected, so tons of people wrote stuff from accurate personal knowledge without a clue that 4 years down the road they'd be in violation of policy. (And no they shouldn't be deleted on that basis.) --tjstrf talk 06:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The sourcing requirement is one of the oldest policies on Wikipedia, and the vast majority of Wikipedia articles came well after that policy, so this is a false argument. Vassyana 06:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
"One of the oldest policies"? Which one are you referring to? Wikipedia:Cite your sources, perhaps? That one's from 2002, which makes it predate WP:V by a whole year (and Wikipedia itself was founded a year before either).
Even then, WP:CS didn't actually require you to add sources until some time in mid-2004. Before that, it just said that if you did use sources, it would be good of you to list them. So not only was there no sourcing requirement for literally years of Wikipedia's existence, but even after it was policy it wasn't really expected except in cases where the information was controversial. In conclusion, there are huge amounts of valuable legacy content that "fails WP:V" simply because WP:V didn't exist yet, or wasn't enforced in any meaningful manner. (WP:N's modern formulation is a creation of 2006, incidentally.) --tjstrf talk 07:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
We're encouraged to tag and fix those articles. Regardless, my assertion holds true. Even going from mid-2004, literally 85% of Wikipedia articles were created since then. (July 7, 2004 was the 300 000 article mark in the English Wikipedia. We just reached 2 000 000.) Regardless, I don't really see what this has to do with the discussion at hand. Vassyana 07:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
It has to do with SmokeyJoe's claim that any unreferenced article is made up. --tjstrf talk 07:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah, understood. Sorry for not groking the intent of your statement. However, WP:V and WP:NOR both clearly state the only way to prove something isn't made up is to cite a reliable source, so I can understand where he's coming from. It's quite in line with central policy. Vassyana 08:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
(reset indent) No one is against V or OR. It's easy to satisfy those while running afoul of Note. Citing a work of fiction itself, using a corporate web site for information about the corporation, citing an official web site for non controversial information, saying obvious things about humbers, etc. These are all ways to put information into an article while following policy, while not doing nothing toward notability. - Peregrine Fisher 08:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, WP:V explicitly requires a reliance on "reliable, third-party published sources", which is exactly the core principle that notability is based upon. Vassyana 08:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I've always been curious how that bit of N got into V. - Peregrine Fisher 09:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
As have I. I don't remember it being there before my recent month's break, and I've seen it used for some really wikilawyerish debate arguments as well. I should see if I can remove it. --tjstrf talk 09:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid you're both a bit mixed up. It was in WP:V well before the existence of this page.[1] Vassyana 09:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid you don't know what we're talking about. We mean the completely non sequiter line that says "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."; a statement that is on the wrong page and a vast overgeneralization besides. --tjstrf talk 09:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid you didn't bother to check the link. Under the "burden of evidence" subsection, it states: "If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." Vassyana 09:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:V from October 2006: "If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." It's hardly recent. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 09:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
You're misrepresenting the issue by implying that the language is that recent. The old version I linked was from June 2006, over three months before the version you choose. Going back a full six months to April 2006, the sources section opens with a requirement for "credible, third party sources". It does however contain a less specific version of the "notability" requirement: "If an article topic has no reputable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic."[2] Checking a month later in May 2006, the policy read with the more specific version: "If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic."[3] Vassyana 10:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
No, what I was doing was backing you up by pointing out that that particular principle was not a recent feature of WP:V. Hence my comment: "It's hardly recent." --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 10:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
