Partly because of recent discussions, here and at WT:FICT, mainly, I think we need to clear something up.
As I read it, the current notability guideline (WP:NOTE) defines notability as nothing other than "worthy of note", and then says that something is considered notable if it meets the GNGor any of the accepted subject-specific guidelines that are applicable. However, a great many people seem to read this as that notability (for WP purposes) is defined by the GNG and that the other guidelines give guidance on interpreting it for specific areas.
The first reading means that, generally, subject-specific guidelines (such as WP:BOOK et al) can be more permissive than the GNG, as if they were less permissive they could simply be ignored and the GNG used to pass instead. The second reading means that subject-specific guidelines should be less permissive, and if they fail to be so, then the GNG will effectively nullify them. Well, the first reading does also mean that they can complement the GNG, such that it becomes possible to pass the GNG and fail the subject specific and possible to fail the GNG and pass the subject specific; the second reading doesn't seem to allow for this possibility. So which is it? SamBC(talk) 16:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
(Oh, as a final note, as currently written the GNG is not a corollary of WP:V, WP:NOR, etc, as they permit sources that the GNG says don't speak to notability (such as directories and primary sources), and it's possible to pass the GNG without then being able to say more than a few sentences per WP:V, as multiple independent secondary sources might all be saying the same thing, for example. V/NOR talk about individual bits of content, WP:NOTE is all about the article, in fact the topic, as a whole. This may be a separate point of debate, but if WP:NOTE and the GNG are taken as a corollary of WP:V, then WP:NOTE ought to be rewritten quite massively to reflect that, and all the subject-specific guidelines refocussed and, in a few cases, probably deleted. SamBC(talk) 16:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC))Reply
You probably know my stance on this already. I am emphatically not one of the ones who believes Wiki notability to be defined in absolute terms by the GNG, largely because so many clearly notable fictional characters fail the guideline utterly. Most notable fictional characters and elements of literary fiction, video games, Dungeons and Dragons, do not have and will never have what we consider sufficient coverage in secondary sources to be notable. And yet I think the consensus at AfD is clearly that another standard of notability may be applied to even minor characters who have been kicking around their respective notable fictional universes for a while (take Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ego the Living Planet as a representative example). I believe it is the persistence and recurrence in the work(s) that confers notability in such cases. I came to this discussion largely because fictional characters was the first area I noticed that was completely failed by our current WP:N guidelines. I can't think of any other examples, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Would anyone else care to enlighten me? Ford MF (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
The AfD for Ego the Living Planet is an embarrassment of WP:ILIKEIT. There is not one logical and supportable Keep argument and I think that the participation was due to canvassing. The AfD was closed early by a non-admin which I think is a horrible practice. --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I see notability, and its burgeoning sprawl of sub-guidelines, as a ridiculously complex way of expressing some relatively simple concepts. This is due to, in my opinion, bad pseudo-compromises and exactitude in wording demands. Notability simply means there is a reasonable presumption that enough independent reputable sources to craft a complete and well-sourced article. Or following the guideline name, that independent reliable references consider the topic noteworthy enough to provide substantive/comprehensive coverage. All the sprawling subguidelines generally just provide some common sense bits, such as if someone won a major award, we should presume enough sources exist to support an article. Whether its the GNG or the subguidelines, it all returns to a presumption that sufficient sources exist. This is also true of the common "inherently" notable topics, such as towns. This "auto-notability" derives from the (perfectly reasonable) presumption that plentiful sources almost assuredly exist. It should also be noted that fulfilling notability is not necessarily sufficient for inclusion on Wikipedia. For two prominent examples, there are some things that simple don't belong here and an article about a living person must meet certain standards.
Touching on fiction specifically, in my experience, there is rarely (if ever) an actual lack of sources for prominent fictional topics. There is simply a lack of motivation to find the sources. I do not see the need to relax our basic inclusion guideline to accommodate laziness or other lack of willingness to do the grunt work to find sufficient sourcing. Using comics as the example, there are industry and mass market periodicals that cover the market fairly intensely. There are additionally numerous "encyclopedias", "fan guides" and similar resources available. There isn't even much of a need to cite the primary artistic works for comic book characters, as the major comic book publishers release numerous books, yearbooks, who's who listings and so forth that conveniently compile the most salient primary source appearances and facts. There are even academic articles and books about comics. Vassyana (talk) 19:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I would just point out that, while those sources (the comic yearbooks and suchforth, and "encyclopaedias" and guides from the pubishers) are allowed (if not ideal) under V, they aren't acceptable per NOTE to demonstrate notability, as they aren't independent of the subject. This is one of the flaws in the note-just-ensures-V view. If we want NOTE to be something that just ensures V (and I don't say that it should be, or shouldn't per se) then it needs changing. If it's trying to do something else, that should be clearer. SamBC(talk) 20:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I was using those "in house" sources as examples that could be used instead of the direct appearances in comic titles. As I mention, there are numerous industry and mass market periodicals, among other independent sources, which do suffice for the purposes of notability. I disagree with the notability = verifiability and notability just ensures verifiability views. Saying that, as a whole, the available independent reliable sources should present comprehensive coverage of a subject is a distinct, if related, matter from indicating that information must be verifiable in reliable sources. Vassyana (talk) 05:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Notability is just a "guideline" which is to be interpreted with "common sense". Editors who are familiar with a subject area know what is and isn't worth covering. The problem seems to arise when editors who are hostile to a subject area engage with it. The resulting Wikilawyering is a huge waste of everyone's time and we should not encourage it by creating volumes of detailed guidelines, essays and policy talk. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
The general notability criterion was a nice attempt at an "objective" inclusion standard, but I think it has failed in that is deletes too much content that is perfectly reasonable to keep, and keeping some content that ought to be deleted. We have too many articles on murderers and murder victims, etc. and are too trigger-happy with deleting articles on pop-culture topics that while perhaps trivial have an enormous audience and are "in demand". I view our mission as being fairly responsive to the actual demands of our audience, and would like to see us address that audience more appropriately. Christopher Parham(talk)23:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
The proliferation of murder victim articles are a failure to enforce WP:NOT, not a failure of notability (which specifically mentions that meeting notability is not necessarily sufficient). Vassyana (talk) 05:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
In practice this guideline is the means of enforcing the relevant provisions of WP:NOT. Moreover, this guideline perpetuates the notion that the number of independent sources available on a topic is the primary determinant of whether a topic ought to be included, but as exposed by these examples, in many cases the number of independent sources does not tell us much about our ability to write a useful encyclopedia article on a subject. Christopher Parham(talk)19:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Guidelines are guidelines: think WP:POINT, WP:NONSENSE, WP:PROFANITY. They've developed out of a consensus about what generally improves wikipedia's overall quality. Exceptions should be occasional. But there's definitely a problem with WP:N because a few people find it's causing harm. We do need a workable standard: if it were just based on a small consensus on an individual article, wikipedia would take the form of urban dictionary with a page for every little fansite, internet meme, and web celebrity that could get voted up. The requirement of two reliable (e.g.: not self-published) sources that are independent of the subject (e.g.: the subject itself can't just generate its own notability) is meant to exclude a lot of crap (yes, crap). But a lot of people think it goes too far. This can't be fixed by letting each article make up its own subjective standard. We need that workable standard for some level of quality control. My question is simple: what would you change about the notability requirement? My gut feeling is we need a parallel standard that isn't just based on independent reliable sources, but then I'm not sure what that would look like. Randomran (talk) 15:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Actually, while I might be arguing rather vociferously against the GNG on the WP:FICT talkpage, I have to say that in pretty much all other cases I find our current notability guidelines to work fine. I was sincere in asking if anyone know of a class of articles that our current WP:N fails the way it fails fictional characters and objects, because I can't think of one. Many properly notable fictional characters without a shred of secondary source (because generally nothing non-trivial exists) easily pass AfD in an I know it when I see it kind of way, and maybe we just need some language to reflect that. Honestly I think an additional page of guideline at WP:FICT is lunatic, when all that is really needed is a clause here that says something like "Fictional characters are a special case, and characters notable for their persistence or popularity in fictional media often have not received secondary source coverage." Ford MF (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I haven't been following discussions at WP:FICT, so please forgive my ignorance. My knee-jerk reaction in the past has been to say something like "if those reliable secondary sources do not exist, the character should be discussed as a subsection of the article about the fictional work, rather than in a separate article." As I read through parts of this discussion, however, I am second-guessing myself. A concrete example would probably be helpful to me; can you point me in the direction of a fictional character who clearly deserves his/her/its own article but who doesn't have adequate secondary sources granting that character notability per WP:N? Thanks for helping me learn about this issue. Aylad['ɑɪlæd]19:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
One I've hauled out before is Ego the Living Planet, and the corresponding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ego the Living Planet, which elicited a fairly strong and unambiguous consensus to keep, despite not having a single secondary source. And speaking as someone fairly knowledgeable about the subject, I'd say that no such sources exist, or if they do they are so trivial or obscure as to be virtually indistinguishable from nonexistent. I think the contention voiced here--that for notable articles, there will be some secondary sources, somewhere--is mostly true, but not entirely true, which is what makes it problematic. There will be a whole subclass within the class of fictional "X" articles for which secondary sources, for all intents and purposes, do not exist. And yet it's clear from watching AfD that a community consensus considers at least some of these articles notable, despite failing the letter of WP:NOTE utterly and entirely. Ford MF (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
To try to brainstorm this, can you provide an example of how this character can be sourced from anything besides the comic itself, ignoring any other restrictions on reliable sources or the like? Are there writer's bibles? Are there comprehensive fansites? Are there newsgroup postings? The reason I state this is because there is a bit of allowance for moving the goallines in WP:V to have the "best sources possible" for a topic, and if we consider the same here, trying to see if there's a way of relaxing what we consider as possible sources, such that the topic can be shown to be notable and have semi-independent sources... To meet the general concept (not the GNC, just the concept) we need to make sure that the subject is widely notable within the overall class of materials; just like local figures represented by only local sources are not considered notable, we need to make sure we're not pulling material from the only fan site that goes into depth for one minor character. --MASEM20:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, not much more than a passing mention, and unclear if it's even about Ego, rather than about someone else referencing it. Ford MF (talk) 01:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Arguably, the fact that it's mentioned in a published book which was important enough to be featured on Google Books (however important that may be) hints at some notability. Anyway, as I indicated earlier, I'm second-guessing my earlier opinion, and I'll keep an eye (and an open mind) on this discussion. Thanks. Aylad['ɑɪlæd]01:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I think my point is being missed here. The question isn't whether or not Ego (and similar articles) is notable. That the character is in fact notable has been confirmed by editors knowledgeable about the subject and by an AfD that was passed without much reason beyond a bunch of energetic editors saying "Trust me, he's notable." I'm trying to work backwards, starting from the point at which the community consensus says a character is notable, and figuring out how to establish that through guidelines when the current guidelines (which require secondary sources that are, for all intents and purposes, next to nonexistent in these cases) fail, as our current guidelines fail. I'm trying to brainstorm ways to show this, and the best one that I can come up with is that, for fictional characters, primary sources might have to be considered acceptable. I admit I'm only mostly coming at this problem from one specific domain--comics--but it is the one in which the guidelines most drastically do not work. (Although an argument can be made for television characters being utterly broken with regards to WP:NOTE as well.) Ford MF (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
