Wikipedia talk:Notability: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Line 122:

:::*Stopping [[WP:COATRACK]]ING can already be done with little ambiguity using [[WP:UNDUE]]. Why is using "notability" a terrible idea? Because it could be used by uninformed or pov-pushing editors to excise content they do not like because the content itself does not comprise a notable topic. This is not a problem for an article like [[Jedi]], where the subject of the article surpasses notability requirements with ease, but it is a very real problem for articles which, although they have a lot of verified content, only modestly meet notability guidelines. Take the [[CrimethInc.]] article as an example; this is a GA that is thoroughly referenced to reliable sources, does not go off-topic or contain much content that ought to be removed. However, the topic itself is only barely notable, as ''significant'' coverage has been scant. Now let's say you are an editor with strong affinities for the group, and you want to remove the critical comments in the [[CrimethInc.#Reception_amongst_anarchists|Reception amongst anarchists]] section. Easy: the topic of the section - CrimethInc.'s reputation according to other anarchists - is not notable; it clearly fails [[WP:N]] and we could not have a separate article on [[Anarchist reception of CrimethInc.]]. So you remove the section and I argue that it ought to stay: I say "It's relevant, it belongs!", you say "this section fails criterion ''x'' of our [[WP:N|Notability guideline]]". Who do you thing would prevail? Now let's say N did not extend to article content, and the only governing convention was [[WP:UNDUE]]. You say "this section gives undue weight to the reception of the group and ought to be removed". How is this claim addressed? Not by judging the overall notability of [[Anarchist reception of CrimethInc.]], but by assessing the relative weight sources give that topic when covering the topic CrimethInc. By ''that'' metric, the section would certainly stay, as sources referring to the group often mention its reputation (enough to justify one sixth of an article) ''without ever going into the significant coverage that "notability" would require''. <font color="404040">[[User:Skomorokh|<font face="Garamond" color="black">Skomorokh</font>]]</font> 18:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

::::* For the record, I don't disagree with your basic summary of the rules. It wouldn't be appropriate to excise content based purely on [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]]. We excise content based on the relative weight that sources give to certain topics. What I disagree with is having that covered within [[WP:NPOV]], which is misleading. Just as you're worried about editors who will abuse the rule to excise content that is truly significant (according to research), I'm worried about editors who would deflect legitimate concerns about exhaustive or inappropriate detail by saying "this isn't a point of view issue". I think there's common ground here: I'm definitely willing to rephrase it to prevent abuse if you're willing to drop the idea of relocating it to a policy where it really doesn't fit. [[User:Randomran|Randomran]] ([[User talk:Randomran|talk]]) 18:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::Sure, I can see your point; similar abuse is possible using NPOV. I would be happy for a separate guideline addressing relevance. I also agree with your claim that "We excise content based on the relative weight that sources give to certain topics", which is why I think Notability is a bad guideline to stick this under. Notability is a ''threshold'' for topics (there are strictly speaking no degrees of notability, only ''deserving of a standalone article'' or not) whereas what we are talking about here is relative weighting for topics. If notability was about relative weighting of importance, [[wikigroaning]] would be a sufficient reasoning for removing vast amounts of good content on less important topics. <font color="404040">[[User:Skomorokh|<font face="Garamond" color="black">Skomorokh</font>]]</font> 18:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

:: The discussion is starting to perplex and worry me. I'm hearing from several people who don't disagree with the idea that articles should stay on topic, and appear to concede that articles should not go into exhaustive detail or overstate details that aren't significant. Instead, I'm hearing that we should roll back 9 months of consensus because [[WP:N]] is annoying in general, and that a few editors should be allowed demolish a rule they basically agree with. I'm not getting it. If you want to build consensus for this change, you're going to have to be clearer about your underlying goal. [[User:Randomran|Randomran]] ([[User talk:Randomran|talk]]) 17:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)