((goes to get his eyes checked)) And I'm talking about other people not paying attention. Yeesh. Please accept my apologies for the hasty and ill-thought response, I was dividing my attention between too many tasks (lesson learned). Vassyana 11:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
(reset indent/edit conflict) Note is that newer than 22 June 2006? The requirement of "If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic" is pretty trivially met. X is a character in Y. X is a corporation, X is a pornstar, etc. A bit trickier for numbers, maybe. There's probably some reliable lists of numbers out there, I guess. Anyways, that sentence didn't cut it, so Note was made. Note didn't cut it, so the subs were made. I'm sure this discussion comes up every few weeks. La de da. - Peregrine Fisher 09:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. If anything, we need more subject-specific guidelines for notability - a single, blanket policy cannot possibly hope to cover all aspects of knowledge that the project covers. Such a proposal might have been viable in previous years before the importance of WP:N rose to its current position, but as it is today, it cannot be so easily dumbed down. MalikCarr 07:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Can you provide some examples? Which of the subguidelines contains guidance that cannot be incorporated into notability and a single dependent guidance page? Vassyana 08:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - Whether these are guidelines or essays to support a main "guideline" seems a bit of a small point. Basically the "sub" parts explain for each subject area how to achieve the laudable aims of notable subjects being covered and non-notable subjects not being covered. So as these subject area so vastly different one to another I can see no value in merging the pages, none whatsoever. I can see a need for overall supervision to ensure some consistency of interpretation. but that is not the same thing as treating all subjects as the same. One size does not fix all. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
This is not a !vote.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 11:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Can you give an example? As far as I can see from reading the different pages, there is very little difference between one and the other. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 11:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Conditional support: I support the guideline as long as all the sub-guidelines are "demoted" to essay status. This will allow essays to provide better guidance; if there is doubt editors need only go back to WP:N. I believe that having one guideline is better than having multiple guidelines that in essence try to say the same thing. Imagine if we start to get sub-guidelines for chemistry, physics, astronomy (planets, stars,...), books, countries, Art and culture, Geography and places, Health and fitness, History and events, Philosophy and thinking, Religion and belief systems.... Regards, G.A.S 12:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I oppose the merge proposal. Sub-guidelines like WP:NUMBER are a good thing and, if anything, we need more of them. They show that editors have reached consensus on how WP:N should be applied in specific fields. They are much more specific than WP:N, which makes them more useful. Merging everything back into WP:N would create a bloated and unuseable gudieline; demoting the sub-guidelines to essays would significantly reduce their usefulness. Gandalf61 14:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. (ec) WP:NUMBER, have specifical guidelines which are (1) too long for the main Notability article, and (2) not applicable to anything else. It's possible that they should be replaced by a simpler variant of the general guidelines, but that should be discussed there, not here. Wikipedia:Notability (years) should have more specific guidelines than the present proposal, which also applies only to years, with possible variations for smaller (individual months and days) or larger (decades, centuries, millennia, eras) time intervals. Those specific notability guidelines, essays, proposals, (is there anything I've missed) which only restate the generally notability guidelines with a few clarifications could be merged here. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:NUMBER is a good example of a guideline that is redundant and easily merged in to this one. WP:NUMBER's "Have professional mathematicians published papers on this topic, or chapters in a book?" is basically a restating of WP:NOTE's "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Its few clarifications could be added as footnotes or subsections here. --Dragonfiend 16:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely wrong. There are separate, specific, guidelines, on integers, lists of integers, and non-integers. The one on integers is not a restatement of WP:NOTE. And the "clarifications", if kept intact, are longer than WP:NOTE. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