One problem is that we can never be sure if an apparent lack of sources is an actual lack, or just that they haven't been found yet; the corollary problem is that some people want a tight deadline, if you don't find the sources (to demonstrate notability, not verify the content of the article) soon enough, they want the article gone. SamBC(talk) 19:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I know, except I'd have phrased it "we can never be sure if there is an actual lack of sources, or just that no one has been motivated enough to try and find the sources. If/when I get an example here, the first thing I'm going to do is make an honest effort to find the sources needed. I've seen editors who spent days arguing that a topic is notable without spending one minute trying to find the sources to prove it. Aylad['ɑɪlæd]20:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I don't think it's possible to compose a generally applicable alternative; to my mind, that's the point of the subject-specific guidelines. Anything can be considered obviously notable if multiple independent reliable sources have covered it non-trivially, but within various limited domains (such as books, movies, athletics, etc etc) one can derive other ways of determining whether something is worthy of note. That's what the preamble to WP:N currently means to me, anyway, and it's the way I see things making sense. And if a domain isn't suited by the GNG, editors who edit in that domain (as in constructively edit, rather than just try to reduce or remove coverage) should try to develop guidelines. Then, however, there's no need for those domain-specific guidelines to be based on the GNG, or refer to it at all. However, what should they be measuring? That's one of the main problems, as far as I can tell; in the absence of an actual definition of what we mean by notability (one that is usable for anything, anyway), people are taking the GNG as a definition and insisting that subject-specific guidelines conform to it. SamBC(talk) 16:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Okay, I've taken a copy of WP:N, removed the interwiki links, categories, etc, and then edited it. It's at User:Sambc/Notability Demo. The point of this, for now, is to indicate as clearly as I can manage how I think notability should be interpreted, and how to change the guideline to clarify it in this direction. The changes aren't terribly major, with some tweaks and a couple of additions in content, and a slight change to some organisation. One very important point is the addition of the "definition" section, which makes it clear that the GNG isn't a definition. SamBC(talk) 16:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I think it's worthwhile bringing up the previous topic that I suggested here of establishing an "inclusion policy" (yes, policy), which notability as a guideline would be underneath (in the same fashion WP:RS is a guideline to policy WP:V). But going this direction, and I know I've seen this idea suggested before, is that WP:N now, and how its treated, is basically "notability by coverage"; if there's secondary sources, we can cover it. If you look at some sub-notability guidelines like MUSIC, we then have "notability by importance per WikiProject", in that there are cases that have been determined to be considered notable despite the lack of currently existing sources (though with the assumption that sources may reasonably likely to exist).
Maybe the solution is that we creation inclusion policy (why its needed, what it is meant and not meant to do, such as limiting content of articles, and so forth); and then make WP:NOTE, as stated, "inclusion due to coverage" guideline. The subguidelines, for the most part, then become "inclusion by importance within field". Now, I do raise a big red flag here is that I can see editors, free to create importance within a specific feild free of having secondary sources, to introduce importance terms that significantly fail our encyclopedic goals (eg the example of a WikiProject Smith to include every person with the last name of Smith), so there needs to be quality control here. In otherwords, while a project may present a set of inclusion guidelines, they need to gain acceptance at the global level. Then these can be listed on this inclusion policy page. Of course, we don't want too many levels here; I'd expect we'd have inclusion guidelines for persons, and then likely one for sports figures, but I wouldn't go any further to expect one for specifically baseball players, though WikiProject should be free to clarify specific aspects of a higher inclusion guideline (eg, if the sports player inclusion guideline says "has played in any non-regular season game", the basebase project may clarify this to mean AL/NL division games, the World Series, and the All-Star game.
This still ends up that meeting what is currently the GNC is fine for inclusion, however, this makes it very clear that other standards may exist. --MASEM16:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I agree that we need guidelines here, though they will be extremely difficult to do in a comprehensive way,except in very general terms. MASEM's approach, of doing it for particular types of articles in Wikiprojects or otherwise , is probably the way to go. I remindus though that the decisions of wikiprojects are not binding on the community, though they should certainly be taken very seriously as considered input. (There have even been cases, as schools, where wikiProject guidelines are much more unsettled than actual results at AfD, because of the smaller number of people in the project and the easier possibility of unrepresentative changes.) DGG (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Masem's idea actually sounds like a fine way to do this, in which in absence of secondary sources (which would justify inclusion of an article of any topic), refer to the specific guideline for that type of article. It allows for the specialist knowledge of the local WikiProjects to be utilized in a community-sanctioned method, and I can see it drastically reducing possible conflict. The only issue I'm seeing is that it might lead to too much instruction creep, but that can be resolved by ensuring each guideline covers a broad category. Sephiroth BCR(Converse)23:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
There's already the deletion sorting project though not to specific projects, though many projects include their own transcluded AFD list. You still need more that just project input, of course; a project may become so biased to have a very low threshold for inclusion that is in stark contrast with the rest of WP, so while we consider them "experts" they can't operate in a vacuum. --MASEM00:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I think there still has to be a minimum standard, if only to avoid purely original research and prevent articles built entirely from primary sources. Randomran (talk) 01:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
To try to keep this as open a thought process as possible, we do want standards, but again the suggestion is that there may be topics that are notable in their field that should be included but they are limited to primarily primary sources. Yes, there needs to be a good objective metric for this to start. --MASEM01:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
(EC) I tend to agree. I think the subject-specific guidelines get too much into instruction creep, in terms of "Keep, this band played a few bars in California and some in Virginia, that's a national tour", or "Keep, album by previously-mentioned band", or "Keep, was on a pro team as a third-stringer for a couple seasons." Secondary sources are already a non-negotiable requirement, and that's defined by WP:V: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Verifiability is policy, not just a guideline. Notability requires significant secondary sources. Notability is a guideline, to which the occasional exception can be made, but such exceptions should be exactly that—occasional. Subject-specific guidelines should be intended to help by saying "Here are some circumstances under which it is more likely that one will indeed be able to find significant amounts of secondary source material." It should never be used as "Here is a class of articles which are appropriate even if such source material does not exist." That just results in keeping garbage articles. The only acceptable "keep" argument should be "Keep, I've found these secondary sources", or "Keep, it's likely for (insert reason) that such sourcing exists, and more time is needed to find them". SeraphimbladeTalk to me01:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
"reliable third-party sources" is a non-disjoint, non-identical set with "reliable secondary soures". For example, The Academy's own publications/website is a primary source, but it is third-party to the award-winners. WP:N is the only major policy or guideline to completely require secondary sources. WP:NOR requires them for any analysis, etc, but for many subjects it's possible to have a perfectly worthwhile article without analysis (remember, we combine aspects of almanacs as well). SamBC(talk) 10:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
That's not quite true. I would suggest that both WP:V and WP:NOR require secondary sources:
"Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources." WP:PSTS
"If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." WP:BURDEN
(undent)Well, the issue here is that "should" does not mean "must", and "reliable, third-party" does not mean "secondary". Wikipedia articles, generally, should have some analysis in, which requires a secondary source (not necessarily third party, that is, not necessarily independent). Articles also require third-party (independent) sources, because otherwise we can't trust there to not be bias. However, neither of these alone, nor combined, require there to be any specific number of "independent secondary sources", which are source that are both third-party and secondary. Once again we see problems from editors conflating "third party" (aka "independent") and "secondary" (meaning what WP:PSTS says it does). An author analysing there own work is secondary, but not third-party. An official announcement of an award is primary (it is the original source) but third-party when considered in the context of the award recipient. Newspaper coverage of awards would be both secondary and third-party, while a press release in which the recipient says they were pleased to receive the award would be primary, and not third-party. SamBC(talk) 12:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Okay, let's try and get a little specific. Could everyone please take a look at User:Sambc/Notability Demo. I'm not proposing it as a change, I'm just asking people to look at it and see what they think is wrong or right compared to the current version; this can be seen more readily, perhaps, with this diff. Given as the changes represent attempts to address what I see as the problems, this ought to help illustrate whether people agree or disagree on any points, and may help elucidate other specific problems. SamBC(talk) 12:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
The one thing that struck out at me as troubling is the point about notable things within a subgroup or subculture. We need at some point a global metric or a global oversight to prevent topics that may be notable at the subculture level but are not "worthy of note" at the global level. (I am not saying this necessarily the rquirement of secondary coverage, though that's a possible global metric). Eg: I'd consider the World of Warcraft to be a subculture, and I'm that specific quests, locations, and items in the game are very important, but from a global standpoint, they are not. --MASEM13:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I'll agree actually, as that was overkill for what I was aiming for; I just couldn't actually find a simpler way of doing it. Amicable numbers are not of any real sort of global importance, but they are important enough within maths. We combine aspects of specialist encyclopaedias, so we can't be looking at just "general public" interest. However, we don't want any old subculture. Just "subject" and not "subculture" may be nearer the mark, but goes back to the other side. "Significant subculture" ends up with the subjective decision of what's significant. However, seeing as this is for the general definition rather than any criteria that would be worked with, it can be more fuzzy. I'm willing to tweak my demo to improve it within the same intent, and maybe then some aspects of it can be used to improve the guideline; can you suggest a better version with the same intent that doesn't have such overkill? SamBC(talk) 13:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
As a secondary point, does that mean that you approve of and/or agree with the other clarifications, restructuring, etc, or just not object to them? If a bit of both, which bits are "agree" and which are "not object"? SamBC(talk) 13:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
In general, no problems - some of the wording choices are questionable but the spirit I don't see a problem with, one that exacts that GNC is one approach to notability, and subject-specific ones are another way, but subject-specifics don't have to build off the GNC to be usable. --MASEM13:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
While I generally am in pretty close agreement with Masem, I have to go the exact opposite way here. Sub-guidelines should not be able to exempt or loosen the requirement for significant independent sourcing, they should only be able to offer pointers when it's likely to be found. We should never have "Keep, even though there's little/no independent source material available, it passes WP:MUSICORWEBORWHATEVER." SeraphimbladeTalk to me13:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Would you say that the current notability guideline, at WP:N, is in line with what you're saying? If not, does my demo bring it closer to or further from what you believe should be the case? SamBC(talk) 14:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Oh, also, do you feel that "significant independent sourcing" is/should be a requirement for all articles generally, or that it should be a requirement for the concept of "notability". I ask, because there are already separate requirements that all actual content be sourced, and that there are independent sources (per WP:V), but the GNG requires significant coverage in sources that are both independent (third-party) and secondary, which is more restrictive. It also does not admit directories and similar, and is often read as not including sources which cover something (even in some detail) in passing, while covering something else (to give a recent example, a videogame review discussing characters in some detail is accepted by some as a reasonable source per WP:V, but not as indicating notability). SamBC(talk) 14:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, that's the general intention, especially including a "definition" section to ensure that it's clear that the GNG isn't a definition. SamBC(talk) 14:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I have to say, there's just too much deference to the individual wikiprojects and what not. I'm willing to concede that "specific notability guidelines" (SNGs) can be more loose OR more strict than the GNG. But they're not a free hand to come up with an SPG that totally contradicts or ignores the GNG. You need that standard in place to prevent people from creating truly non-notable articles in the overall scheme of wikipedia. What I might suggest is that you MUST have coverage in secondary sources, and those sources have to be independent (e.g.: not just toys, movies, gameguides, etc.). Where the SPGs come in is their ability to define which of these sources are reliable, relaxing the standard so that you measure reliability by coverage on mid-level website (rather than the higher standard of a professional peer reviewed site, newspapers, journals, books...) Just thinking out loud here. Randomran (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I have to admit I've had some similar thoughts, albeit for different reasons and as part of wider changes. I would suggest that subject specific guideline be allowed to define things in two ways:
Alternative notability criteria independent of the GNG; these would not be required as well as the GNG, but rather as alternatives. WP:V ensures that sourcing is always needed, but as I've demonstrated it's possible to satisfy WP:V and fail the GNG.