As a notability guideline, WP:NUMBER is erroneous and wayward. It is way too complicated; it contains too many questions requiring original research on the part of the wikipedian, it sometimes underemphasises the importance of sources, and other times overstates the sourcing requirement, seemingly suggesting that entire books may be appropriate. In the end, and perhaps this may surprise some of its supporters, it is way too restrictive. To have an article, a number should only need to have some interesting information contained in an independent reliable source. (A publication on a number by the discoverer of a number would not be independent). Any number in actual use, such as counting numbers, could have its own article, provided there is something to say about it beyond a dictionary definition. Of course, involved editors will decide to merge groups of numbers. WP:NUMBER could be considered a fine guideline for numbers, but it should not claim to be derived from WP:N. --SmokeyJoe 01:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I really think we should listen to what the people concerned think about this. In this case I refer to the WikiProject Mathematics folks. WP would be a lot more healthy if we listened more to the Projects. While we are discussing subject guidelines, we should also note that the WikiProjects have their guidelines, either formally or informally, about what WP:N involves in their area. Overwhelmingly I find these to be sensible and valuable. In many cases they really help in cutting through a very complex subject. For example, I am a chemist, although I take little part in articles on specific chemicals. The Project however can guide people to understand how to interpret sources and decide whether a given chemical is worth having an article, or whether it is more sensible to have an article on a group of related chemicals. A non-chemist would just be confused about this. AfD would not handle it well, but does not need to handle it as the project sorts it out in a reasonable way. --Bduke 02:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I think this is consistent with my proposal for WP:NUMBER to stand as a guideline on its own merits, independent of the encultured wikipedia concept of notability. See Wikipedia talk:Notability (numbers), [4]. --SmokeyJoe 04:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Changing the page title won't change that it's a guideline about what articles we accept(or don't accept) on the basis of their importance, so it will still be a notability guideline, just under another name for no purpose. --tjstrf talk 04:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:NUMBER, to my reading, is a reasonable guideline on numbers, but I consider it to be constrained by trying to frame itself in terms of notability. In the end, it doesn’t do this very well, and on some points it conflicts with WP:N. Your reference to “basis of importance” suggests that you do not accept the spirit of WP:N, in which the presumption of notability is based on secondary sources, or other objective evidence. --SmokeyJoe 06:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, my use of "basis of importance" rather than "basis of notability" is indicative that I dislike monotonous posts that use the same term repeatedly, and prefer to make my writing more interesting by introducing synonyms. (WP:N is about quantifying what is important enough for inclusion through the use of verifiable sources.) --tjstrf talk 07:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I support Vassyana's proposal. Returning to a unified notability guideline will counter instruction creep and ensure that interest groups cannot "hijack" the sub-guideline of their focus. There will always be enough eyes on WP:N, and the same basic rules of notability should apply to all articles. For borderline cases maybe we could instead establish some kind of notability help desk, in the vein of WP:AFC? — [ ˈaldǝˌbɛːɐ ] 18:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. How can creating a manned, bureacratic project be a good replacement for a cohesive set of clear guidelines?? The solution to poorly written sub-guidelines is to rewrite them, not to simply clear away all of the useful guidelines, some of which have grown up over years of consensus. A rewrite is currently underway at WP:FICT, other guidelines have concluded rewrites at various times in the past. If you have a problem with a specific guideline, propose a rewrite of it. If you think that a specific guideline is unnecessary, then propose its removal. However these guidelines exist for a reason, none of them are the result of some editor thinking "I'm bored. I know I'll make a new guideline" - policy just isn't made that way. The reason these documents exist is because they're important explanations of WP:N in specific circumstances. None of them are (hopefully) trying to redefine WP:N, and any that are certianly shouldn't be allowed to. Instead each provide a contextual explanation which interprets specific tenets in relation to their subject. If these guidelines are removed, their content will merely be duplicated on a hundred RFCs and a thousand AfDs. Why force people to spell out the whole argument every single time when at the moment they can simply type WP:BK or WP:ORG?? Unnecessary simplification simply necessitates duplication. Happy-melon 19:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

section break 2

I agree with Happymelon above: many of these guidelines offer helpful and useful means for determining notability in specific situations. They have been distilled and discussed over years by many editors, and represent the consensus of Wikipedia editors at large. One guideline will lead to the myriad interpretations of individual editors as they try and apply them to specific case. Not all editors are as skilled as those here in distilling and applying guidelines...most people do need things spelt out more clearly. Moreover, there will always be grey areas...hammer those out once, in a sub-guideline, not everytime a grey article is found. It is imperative that the sub-guidelined conform to the main notability guidelines, of course, and should be regularly assessed. As to some (many?) being unnecessary...then discuss each sub-guideline on a case-by-case basis. Perhaps some would benefit from improvement, merging, deleting, but let's not have a blanket 'all are evil and must be destroyed' mentality (or, conversely, 'all are precious and wonderful pieces of work, let's protect them all'). Make a list below, arrange in topics and themes, and discuss them one by one. And make a policy that anyone wanting to create a new notability guideline must discuss it centrally first. (ie here). Gwinva 23:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree also. A general guideline is certainly flexible--but it is much too flexible since in practice any such guideline can be applied to either keep or reject about any individual article--just a slight exaggeration, as based on discussions at Afd. The only hope for consistency is a little more specification. In the past, efforts at guideline revision have foundered because of their feared effect on particular types of articles--the way around it is to discuss the different types of articles specifically. Otherwise it all depends on the rhetorical skill of whoever happens to be at AfD; I think I have some ability at that art, but it would be better that it not all depend on what I can persuade people about in individual cases, but on what the community decides as rules. I would much rather have it go consistently and fairly than try to get it all my way. And the more we can remove from AfD the better able we will be to decide on the true problems. There are usually over 150 articles a day there, and that is too much to consider with any degree of attention, especially if one has any sort of an outside life. I'd like to see it down to 50. DGG (talk) 02:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I still have yet to see any argument that this merge proposal would lead to better (or even not worse) decisions regarding article deletion or editing. I think the people putting forth this proposal should try to address what problem in the current editorial process they think they are fixing, and what effect this proposal would have on the encyclopedic content of Wikipedia. Clearly this would simplify the rules under which we edit, and we can argue whether that's a good thing in the abstract or in this particular case, but the rules aren't the important part of Wikipedia compared to the articles. So what would this do to the articles? —David Eppstein 04:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I won't speak for anyone else, but my concern is that we seem to be heading to excessive compartmentalization of article inclusion standards. One of the legitimate (in my opinion) criticisms of Wikipedia is the imbalance of coverage on pop culture versus traditional encyclopedic topics. Creeping notability guidelines threaten to exacerbate that issue, with lower article inclusion standards in increasingly specialized areas. That being said, I'm prepared to consider (though not yet concede) that this proposal may be an overreaction. I see some good ideas above about reorganizing and tightening the guidelines we have. However, that would take a large amount of energy and commitment that I have yet to see emerge and don't apparently have myself.--Kubigula (talk) 04:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Howso? Anything historical is pretty much considered notable by default. The only things that really get hit hard by the rules are modern people, organizations, and indie bands.
On the more general issue, obviously we end up covering more and more specialized fields as time passes, and obviously they end up outnumbering the other ones. That's only natural; there are far more minorly important subjects to write about than there are majorly important ones. --tjstrf talk 04:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