Clarification of the application of the GNG; these would clarify which sources are considered as speaking to notability in that area.
In practice, both of these are used in some existing guidelines, and it would be useful for this framework to be made clear by WP:N. Note, however, that it would be vital that it not be seen as redefining WP:RS for different subjects, but rather defining which sources give notability. These could be more or less strict than the basic idea of "third-party reliable secondary", as appropriate to the topic. SamBC(talk) 16:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I also feel the need to point out, though, that subject-specific guidelines should never be simply the purview of a wikiproject; they should have the same standards of community consensus as any other guideline, with wikiprojects being listened to as knowledgeable advisers. SamBC(talk) 16:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
In my view, the GNC are best indicator that a topic is notable, given that probably 99% of all Good Articles use reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability, but also, reliable secondary sources provide real-world content, analysis and critism which is need for encyclopedic articles. Specific guidelines relating to certain subjects, like biography or books may provide evidence of notability, but on their own they do not provide a good source of content. However, the guidelines for living persons and books are about real-world subjects; for elements of fiction such as characters, GNC are the only way to establish notability, as the notability of fictional characters cannot be observed in the real-world; it is only through the opinions of reliable secondary sources can evidence of notability be found. There are lots of content available from reliable secondary sources, more so for fiction than any other subject in Wikipedia, so there is no need to provide exemptions from GNC. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Please remember that this is a broad discussion; while one reason for it starting was the ongoing fiction issue, the purpose is to examine the whole question broadly. SamBC(talk) 11:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Comment, I've arrived late to this, but I'd like to point out that the AfD on Ego the Living Planet was not at all typical of anything, and represents (in my mind) the high water point of the anti-notability movement, coming just after the banishment of TTN. Blast Ulna (talk) 01:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Okay, I've got a problem with the discussion immediately above, since it implicitly holds as received wisdom that a value judgment of subcultures (whether or not you replace that with "subjects" is merely a semantics game) it both desirable and possible. I'm mostly an editor of articles on classical subjects, and I've added more than just a few damn obscure articles to Wikipedia. Like, super super obscure. And I can tell you from a perch of some expertise that even the most profoundly obscure classics article will never suffer the same AfD tribulations that moderately well known pop culture articles routinely experience, particularly if they're affiliated with youth culture. This is due largely, I think, because classics is perceived to be an august, honorable, serious discipline in a way that, say, the study of Pokemon characters is not. And forgive me for being blunt (and I swear I'm not trying to be uncivil), but that's bullshit. The publications of Marvel Comics should carry no less weight as a source than those of Apollodorus. It's just a judgment call cloaked in guideline, call it a variation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT that's more like WP:IDONTTHINKITISSERIOUS, wherein people (who actually might "like it") do think one kind of culture is inherently less serious than another. Yeah, sure, on the one hand classics articles are imbecile-easy to ref, but if notability cannot discern that Banshee (comics) (with a doubtful possibility of external refs at present) is far more notable than Apollo Agyieus (which has nice little blue refs), then notability has no meaning.
And believe me, I am one of those recalcitrant curmudgeons who believes that 99.9% of youth culture is inherently idiotic. Young people are stupid, and by and large, they like stupid things. But if you want to talk about WP:NOT, we should talk about how Wikipedia is not "the encyclopedia that all adults" can edit. People seem to be basically saying that, yes, Wikipedia is a combination of specialist encyclopedias, but only certain specialties. Yes, part of the problem is that a lot of the younger editors who create and maintain these articles are shite at finding and adding acceptable sources (and lots of the older editors prefer to go to AfD rather than actually look for sources), but that doesn't concern the problem of establishing notability for obviously notable things that haven't been much written about.
This difficulty does not necessarily equal lack of notability, yet our guidelines treat it as if it does. And that is the problem. Ford MF (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
It goes without saying, I presume, that if there are no secondary sources to provide analysis, an article may not contain analysis. Following your assertions (which I broadly agree with) to their logical conclusions, I can assume that you are suggesting one of two things: either we admit that these subjects are notable, but that we still can't have articles on them because there's no source for analysis, or we admit that they are notable and allow articles that contain only bland statements of fact and information. Either makes sense to me; there's nothing wrong with an article which is more of a factbook entry, as we are supposed to include aspects of almanacs as well as encyclopaedias. We just have to be very careful to avoid OR in that case. If this were the case, however, WP:V would have to be amended; where it currently says words to the effect that "if there are no independent sources, we can't have an article" we instead say "if there are no independent sources, we must be very careful in writing the article". The situation is made slightly more complicated by the interaction of the primary/secondary axis and the first-party/third-party (not-independent/independent) axis. SamBC(talk) 17:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Of the two, I obviously lean towards the latter. And in fact I think "bland statements of fact" is exactly how fictional articles should be written, unless secondary analysis can be uncovered. They should essentially be treated like biographies. And I think it is exponentially preferable--by orders of magnitude, I really can't stress this enough--for us to err on the side of content that may be helpful and useful and has an opportunity to grow, than for us to say, as someone did on one of the other talkpages, "if you don't have sufficient sources in hand, don't even bother starting an article." I don't think we need to start imagining new strategies to discourage the creation of articles. Ford MF (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
You can't write an article on fiction that is a "bland statements of fact", because fiction by its nature is not about fact at all: fiction is the creative opinion of an author from what ever perspective they choose to write it in. To summarise fiction is, at the very least, a passive endorsement of the authors opinion and perspective; that is why articles on fiction should cite reliable secondary sources so that they don't fall into the trap of being based on original research or synthesis. A "classic" example is the article I, Claudius which is a fictional autobiography of a Roman Emperor, partly based on contemporary accounts. Becasue the contemporary accounts are biased or conflicting (it seems historians at that time were more interested in slander and rumour than writing truthful accounts of his life), the plot summary for this book is disputed, because no one is sure whether the story itself is based on fact or fiction. If we err on the side of content, we will be making exactly the same mistake that ancient historians made when they wrote their accounts of Claudius - they did not cite relaible sources, and as a result, their writings are disputed. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
You've made this point several times, people have rebutted and explained several times. A "bland statement of fact" about fiction is a statement of fact about what the fiction depicts. To repeat my last rebuttal (in part), the bland statement of fact would not be "there is a Stargate under Cheyenne Mountain", but that the fiction depicts the operation of a Stargate under Cheyenne Mountain. Not every sentence is going to make that clear, because it is clear from context. It doesn't stop it being bland fact. The case of historical or biographical fiction is, indeed, more complex, but that does not extend to all fiction. SamBC(talk) 11:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
The problem is, without reliable secondary sources, you cannot be sure that statements of a fact which are unsourced or based on primary sources alone are correct or comprehensive. The statement "there is a Stargate under Cheyenne Mountain", may appear to you to be uncontroversial, but if this fact has not been sourced from a reliable secondary source, there may be a detail omitted or unintentionally added. This cavalier approach maybe acceptable at Wookipedia, but here it is not, because once you start off sourcing an article on fiction from primary sources only, you are going down the road of original research. An article that is not compliant with WP:N is likely to be comprised of bad or defective content. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
This is lunatic. Citing characters from the works in which they appear is no different from using the Bible to cite Lazarus. This isn't cavalier or a slippery slope, it is simply a way to cite fictional characters and events. You don't need a reference to state that Anna Karenina is about Anna Karenina, it is self evident. Ford MF (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Also, I can't imagine what you mean by "controversial". Refs are used to give the reader a guide, a place to look to confirm the truth of a thing stated. Primary sourcing for fictional characters ought not be any more controversial than secondary sourcing. Why does it let in the spectre of controversy when our readers look at the original work for confirmation, but not when they look at someone else talking about the original work? What makes secondary sources more factual than primary ones in this case? Ford MF (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
And that argument would apply just as well to summaries of secondary or tertiary sources as well. The only way to refer to any source while being sure that one hasn't added or removed something is to quote the entire thing verbatim. And no-one could watch Stargate: SG-1 and fail to reach the conclusion that the show depicts a stargate being under Cheyenne Mountain, just like no-one could read Harry Potter and disagree that it depicts magic, and school of magic called Hogwarts. It doesn't need a secondary source, just like no additional source is needed to summarise a secondary source. SamBC(talk) 14:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I am not saying reliable secondary sources are perfect, but what I am saying is that Wikipedia is not the place for writing research papers based on a synthesis of primary sources. Take for example the article Ancient characters in Stargate, in which all the sources are primary. I have no idea if this article has featured all characters as there is no overarching primary source that can do this. Nor can I rely on the "facts" drawn from primary sources such as "Ayiana is one of only two Ancients appearing both in Stargate SG-1 and Stargate Atlantis ("Rising") - the other being Moros". Such statements are drawn from the recollections of the primary source material, and those recollections may or may not be accurate. More importantly than this, the article suffers badly from a lack of reliable secondary sources: it is written from an in universe perspective, and comprises almost entirely of plot summary. Primary sourcing for fictional characters provides no real-world content, context or analysis, which is what Wikipedia is about. An article that is not compliant with WP:N is very likely to be comprised of bad or defective content.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
"Ayiana is one of only two Ancients appearing both in Stargate SG-1 and Stargate Atlantis ("Rising") - the other being Moros" is blatantly an analytical remark. It can't be simply verified from the primary sources. Thus, per WP:NOR, it shouldn't be sourced from only primary sources. The fact that people misuse primary sources in fiction doesn't mean they shouldn't be used; people misuse all types of source in all types of article. SamBC(talk) 17:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Why on earth can't that be simply verified from the primary sources? All you'd need to do is, like, view the primary source(s). You could argue you 1) don't have the time to do so, and/or 2) your DVD player is broken, but other than that, I don't see the problem. 68.81.95.231 (talk) 02:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
The fact that a given character is in a given episode is, generally, verifiable from primary sources. To say they are the only character of a certain type to appear in X number of episodes requires analysis, which cannot, per WP:NOR, be done from purely primary sources, as that would be original research. SamBC(talk) 12:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
shrugs* Maybe it's a borderline case. I'd be concerned about the degree of analysis involved, and the implicit assertion that no other characters fit the same bill. Let's not get hung up on specifics. The general point is that analysis etc (listed in WP:PSTS) can't be sourced from primary sources, bland statements of fact about what is contained in the fiction can be. SamBC(talk) 14:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
There's a difference between research and analysis, and stating facts from a fictional work. Just because a work is fictional doesn't mean that facts cannot be derived from it. It is a statement of fact that J.K. Rowling's fictional character Harry Potter has a lightning-shaped scar on his forehead. It is a statement of fact that the fictional character Winston Smith works at the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell's novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four. Both of these facts need no other source than the primary source to be verified. Explain to me how reading a physical description of the character Gandalf in the New York Times, free from analysis or interpretation, is better than reading it directly from The Hobbit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skiguy330 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Sorry for getting here late but I've been lazy lately. One big question: why are secondary sources so much better at determining the content of a TV show or book than we are? What makes the NYT better at reading The Hobbit than I? Why is TV Guide better at watching SG! than you? I can count just as high as they can, why the difference? Padillah (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Indeed; however, per WP:NOR and the like, we don't trust any-old-editor to know how to analyse the book, programme, film, play, be it for meaning, significance, analysis of motives, etc. Counting (she's been in both series) is fine; asserting this to the exlclusion of others hits, to me, the borderline; offering a reason for it is right out. SamBC(talk) 16:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
A Very Specific Question
Okay, here's a very specific question; please answer below with reasoning, but try to avoid getting into a debate (yet). For now I think it'd be good to see how many people think what, and why. SamBC(talk) 15:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I think the responses in this have been very useful and very illustrative. While I'm not suggesting this as any formal process, I'd just like to let people know that I intend to try to summarise the points made into "talking points" on the afternoon (UTC+1) of Sunday 15th, to try to move the discussion forwards. If people want to suggest a different "deadline", that's fine, but I'm basically offering to carry on facilitating here by doing this. If people think it's a good idea, the same could be done with other sections under this RFC. SamBC(talk) 15:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Is notability a way of
a) determining what topics are worth having an article about, independent of the question of sourcing that article
b) determining what topics will be able to have a suitably-sourced article written
I think basically a
As I've explained previously, above and elsewhere, I think that N is and should be independent of V; it says if it's worth writing an article, and part of V is whether it's possible to write an article. SamBC(talk) 15:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
The purpose of WP:N, as opposed to WP:V, is to limit the scope of Wikipedia. If a topic does not have reliable sources, then apparently it's impossible to write an encyclopedic article about it (unless we start inventing the content). But verifiable material does not imply that a topic falls into our scope. I'm quite sure that all the English-speaking media of the world produce more material each day than Wikipedia could cover in a decade; there needs to be some kind of selection. Or to give a more extreme example: Almost everybody in the developed world has reliable sources written about him. (Official birth records, for example, are very reliable!) But that doesn't mean we should have an article about everybody. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
While I agree with the statement, in practice you can't have an article without sources at WP. While on the other hand you could have verifiable sources to provide content, but no reasonable demonstration of notability. I firmly believe that mention of a topic in a broadly distributed or respected source brings to WP the reponsibilty to expand on the topic for our readers, when possible. If I am watching TV and see a person (actor, politician, artist, etc) mentioned in the news, I come to WP to findout who that person is -- trusting WP to be a credible source. If I read the name of an ancient warrior leader in a history book, I come to WP to find out who that person was -- trusting WP to be a neutral source. Even if the article is stubbish and has links to further information, I have been well served. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, the whole "occurring in broadly distributed media but not widely reported on in secondary sources" I think is the crux of the whole problem here. Ford MF (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Just trying to understand your view; would you then agree with the suggestion that non-GNG notability criteria are of value, although they may lead to "bland statement of fact" articles with no analysis? And if so, are such articles okay? (This is not a question to everyone, although it's discussed in a subsection above; I'm asking Kevin Murray specifically, to clarify his view) SamBC(talk) 20:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Yes, even though you didn't direct this at me, that is a suggestion I would agree with. And of course such articles are okay. All Wikipedia articles ought to be "bland statement of fact", with the analysis of others reported on, where it exists, but not a necessary component. Take Ellis Loring Dresel (another obscuro creation of mine); there is zero analysis in the article, and yet I think few people would state that it is an undesirable article because of it. We are an encyclopedia; we deal primarily in facts. Analysis should be a consideration far secondary. Ford MF (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
NO. Sam I oppose most non-GNG notability criteria, and only support some as compromise (e.g., BIO and ORG). I believe that a universal set of standards should apply equally to all topics. My examples above are probably unclear. Any topics for which a broad base of typical WP users develop questions or interests in the course of life should be notable. Whether porn queen, potentate, pope or politician they need to meet the standard that people may have a question about them based on media mention or historic coverage. This is hard to quantify in a rigid standard or set of standards. I think that AfD participants need only ask two questions: (1) does this article answer a legitimate broad based and demonstrable question, and (2) can we write an article or even a meaningful placeholder (stub with links). Most of the articles that I begin at WP are because I have a question, and as I answer the question for myself, I share my findings with WP readers, and as the article grows I learn from my peers. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
PS: I think that we should allow protected stubs and what I call soft redirects, where there is a placeholder-page with a link to the suggested redirect. For example a search for "Lord Morphdon Ontang" yields a page of that name, with a redirect link to Star Trek XXIII. The page might have to be protected to keep it from being a junk magnet, only to be opened for editing when demonstration of notability can be made to an admin, project, etc. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I will point that this solution, creating a redirection for any likely search term, cannot be stated nearly enough as being a necessary part in any solution. We absolutely should have mention (but not necessarily a full article) on any likely name or term that may arise, and make that term easily findable with redirects and anchors and disambig pages. Those are cheap and should be exploited to make WP useful. --MASEM23:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Okay, still trying to make sure I understand; I don't mean to be putting words in your mouth. You seem to be suggesting that we should have more-or-less just a GNG, but not necessarily this GNG (as in the current one at WP:GNG)?