When you bring up the over-representation of "pop-culture", Kubigula, you are raising a very good arguement for the establishment and retention of strong sub-guidelines. General notability guidelines do little to halt the rash of articles created by editors about their favourite TV shows (detailing every episode or minor character), gaming, comics etc etc. Discussions at WT:FICT and WP:EPISODE (for example) have attempted to put guidelines in place to halt the production of such articles and develop a way of assessing their worthiness of inclusion. Centralised discussions there are much more constructive than scattered AfD discussions regarding the exact implementation of WP:N. Let's strengthen theses sub-guidelines, not deprecate them. Gwinva 05:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with much of what you say - I would be in favor of strong, consistent and focused specialized guidelines, but that doesn't seem to be where we are heading. Personally, I believe there is a benefit to having subject specific notability guidance. However, the current structure is starting to sprawl and lose consistency - is there really a good reason why a porn actor should have a different article inclusion standard than a mainstream actor? I saw this proposal as a way to reign in the sprawl and centralize the issues.--Kubigula (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I also agree. Fact of the matter is that most editors do need things spelled out for them; they need specifics, not a vague generalization of what is notable. Also, as for the question why a porn actor should have different standards than a mainstream actor... I note that, at least in my view, there are now many more non-notable actors (bit players and the like) on Wikipedia then there are minor porn actors or performers. I wouldn't be adverse to making the porn actor notability guidelines into something that works for those in the performing arts. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 01:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Based on what I have read in the discussion so far, I strongly oppose the merge proposal. There are some notability subguidelines which need more, not less, specifics, that need substantial further discussion and where the notability standards are likely to substantially change in not too distant future. This applies, for example, to WP:PROF. At the moment, the guidelines regarding notability of scholars/scientists are fairly unclear. According to a reasonable reading of the current WP:PROF guidelines, anyone who has a tenured faculty appointment, published 30-50 papers in the refereed journals and gave 30-40 conference talks, qualifies as notable. This applies to most mid-career academics at U.S. universities, which count in the thousands. At the moment, this issue is not that crucial, since relatively few academics use wikipedia for professional purposes and regard having/not having a wikipedia entry about them as a substantial indicator of their professional standing. But that will probably change fairly soon and there are signs that it is happening already. It is clear to me that for academics futher refinement and toughening of notability standards will be necessary soon. So, as a specific example, merging WP:PROF now would be rather counter-productive. Regards, Nsk92 07:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Good points Nsk. I can see a strong case for specific guidelines where articles involve living people. --SmokeyJoe 08:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I also oppose this idea. We just went through this in the spring. Mangojuicetalk 13:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - I find having the separate articles to be really useful to help pinpoint different types of notability. I mainly work on one type of article, but when I needed information on a Biography topic, I was able to clearly tell what was acceptable and what was not. I also think that because the articles are separate, with separate talk pages, it encourages more discussion. Denaar 02:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It is clear that Vassyana’s merge proposal is not going to happen. This is not to say that mergers on a case by case basis won’t happen, or that some notability guidelines need work to make them compatible with WP:N (or vice versa). I do not agree with deprecating guidelines to essays. If it guides, then it is entitled to be a guideline. An alternative to Vassyana’s proposal, with a similar objective, is the recognition of WP:N as policy, however, I think WP:N is not universally applicable throughout mainspace and so is incompatible with policy status. --SmokeyJoe 06:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