YES! I agree with that statement. I think that the criteria at this GNC are really quite good to the extent that they allow inclusion of topics where legitimate and significant recognition by third parties is demonstrated; however, we need to go a bit further to allow topics where we answer questions posed or prompted by legitimate and significant third parties, but where the verifiable material may be the result of secondary research from primary or less significant sources. --Kevin Murray (talk) 13:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I want to say this more than the combination choice; I agree V and N are separate concepts: V is how we talk about a topic, N is why. However, N still needs some aspects of sourcing requirements: "Because I said so" is not sufficient. But it's not the same sourcing as one needs for V, though more often than not, the same source works for both V and N. --MASEM20:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Another question to make sure I understand: so you're suggesting that articles may be notable without satisfying the GNG, and yet still satisfy V, but in any case we can never accept any notability standard that doesn't call upon sources to support a notability claim? SamBC(talk) 20:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I think so, though not 100% sure. We have notability criteria that do not use the GNC (such as at MUSIC and BOOK) but we still want to provide sources. On the last part, you have what I'm saying right, though I will say that the word "sources" may be taken broader than we current take it. --MASEM21:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
As I have frequently said, because the other position leads us in many cases to results that contradict both common sense and the consensus of editors. I recall that in one of the first AfDs I commented on, I defended an article on the basis of sources alone, even in the clear absence of other notability. With more experience, I have learned better. DGG (talk) 01:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I'm pretty definite about statement A. Having said that, I'm starting to suspect that notability guidelines could accept a wider variety of sources in some circumstances. If Superhero X appears in 1,000 issues of Marvel Comics, do we need secondary and/or third-party sources to assume notability? I still am convinced that such a character would have secondary and/or third-party reliable sources out there somewhere, even if we haven't found them yet, but do we want to base guidelines on this assumption? Aylad['ɑɪlæd]16:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I think A. Last night's traffic accident was covered in the local newspapers. Shouldn't have an article on en.wikipedia. Ever. --Alvestrand (talk) 06:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I think basically b
Verifiability is, or should be, the absolute determiner of the article/no article axis. Everything else is judgment call. This is why WP:V is policy and WP:N is merely a guideline. WP:N limits the scope of the encyclopedia, and limitation is both necessary and beneficial, but it should not be doing so in an arbitrary manner because of a rule-based framework and people who are all too happy to delete the baby with the bathwater. Ford MF (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Wait, perhaps I have misunderstood the question, because I'm starting to see points of view that I agree with under "A". Ford MF (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I'll try to clarify: either notability is a quality independent of verifiability that determines what we should cover, rather than what we can cover (point "a") or it's a means of ensuring that we will be able to write a decent article without breaching WP:V et al (point "b"). Of course, it can be both. SamBC(talk) 20:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
The two are related, but notability isn't the same thing as verifiability, which is why we have those pages, one a hard policy, one a guideline (that tends to get treated like hard policy). You can't write an article while breaching WP:V, period, end of sentence, so I'm not sitting here screaming "Sources? Who needs sources!" All the things I've been talking about are easily verifiable, as anything appearing a primary source is by definition verifiable. All I'm saying is that for a certain class of articles, that is, fictional "X"s, the restrictions to secondary sources fail, because they exclude obviously notable things. Ford MF (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
While I am not, at least right now, questioning that the GNG causes problems for coverage of fictional topics, I must ask why you feel it is only fiction that is limited as such? An example: if we know, from objective evidence, that a musician is notable (whatever that evidence is, but assuming it doesn't satisfy the GNG) but we can't source any analysis, why not have an article listing their releases, release dates, and basic biographical information? SamBC(talk) 20:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I don't feel that at all; I just couldn't really think of other examples, and fiction is the subject with which I'm most familiar, and I thought it an illustrative example of an area in which WP:N is broken. And yes, why not have that musician article if the information is verifiable? Ford MF (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
And I do get that that's also asking for a whole lot of genuine bullshit to be included in Wikipedia, since the verification of the existence of non-notable people is fairly easy. I just think the guideline as written fails a lot of areas, and I think it better to err on the side of content retention. Ford MF (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
And thirdly, as someone pointed out before, notability isn't a mathematical proof. Proper guidelines would need more subjective flexibility and less hard-ruliness. Ford MF (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
As a separate point, I think that rather means taht you don't agree with point "B", and I'm not entirely sure you agree with "A" but I'd say you seem to. SamBC(talk) 20:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I think basically both
Not sure what you're getting at, but I'll bite. I'm glad we're having a real discussion. We've talked about WP:N as a guideline for what topics should have their own article, and that's pages of debate in of itself. But let's say we already knew what was notable, and it was based on something looser: popularity, longevity, or even just reader interest -- no secondary sources required. If articles are based entirely on primary sources, how do you prevent wikipedia from being a cruft of articles based on observations and original research? How do you stop someone from writing an article about The Incredible Hulk's Cut-Off Shorts? The shorts appear in comics, movies, and toys. They're recognizable by millions. And for the 12 or so editors who work on it (along with the hundreds who are redirected towards it by wikilinks), the topic is very interesting and filled with original (but factual) observations about how the shorts rip, the typical length of the shorts, how the shorts appear as the Hulk transforms, variations on how the shorts are represented based on realism/character/etc... Without any reliable secondary sources, there's nothing to guide the focus of the article except whatever observations that the most devoted fans can notice. (Have you noticed that in three issues, the shorts are purple?! Add it to the article!) So having at least a few reliable secondxary sources that are independent of the subject itself is tied to other basic policy, like avoiding original research, avoiding undue weight to certain facts, and making sure the information can be verified. I think that the guidelines are redundant to an extent, but I also think they all depend on each other to form a coherent idea of what should be covered and how to cover it in an appropriate way. Randomran (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
For me, notability is a way to presume what article can become at least a B-class (i.e. decent) article, preferably higher. IMO, all perma-stubs and perma-start-class articles should be merged somewhere (a), and all articles should be suitably sourced (b). Mind you, there are articles like surname pages, math-related pages, general lists, and articles about dict-def-notable people who lived centuries ago but simply don't have more sources. But for most intents and purposes, the GNC is (in my mind) a necessary hurdle that any article must ultimately demonstrate to pass to be save from deletion or merging. – sgeurekat•c16:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I think something else
Please don't use this section if you think something slightly different; just make the difference clear in your explanation in the sections above
Notability is the logical synthesis of several of our core policies and concepts, such as what we are not, the requirement for verifiability, the prohibition against original research, and the need for a neutral point of view. The requirement for multiple independent sources assists in the fulfillment of all these requirements. It ensures that we do not become a directory, collection of random crap, or fansite, and instead remain what we should be—an educational reference work. It ensures that any article we write has a substantial quantity of information which is verifiable, and verifiability itself specifically warns against articles consisting only of first-party sources. It ensures that significant analysis has already been made regarding any subject we have an article on, reducing the temptation to try and synthesize primary material ourselves or insert our own personal experiences or thoughts. And it helps in ensuring that undue weight is not put on topics—if reliable, independent sources have chosen to write little or nothing on a subject, what are we doing besides second-guessing and contradicting them if we do? It also ensures that a good body of sources is available if any question of neutrality arises, allowing us to settle such a question, not through our own opinions, but by properly referencing those sources. In short, notability is where our core policies naturally and inevitably lead. It is an excellent, indispensable means of quality control, something Wikipedia is often lacking in. Indeed, Wikipedia:Quality control is a redlink, and probably likely to stay that way. This is it, right here. This is the mechanism we have to prevent crapflooding. So let's not punch holes in it. SeraphimbladeTalk to me05:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I agree wholeheartedly with Seraphimblade. As regards the question, I don't think WP:N determines anything. It does not determine what topics are worth having or deleting: this is determined at WP:AFD; nor does it determine what topics will be able to have a suitably-sourced articles, because notability is not the same as suitability. WP:N was never intended to act as a road block to adding content which some editors attempt to circumvent, or get around in order to write about their favorite topics; on the contrary, it is a guideline that encourages good content, so that the readers of Wikipedia will be able to "stand on the shoulders of giants".--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
In addition to agreeing with Seraphimblade and Gavin Collins, I would like to chime in with my own thought that policies and guidelines can't be changed by changing the wording on their pages, but only by changing what is in the minds of the editors. I have yet to see anybody change their mind due to the continued debate about notability; the disagreement is philosophical. The sign of a good compromise is that it pleases no one. The current wording of WP:N doesn't please the inclusionists, and the suspend-all-rules keep results at AfD don't please those who nominated them for deletion under their interpretation of WP:N. Blast Ulna (talk) 01:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I don't believe that WP:NOTE is necesssarily the problem. If used as it is written, a way to determine if something is notable enough to be included even if it does not meet the four actual policies for inclusion - namely V, OR, NPOV, and NOT, it succeeds as a guideline. The problem is more in the hierarchical structure of policies, guidelines, and sub-guidelines. If a subject meets the four policies, it should be beyond the reach of AfD other than for the purpose of gaining consensus on meeting the requirements of those four policies. NOTE is a guideline encompassing those subjects that may merit inclusion even before those four policies have been met because we believe that they can and will eventually be met due to the nature of the subject. It is an inclusionary guideline, and not an exclusionary one. The sub-guidelines like WP:BIO, WP:ATHLETE, and WP:FICT go even further to provide reasons for maintaining inclusion until the basic four can be met. The legitimate arguments are really about how long we allow articles that meet the guidelines, but not the policies, to remain. WP:NOTE should never be counted as a legitimate criteria for deletion, nor as an argument for deleting. It is far too easy for NOTE to serve as a mask for WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:WHOCARES, or even a catch-all for hiding systemic bias due to the inherent subjectivity of "notability". The guideline contains an unabiguous definition that is too often ignored - "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." If that first sentence is met, there is no reason to even look at the rest of the guideline anyway. What we need is to reinforce the structure of how policies, guidelines, and WP:IAR are supposed to be used to justify our actions, and guidelines are only useful if something fails policy. Jim Miller (talk) 13:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Agreeing with Seraphimblade. Verifiability is not enough. Every fire truck in New York City, or every mailbox in my home town, or every character, scene, event or weapon in every work of fiction is verifiable, but does not necessarily need its own encyclopedia article. Articles about the New York Fire Department, mailboxes, or the work of fiction (if it has achieved sufficient notice itself) are the proper venue for the information which would otherwise be fanspewed into a multitude of permastub articles. Lack of a claim of notability is an appropriate reason for speedy deletion. Lack of reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage is a reason for deletion in AFD. The existence of a small number of fans of something establishing a "project" is no reason to automatically make the objects of their fandom entitles to individual encyclopedia articles. This is not "fanpedia." It is supposed to be an encyclopedia. There are other websites for fandom. Edison (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
"Inclusion"
Masem (talk·contribs) has, on several recent occaisions and in several locations, raised the idea that it might be better to have an overarching policy on "inclusion" for Wikipedia, perhaps by defining "what Wikipedia is", perhaps with other focus, and Notability becoming a guideline in support of this in the same way that WP:RS support WP:V; this has been raised most recently (to my knowledge) in a section below. I'd like to consider this idea, and people's reaction to it, as part of the RFC, to help give ideas and talking points for later moving forwards.
I'd like to discuss the idea without focus on any single topic area. I'd like people to think about it in the abstract. So, I would like people to outline a few things, some or all of which may be applicable to any individual:
How you think this idea could take form, if you think it could at all. You might think of more than one way.
Your immediate reaction to the idea in complete abstract (as I describe it above), without taking too long to think about it.
Your more considered reaction to the various possibilities you have read or thought of, after giving it more thought.
Hopefully, this can lead to some general discussion. I would ask that people not directly reply to one another's statements, so we don't get bogged down in adversarial debate. Please use the further subsection "discussion" to air reactions to what you have read, but try not to get adversarial or confrontational. Oh, and let's try and keep "optimistic" now and not consider arguments along the lines of "it'd never get consensus". Let's just try to explore whether it would be a good idea or not (and why). SamBC(talk) 15:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
My immediate vision is that this could be much like verifiability: describe general principles of "what we write about", of which "notability" (in the abstract sense, not specifically the GNG) is one aspect, much as which sources to use (RS) is one aspect of verifiability (V). I have some fairly foggy ideas as to what else would be said.
My gut reaction was that this would be over-complicating things. However, after some consideration I can see value here, as it would have a number of potential advantages:
clarify that notability (by whatever measure) isn't strictly sufficient for inclusion
put WP:N in a clear place in the guideline/policy structure, as RS is
help explain to those who don't get it what the purpose of notability is
support claims in other policies and guidelines that any particular quality makes something eligible/non-eligible for inclusion, and centralise the broadest of these
Overall, my reaction is that it's worth exploring, but I'm not convinced that it's the best way forward, or even a good one; I'm also not convinced it isn't. I'm convinced that it's worth thinking about, talking about, and exploring. SamBC(talk) 15:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Place responses to statements here, and please avoid adversarial and confrontational approaches
"Sambc" said ""notability" (in the abstract sense, not specifically the GNG) is one aspect", but what is "notability in the abstract sense"? What is notability, exactly? There appears to be a problem here with the current guidelines in that they do not spell out what notability actually is. mike4ty4 (talk) 00:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Quite often on contentious AFDs for POV forks, there is often a few keep votes which will say "notable", overlooking other reasons for deletion (BLP, constant POV, etc). My question is: is notability a free pass for a Wikipedia article, or should it only be taken as an indication of suitability, and notable topics may actually be deleted if they fall under a criteria for deletion? Sceptre(talk)00:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
My common answer to so many questions is that AfD is broken. It sounds like either: "drive-by" voters, biased driven non sequitur, or just plain ignorance. As long as we encourage wannabee Admins to get notches on their guns at AfD (etc.), it will remain a broken system. --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Two cases that I can consider: notability may be shown, but the article content fails NOT. Say, I write a catalog-style article about the notably-excellent line of digital cameras from a company. The way I wrote it is questionable, however, by rewriting, with a "Reception"-type section, the content stays. Another possibility is say I find a topic which is clearly notable, but per NOT, all you can write about it is maybe a paragraph; in this case, it may be easier to present it in the context of a larger work that is also notable and possibly even to explain the context better. I don't, however, want to say that notability is a free pass, only because off the top of my head, there's no clear indication this is the case. --MASEM00:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Notability is an interpretation of WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:RS. It is historically, and perhaps unchangeably, the key inclusion criteria. Its origin seems as old as Wikipedia, certainly predating WP:N. “Notability” is itself highly debatable. When someone says “notable” or N“not notable” you should ask them why, because criteria for notability vary widely among wikipedians, sometimes notwithstanding what WP:N says. Often “notable” is used loosely in an ill-defined way. Alternative philosophies in the notability sub-guidelines don’t help. WP:BLP trumps WP:N, easily. Contant POV-pushing is a pretty poor deletion criterion in my opinion; I believe that behavioural issues should debated elsewhere than at AfD. POV forks, and other forks can easily satisfy WP:N. WP:FORK is independent of WP:N. I also don’t believe that forks should be debated at AfD because forks are almost always best merged or just redirected, and I currently trying to get WP:FORK changed to this effect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I did a google book search on Ego the Living Planet and the only general rule that I can think of that would allow for "objective" decisions in AfD and allow that article to survive would be to allow a large number (10?, 20?) of passing references in secondary sources to count towards notability. Small sections on production and reception could be combined with a first party sources history section to create a nice little article. I'm also finding a number of second party comic encyclopedias that could be used to establish notability for comic characters. Maybe instead of FICT, we could add a line like "10 or more passing references that in combination allow for an encyclopedic treatment of a fictional subject make an article presumed worthy of notice." - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 05:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Passing references are trivial, effectively a "name drop". Zero plus zero any number of times still equals zero, we'd need something substantive. A critical part of substantive sourcing is that the substantial parts are of a single piece, and a coherent whole. SeraphimbladeTalk to me05:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Defining notability by having "x" mentions or the like basically makes it a game that shouldn't be played on WP. I mean, the idea of what else could be used for notability is great, and objective standards are great, but just say "x" mentions means that people will be scraping the barrel to get the numbers they need. A key point to remember is that notability should not prevent the topic from being covered, just that if it's not notable itself, it should be covered in a larger point. --MASEM05:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Just throwing out an idea / straw man: what if it was still significant coverage in sources independent of the subject, but what was considered a reliable authority on the subject could be defined by individual wikiprojects? A history article might adhere more strictly to the GNG, but a comic book article might be more inclined to rely on a reputable website on the subject that might not otherwise qualify as a reliable source. Randomran (talk) 05:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
If the website is actually reputable (as in, professional, editorially controlled, etc.), there's no problem, it's reliable regardless. If it just happens to be a well-liked fansite, it's still a fansite. But I would trust very few Wikiprojects with the ability to "set the bar" as to what constitutes a reliable source. SeraphimbladeTalk to me05:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Keep in mind that a self-published fansite, or an editorial site with no peer review may actually be considered a good source of information for certain specialized topics. I have maybe just a bit more faith in the individual wikiprojects, but maybe that's because I've seen the WP:VG wikiproject as making some good attempts to have some kind of standards. If not the individual wikiprojects, then perhaps the bar for a reliable source could be set slightly lower in the WP:FICT guideline? Randomran (talk) 06:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Sure, I certainly have an idea how to do it. Cover to the depth reliable, independent sources do. If they cover each character of a work in depth, so will we. If they cover the work in general in depth and briefly mention the characters, we'll do it that way. If they don't even really cover the work, we won't either. Let the writers of sources decide, and then we don't even have to (that aside from the fact we shouldn't be in the first place). SeraphimbladeTalk to me06:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
For what it's worth, the consensus has been this way (more or less) for months, if not longer. If there's something wrong with it, you'll have to make the case that there's something wrong with it to build a new consensus. Randomran (talk) 06:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I'm not saying anything that isn't true. This is what the consensus has been on the notability guideline for a long long time. People have finally read it and are challenging it. This discussion is to try to articulate what the new consensus should be. Randomran (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
And we're about to find out if there's a consensus that NOTE should be ignored at all, and to what degree. This will inform how WP:FICT is written. Either WP:NOTE will adapt, WP:FICT will adapt, or both. Randomran (talk) 06:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
It will be interesting. One other scenario though, we keep things the way they are. FICT is proposed (permanently I guess) and arguments that should take place here (if it's always proposed) keep taking place there. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 07:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Whatever the consensus on NOTE ends up being, we'd end up giving less weight to people who ignore the new consensus. After all, we can't create contradictory guidelines. Randomran (talk) 07:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
It seems like 50% ignore a bit + 25% ignore a bunch might just be a consensus at the NOTE level to ignore a bit, but at the FICT level it isn't a consensus. It takes more than 75% at a lower level (in my opinion) to effect a higher level. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 07:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Well, we'll follow the discussion over WP:NOTE to its logical conclusion and proceed from there. I'm prepared to accept whatever conclusion is reached here. Randomran (talk) 07:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
(@SmokeyJoe)If WP:N in general, and the WP:GNG in particular, are an interpretation of those policies, how does it have requirements that are not in any of them. None of those policies individually, nor the composition of them, gives any requirement for sources that are both secondary and independent, nor do they exclude directories and suchlike. They make it clear that sources that are secondary and independent (third party) are preferable, but they don't require it by any stretch of the imagination. SamBC(talk) 10:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Well, certainly verifiability does require third-party sources, and state that secondary ones are preferable. The guidelines on reliable sources also speak to that matter. Our requirement for a neutral point of view means that it's tremendously helpful to have multiple sources available so that we can ensure neutrality, and avoid giving weight where sources have decided not to give weight, and the prohibition on personal research and original synthesis means that to write anything besides bland factual statements, someone else must have performed such synthesis or analysis in secondary reliable sources. And finally, our core policy most certainly does bar directory entries and the like. So, while perhaps NOTE does not quote such policies word for word, it does support those policies and follows logically from them. SeraphimbladeTalk to me13:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
That logic is valid, I'll admit, but requires one unstated (and to me invalid) assumption: that there's something wrong with articles that are just bland statements of fact. Allow those, but require meaningful notability, and we're not simply a directory because we're very selective in terms of inclusion. Pick up any paper encyclopaedia, and there'll be plenty of entries that are bland statements of fact; even more when you include almanacs. SamBC(talk) 14:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
When it comes to fiction, there is no such thing as a bland statement of fact. Since works of fiction are based on the viewpoint of the work's author, a statement based on a primary source alone is basically a reguritation of that viewpoint, and is basically an endorsement. I think the same principal applies to scientific subjects: there are "Lies — damned lies — and statistics". Reliable secondary sources are directly or indirectly the key to providing evidence of notability and there is no getting away from this principal. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I may be misunderstanding, but there's a difference between a "bland statement of fact" and a "bland statement of what is asserted to be fact within this fictional universe." Thus, a particular superhero might wear different costumes depending on the artist, but no one can reasonably argue with the number of comic issues that hero has appeared in. Also, please keep in mind that some fictional topics depend on the work of multiple authors, not all of whom might share the same viewpoint. That doesn't negate your comment, but it does add a different dimension to it, I think. Aylad['ɑɪlæd]16:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I think that is where precisely you can fall into the trap of original reseach. If you use primary sources alone to count the number of commic issues in which a certain character was in, and that count was not not subject to some sort of peer review, I would expect mistakes to be made. Even bland statement of facts need to be backed up by reliable secondary sources for Wikipedia purposes. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Well, policy seems to indicate that "bland statements of fact", which is to say content with no analytic (etc) element, is absolutely fine to source from (reliable) primary sources. A "bland statement of fact" about fiction isn't "there is a Stargate under Cheyenne Mountain", it's "the show depicts yadda yadda a Stargate under Cheyenne Mountain", which is most certainly a bland statement of fact. "Pip lives with his sister", given context to indicate that you are talking about the content of a particular novel, is a bland statement of fact; with that context, you aren't saying there's a real person called Pip who lives with his sister, you're saying that, in this novel the character Pip lives with his sister (and apologies if I mis-remembered my Dickens). It is a fact (if I recall correctly) that, in the novel Great Expectations, the character Pip lives with his sister (at a particular point in the story). No analysis, and entirely verifiable. SamBC(talk) 19:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
You don't need a secondary source to say a certain article was published in the New York Times on January 1, 2001. That's not WP:OR, that's a simple, bland fact observable to all. Likewise, you don't need a secondary source to say that something happened in Captain America #1, because the comic is the source. Ford MF (talk) 20:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