As this would seem to be evident, I propose that this discussion be archived. Happy-melon 08:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I would support archiving the discussion. Further back and forth is not going to be productive at this point. Vassyana 16:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

With the concurrence of Vassyana, the original poster, I have archived the discussion above. The section below should be used only to discuss the act of closing the discussion. If significant opposition to this closure is shown, the discussion can be reopened. Happy-melon 18:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

We don't "archive" recent discussion, and this isn't an AfD or anything of the sort. -- Ned Scott 03:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that merging all of the subguidelines into N is not practical for two reasons: (1) it would be a jumble and (2) most of what is in the sub pages is not necessary or very helpful. There is a simple elegance to the concept at N of letting third party writers demonstrate notability by writing about a subject. I said the concept is simple, but the measurement is definitely problematic. On the other hand, I just don't see much clarity or objectivity in the sub pages. If you really boil them down to the essence they are: (a) paraphrased restatements of N; (b) arbitrary examples, and (c) prescriptive edicts from the majority of participants at the page on any particular day. --Kevin Murray 19:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

SUPPORT and wholeheartedly, at that. I agree with the new rules. They are much more streamlined, concise and easy to follow than the previous ones. Looking over the archives, there is overwhelming support for changing the rules, despite the objections of some editors.

The problem, specific to Music Notability, that requires a solution is that efforts to exclude certain U.S./U.K. bands and include certain obscure/foreign-language bands, we've come up with this ridiculous list of rules that, seriously, is difficult to read through without snickering. The new list should be simple and succinct. Lawofone 13:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I have conducted a quick survey of Support/Oppose votes above. By "quick" I mean I looked only for bold text or the first sentence of unindented paragraphs. My conclusion: four votes in favour, 11 in opposition. I assume that you are simply mistaken in your "look over the archives", and are not attempting to twist the results. In fact the majority of comments on this page, including the final ones of Vassyana the original suggestor, are in opposition to an unilateral merge. It is not disputed that several of the notability subguidelines are inconsistent with WP:N and hence need to be rewritten. Attempts to this end are already underway at Fiction. However this is not a reason to deprecate such guidelines, only to adjust them to be compatible with WP:N. Happy-melon 15:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
What I meant was (and I appologize for not being clear enough) is that opposition to changing the rules is far from unanimous, as even your cursory voty tally shows. I read through every archive on the Music Notability talk page, and this discussion rears its head CONSTANTLY, and it's always the same four or five editors that shoot it down. By familiarizing yourself with the ongoing discussion on that talk page, you could see that these changes, alignments, merges, WHATEVER, are a move that a large number of editors are in favor of. Lawofone 14:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this discussion concluded? I understand Vassyana's concerns, but, as with others, feel some detail may be lost in a major merge at this time. The consensus appears to be to look again at each nobility criteria with a view to case by case merges, and rewrites. If that is the understanding, the current merge tags need to be looked at for either removal or pointing at new targets. I have now redirected the pornographic actors and academics merge tags to point to people where a localized discussion can take place. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 23:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I oppose merging. One: if we merge everything back without editing, the resulting page will be too large. Two: if we do edit, invariably these guidelines will fall victim to the vague general guidelines just like the company/organization one did. It's a good thing to have specific guidelines that provides examples based on easy to determine facts. You can say it has to be reported by a reliable source, but too often what constitutes reliable is still not agreed upon. These guidelines are easier to understand for both the veteran and the complete noob. - Mgm|(talk) 08:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • However, I would support the creation of a Wikipedia:Notability precedents page to collect common arguments used to determine notability. That would mean we have a few pages less, and that we can combine some criteria (subjects that received awards are generally considered notable, no matter what their category is). - Mgm|(talk) 08:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Alternatives?

See also: § Proposal for synchronization of common content

From the above discussion it is obvious that it will not be possible to merge all of the guidelines to WP:N.

However, the fact that there is already ten guidelines is ridiculous.

This creates the possibility that double standards may (come to) exist between different areas in Wikipedia (For instance if one guideline has stricter or weaker guidelines).

Most of these subguidelines also have a very narrow scope.

Would there not be value in merging the subguidelines into the most appropriate Wikiproject or MOS category?

For instance:

  • Fiction into WP:WAF;

The common content, e.g. the sections on what to do with non notable articles should be merged to WP:N and linked from the subguidelines (Although the subguidelines may still mention this in short; no guideline should give more coverage about common content than WP:N).

Comment?

Regards, G.A.S 11:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I am all for putting these guidelines more firmly in the WikiProjects as this gets people who know what they are talking about to decide matters. I do not think there are too many. There are too few. However they need the support of the Projects which bring people together and lead to someone who does not know the area to be be told that they do not. I think there are already Projects that are doing a fine job on getting rid of non-encyclopedic stuff. They should be encouraged. Relying just on WP:N leads to people who have no knowledge of the area just confusing matters. --Bduke 12:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this would be a problem. The editors who participate in a given WikiProject tend to have a perspective that is focused on its subject. While bringing greater knowledge, this also often leads to the assumption of greater notability for particular article subjects than the guideline or WP:NOT would justify. Already the WikiProjects are used to "rally" eidtors to AfD discussions (and not to the delete side, I assure you). We need the broader perspective that the current structure provides. UnitedStatesian 13:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I think you will find that the situation is not as bad as you suggest. Often the Project wants to debate the issue itself, from its own knowledge and finds the discussion at AfD ignorant or inadequate, so they effectively vote to bring it back for them to consider. For example, I closed the discussion at AfD on Spinner's End and a whole list of other articles as keep. Since then most have been merged elsewhere in a very sensible way and some merges are still under discussion. I might say I nothing about Harry Potter but that looks sensible to me. In Projects I am involved in, merges are done in large numbers that effectively delete articles as the amount merged into a broader article is often very small indeed. We do not need everything to go to AfD or even prod or speedy. --Bduke 23:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I see your point, but would it not make more sense to embed the concept of notability in the Wikiprojects? Having it separate will always lead to an "us vs them" attitude; as the rallies to AfDs shows.
Regarding having more subguidelines: What is the use of having a general guideline if it is never applicable due to the existence of a sub-guideline? Should it not be called Notability (Other) in such a case?
G.A.S 20:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_17&oldid=1190110855"