My biggest concern with the use of "notability" in AfDs comes from my job as educator and historian and it is that a lot of what I see is in effect the electronic equivalent of book burning. To suggest that some knowledge is somehow not important is just unacademic and unencyclopedic. I am of course not talking about hoaxes, how tos, libel, copy vios, essays, etc., all of which I think we can agree should be deleted, but I see articles that do have reliable sources deleted under this bizarre idea that only things that pass a handful of editors' ideas of what's notable per an encyclopedic. Now those wanting to delete "in popular culture" articles, fictional characters, video game weapons, television episodes, family members of celebrities and politicians, etc. may think they are doing a good thing and have honest intentions, but the fact is that it is saying some knowledge is unimportant, which goes against everything any scholar and any encyclopedist should stand for. We discriminate against nonsense and lies, but there is no really good, logical, or valid reason why we cannot or should not cover some of these other items that a half dozen odd of the same editors in AfDs want deleted when others in the same AfDs argue to keep, plus maybe hundreds who created and worked on the article, and thousands who come here looking for the article. Some seem to think that Wikipedia will be better maintainable, but so then some just self-appoint themselves as the determiners of what knowledge is worthwhile, which is itself suspect. Some seem to think that if they delete articles that they don't like, then the editors will instead work on articles that the noms and per noms do like, which is naive and wrong. Article creators and contributors whose articles keep getting deleted will just leave the project. If we humor them, maybe they will branch off onto other "more important" articles, but if we keep insulting them authoritatively and paternalistically, they won't. As far as comedians or blogsters whose job is to be sarcastic and critical, who cares what they say about our inclusion of certain topics; after all, some of the sites I can't link to here actually mock us for deletionism. It baffles me as to why anyone would rather devote his or her energy to deleting articles that are not hoaxes, libel, essays, how tos, or copy vios, rather than trying to build up those articles he or she does believe are worthwhile. Imagine how much time spent on AfDs that end in no consensus or keep could have been spent cleaning up an article to bring it to good or featured status or protecting articles from vandalism! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho!16:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
In those instances, I think we need to keep in mind if we can change a vanity article to be a neutral and referenced article and the same with advertising, i.e. if reviews, consumer alerts, etc. exist that can make the article be about the product in a straightforward manner that does not read like an advertisement. So, it's about potential as well. My main thesis is that if we are not running out of disk space or editors, we should work to be as comprehensive as possible as that is how we will contribute to humanity, not by being a mere repeat of Britannica that just has more editors. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho!17:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I'm all for having any reasonably important/popular/notable topic somewhere in WP as long as it meets NOT; in most examples that LGRdC gives, these are the case, but lets take for the moment that they all do. What we need to balance is to the degree these topics are covered; one-time cameo characters should not be covered in as much detail given to major characters of the same work, for example, and major characters of a show that got canceled after 3 episodes in less detail than continuing 10 season work. Giving a topic its own article is creating a new glass to be filled up, and while this is generally good to get editors to write, the quality of what they write is always a concern. Articles still need to meet the core policies such as V, NOR, and NPOV, all three which are generally helped by the presence of secondary/independent sources for the topic, but also should be clear that these are suggested but not necessarily requirements. If someone can write an article on a singular character that uses the sources well, stays neutral and avoids original research, and generally written from the approach of being encyclopedic - not a full character bio, not a retelling of plot points, but instead a well-rounded description and why someone reading would understand why the character is important to the work - I would find a hard time to argue for deletion except the question of if GNC is a hard fact or not. The problem right now is that a large percentage of the coverage of fictional elements is nowhere close to this level of being acceptable, and does read like a fan guide. Understandably, failure to met the above save for GNC is a reason for deletion, but I know that there's a general feeling that the existence of such articles propagates more articles of the same level of quality, and thus trying to get rid of them makes sense to those editors. What I felt I was trying to do with FICT was to have these topics still covered but in more manageable lists as support for a notable work of fiction, which, yes, would reduce how much is written about each character or element, but would make it easy to keep the article quality high, all in lieu of the fact that the GNC seemed like it was being treated as absolute.
That said, it seems completely reasonable to find a way to try to allow for the inclusion of well written non-notable articles on important topics that cannot show notably via GNC when this is the usual norm for that field or area, if we start with the assumption that the GNC should not be the end-all for inclusion. By the italicized clause, one needs to consider if secondary sources are readily available for articles of the similar type. Little Timmy's 3rd grade creative writing assignment cannot be a notable published work when compared to Harry Potter, Tom Clancy, and others because books generally have GNC. A comic book character, however, is very likely to not have significant secondary sources (Superman and Batman tend to be the exceptions), so in this case, a standard based on number of appearances or impact on an overall story could be helpful. (It should be noted that these is almost what the sub-notability guidelines do already - they outline cases where secondary source may not or ever exist but can be sourced and written comprehensively). We still need practical limits as someone could easily write a good comprehensive article on Mr. Sparkle as they can on Homer Simpson, a case I don't believe we want. We would also want editors to be sensible to keep in mind that while they may have the ability to write a separate article for a non-notable topic that falls into set limits, it may make more sense to provide the coverage in a list, particularly if all you can say about the topic is one paragraph. Or even sometimes, the topic can be moved to one that meets notability guidelines (GNC or this version) (This aspect should also be driven by the typical need to add images to articles - we have to watch our non-free content policies there, but this is a minor point to the overall discussion). Coverage is still there, redirects help with that, and it may help to paint a more comprehensive picture to the end reader when put in context with other information than if they had to flip back and forth between pages. And of course, we're still looking to make sure content meets NOT, so that will also drive some of that. --MASEM17:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Why stop at ridiculous analogies to book burning? Why not compare AFDs to the Nazis? No information is being destroyed. Non-notable bands can have a page at myspace. Non-notable game characters get plenty of information in their instruction manual and official game guides, which are available at your local Electronics Boutique. Non-notable neologisms and terminology can be found by googling or asking around in a forum. Listen, you're welcome to take the view that the notability constraint should be abolished completely. But at a certain point you have to concede that there is no consensus to do so. Sincerely, I welcome you to try and delete a guideline that is intimately tied to WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. A guideline that has been in place for months, maybe longer. I say this with 100% honesty and in good faith. The worst thing that happens is you reinforce the existing consensus. I'm pretty certain the notability requirement will have to continue to exist in some form or another, but we can't be certain until you actually try build the consensus to change it, instead of insisting that you only have to follow guidelines you agree with. As for improving the encyclopdia, most of us do that. Deleting non-notable cruft is effortless, and saving a notable article doesn't really take much: find the appropriate resources, or offer a tangible reason why you're certain the resources are out there. You don't even need to build a consensus to keep it. A deadlock defaults to keep. Numerous votes for deletion can be persuaded to merge or redirect if you actually stop pushing keep. I'd be all for having a rule against AFDs that are too soon, or without warning, to prevent the system from being gamed. But likening the notability requirement to totalitarianism doesn't persuade or befriend anyone, in spite of good manners and pleasantries. Love, Randomran (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Saying "information still exists, somewhere" doesn't make it any less destruction of information. You can't point to the fact that you haven't destroyed the last book as proof that no information is being destroyed. Ford MF (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Because it is electronic book burning. Whether that's what people want to hear or what they believe. It's the truth. We, as in Wikipedia, is something that the mainstream media and the public at large uses and knows about. We can provide a real service to humanity if we catalog as much of human knowledge as possible. All of these ridiculous notability restrictions determined by a minority of our community stifles that venture. ANY topic you can cite gets coverage somewhere else. Should you reason that because German shepherds can be covered in books on those dogs, we don't need to cover them here? That's the same thing as saying video game characters are covered elsewhere, but because a handful of editors here don't like articles on video game characters we shouldn't cover them. There is no consensus in practice to delete these things. There is a vocal minority against them and so somehow a half dozen editors in a five day AfD on any given topic is supposed to represent consensus?! Overly restrictive notability requirements go against what makes Wikipedia a genuine contribution to human learning. Argument that use nonsense words like "cruft" cnanot be taken seriously. Deadlocks should default to keep, but I increasingly see instance like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pizza delivery in popular culture where the discussion was clearly moving in the keep direction after the article was improved still somehow close as "delete". Those wanting to delete may think what they are doing is right and may be doing so in good faith, but sometimes things done in good faith are still wrong. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho!17:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Ridiculous analogies aside, non-notable information can be covered elsewhere. AFDs are not a vote and Wikipedia is not a democracy. There are rules here, soft and flexible as they may be. Jimbo Wales is the ultimate minority stakeholder in Wikipedia, but he defines policies that send a ripple effect through the project. The notability requirement is based on those policies and has consensus. If you believe it doesn't, change it. But you're not allowed to just make up guidelines because you disagree with the ones we have written down. Randomran (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
If they actually had consensus, discussions such as these would not be so consensus and with others besides myself sharply challenging them. I suppose at the same time you are not allowed to just nominate articles for deletion because you don't like them and are usually unwilling to inform the article creators and writers of the AfD, because as you put earlier you'd rather focus on "efficiency" than courtesy. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho!18:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
My time is valuable, and I'll do what I want with it. I use AfDs to enforce guidelines, not what I like or don't like. If you don't like the guidelines, change them. I'm telling you right now, that there is no consensus to delete the notability requirement. But I invite you in good faith to prove me wrong. If it disappears, I'll stop enforcing it. Until then, stop ignoring it. Randomran (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Editors who create and contribute articles' time is valuable as well and it would much more respectful to make a greater effort getting them to participate in these discussions. There is no consensus regarding notability and so that reality should not be ignored. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho!18:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Do you have any links to when people tried to get rid of it before? I am curious to see how those discussions went and what arguments were used. I would greatly appreciate if you could provide those links. Thanks! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho!19:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Sincerely, I don't know. The best bet would be to see what links to that failed proposal. I suspect you'll have more success if you work towards a compromise, rather than retrying a failed proposal to abolish the notability requirement. Randomran (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
There were some major contests around November 2006 and February 2007 I think. You could also look at WP:AI which was a proposal to replace WP:N, but it failed. --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
(Comments) I sincerely believe that most of the objections to notability are founded (directly or indirectly) in a lack of willingness or ability to research real sources. Comic books are a common example. There are plenty of industry and mass market periodicals available (such as the very prominent Wizard magazine). There are tons of books and articles that cover comic books in both broad and specific detail, even including scholarly literature. There are independent fiction and comic book "encyclopedias". Taking television as another common example, there plentiful periodicals that cover television in some serious depth that even include plot summaries. Any series of any reasonable popularity can unquestionably be sourced to reliable independent publications with minimal effort. Just as people complain that some editors should put more effort into improving articles instead of deleting them, some editors could devote their energy into research and sourcing instead of arguing against notability.
Wikipedia is about documenting and summarizing the topics covered by the general body of reliable sources. It's sensible, reinforces the basic content principles and is not an undue burden to set our bar for inclusion at independent reliable sources finding the topic notable (as evidenced by substantive coverage). It may require an amount of effort and research that most active editors in certain areas are unwilling or unable to devote, but that is not a problem with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia (to be very polite). Vassyana (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Saying sources exist and sources are easily accessible are two extremely different things. Because people act like there's a ticking time bomb under articles when they get to AfD. Citing articles from obscure publications (there's no internet archive for Wizard or the Comic Shop News yannow) is difficult and time consuming. Nominating articles for deletion is easy as you please, and things get dogpiled from the peanut gallery, a distressing percentage of whom, let's face it, spend exponentially more time sitting in judgment rather than putting in the elbow grease to ref difficult articles (or any articles, for that matter). And I don't see you on AfD calling any of the drive-by deleters "lazy", which is essentially what you just said about the editors of articles about fictional subjects. Ford MF (talk) 03:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Addressing your comments more directly, it's quite ridiculous to call Wizard (or anything other periodical commonly available at magazine racks and newsstands) "obscure". Yes, researching sources requires effort. Yes, researching sources can be time-consuming. You make it sound like trips to the library, purchasing books, paying for a subscription library service, etc is a massive undue burden, when it's exactly what people generally do on other topics to acquire reputable sources. If an article is deleted for lack of notability or sources, there's nothing stopping you (or anyone else who wants to take the effort) from asking an admin to undelete and move the article into a userspace sandbox where it can be improved with some leisure. Vassyana (talk) 09:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
It sounds like thousands of comic characters are notable, if one has the right resources. The difficulty in finding sources is still dispraportionate to the difficulty in starting an AfD. Notability is supposed to determine which subjects are worthy of an article. Notability is not working for fiction if I have to drive around town and spend hundreds of dollars on books and subscription services vs. someone else spending 10 minutes applying some templates on WP. The difference between fiction and other topics is that no one is going around mass AfDing and redirecting those topics. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry, but it's perfectly appropriate to insist upon the same sourcing and notability standards that we use for every other topic area. I find assertions to the contrary simply fallacious. Touching on your point about distinctions, pop culture fiction articles also differ in the depth and amount of subarticles (compared to other topics). This, at least in large part, leads to the attention and perceptions that drive the majority of those AfD nominations, redirects, merges, and so on. You're unlikely to see a List of minor characters in the Icelandic Sagas any time soon (let alone such a list for each saga). Similarly, you are also unlikely to witness the rise of articles for all the characters of Sartre, for the minor points of Husserl's phenomenology, for the numerous individual strains of influenza or for lists of minor figures in Taoist tradition. That is a fundamental distinction between pop culture fiction and other subjects, and bears no small relation to the number of AfDs (and so on) in the area of fiction. Vassyana (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
If the same sourcing was insisted upon, the articles would be allowed to survive until they're sourced, regardless of how long it takes. Popular fiction has deadline, whereas the rest of WP does not. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Your assertion about fiction doesn't hold under examination. Plenty of articles outside of pop culture get deleted in the same span of time (the length of an AfD). I've seen topics in history, philosophy and religion get deleted when sufficient sources could not be mustered and no reasonable indication that sources are available was put forth. On the flip side, I've seen plenty of pop culture articles survive AfD because the prominence of the topic and/or likelihood of sources was clearly established or convincingly argued. Additionally, most articles deleted at AfD (notably barring BLP-issue deletions and POV forks) can easily be undeleted and moved to userspace where the article can be built up (and notability established) at leisure. The situation is not nearly as dire or unfair as you'd present it. On the contrary, pop culture receives a measure of leeway unthinkable in other areas of the wiki (due to a very vocal and dedicated minority). I could not imagine, for example, a series of subarticles lacking independent sources detailing all of the minor figures in the history of a church without it being labeled a "walled garden" or something similar. (And indeed, I have see far less trigger such reactions.) Vassyana (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
In answer to Masem arguement that Wikipedia should "allow for the inclusion of well written non-notable articles", I must disagree. Notability is Wikipedia's best defence against bad content. WP:V says that if no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. There is a good reason for this: articles that do not meet the requirements of GNC will probably have content and style issues as a result, such as being based on original research, or being over reliant on an in universe perspective. Following on from what Vassyana has said, not only should editors be citing reliable secondary sources in articles on fictional topics, but also there is no valid excuse for not doing so. Because fiction is catered for in a wide range of academic publications, and is also the mainstay of newspapers, magazines and the internet, there is a lot of well sourced content out there just waiting to be harvested, more so that probably any other subject area. Now that museums and universities are being asked to make their archives available to the general public, more and more reliable secondary sourced content is coming online than ever before. I don't think we need to change WP:NOTE to allow more non-notable content; on the contrary, I think notable content is becoming the norm, not just the ideal. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Here's a serious question for thought: why is not WP:NOTE policy?
If we're arguing that the GNC is a standard that should be across WP, then this should have more teeth. However, I'm pretty sure that there would be more than just the inclusionists that raise objections should it be suggested it be brought to policy. Mind you, I don't believe it has ever been suggested as policy so the exact standing globally for that is unknown, I'm just going off what I read on various other policy/guideline pages that I really don't see this happening. The fact that there are editors that doubt why we even have a notability guideline also make me wonder if making it policy is even possible.
If this does have global consensus to be policy, so be it, that pretty much sets how FICT and other guidelines have to be written. However, if there is no consensus, that implies that there's more to notability than just the GNC and the subject-specific guidelines; or better stated, criteria for inclusion in WP does include having secondary sources or meeting specific guidelines that suggest the same in the sub-notability guidelines, but there must be other methods. I'm aware that we something objective at some point to prevent topics on every person and their pets, but the GNC and secondary sourcing may only be one aspect of measuring the "worthy of note" of a topic given that this is not policy and likely will never be policy. --MASEM12:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Notability is not policy for much the same reasons reliable sources will likely never be policy, despite the fact that both principles are essentially treated as defacto policies. An overwhelming majority agrees that reliable sources are necessary, and a similar majority agrees that article topics lacking independent sources should not have articles. In both cases, the guidelines are seen by a significant portion of editors as subsets of, or subservient to, broader policies (for example, the "guidance goes in guidelines" position). Also in both cases, there is deep division over wording, particular details and similar issues, which prevents either guideline from gaining enough acceptance "as is" to reach policy-level consensus. This is a problem with the expression of the principles, rather than the principles themselves. Vassyana (talk) 13:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Given Vassyana's statement, this would suggest that we do need some policy about inclusion (aka, "What WP is"), with notability through secondary sources being the guideline behind that. The V/RS pair works (most of the time) reasonably well as a statement of policy with interpretive guidance on specifics: we want verification through reliable sources - that is immutable; exactly what is a reliable source is flexible and changes as new cases come up and as media shifts from paper to electronic forms. Similarly , an inclusion policy would state that we include articles on topics that are shown to be notable, with WP:N being the definition of what is notable. (This really doesn't change anything, however, this puts a more positive spin and I will bet that there's more to a possible "What WP Is" policy than just refering to N, to counter the negative implications that NOT gives).
This still points to the fact that the GNC is only guidance. It's good guidance that implicitly helps articles to meet core policies, and itself should never go away. But, just as RS gives flexibility for areas which may not have the same level of established scholarship as others, it would seem N should be doing the same. Maybe this is what the sub-guidelines like MUSIC and BOOK perform: cases where secondary sources don't necessarily exist but the likelihood is there. But in the context of fiction (where pretty much this argument is), there are often references that some would consider as weak secondary sources, yet they are not the exact primary work (case in point is Spoo where much of the article is supported by posts by Babylon's 5's creator JMS to USENET. Technically, self-published, not secondary, no editoral control - yet they are the best source for this information since he is the best expert on it). So, what I'm saying is that if we consider the V/RS pair with RS on a sliding scale depending on the topic, it would imply to me that with a Inclusion/notability pair, what exactly is significant coverage will slide as a function of the topic, but never going to the point where the work itself is the only source used. How much that slide is defined is basically the job then of the subnotability guidelines, which are describing cases that sourcing exists or will likely exist; it may not be 100% secondary but it's not the primary source alone. Given that, this suggests there are ways for FICT to include specific cases where a fictional element may be notable that ultimately can be shown to have sources (in most cases) beyond the original primary work. This doesn't weaken the GNC, but only adapts it as RS is adapted for other topic areas. --MASEM14:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
While I appreciate the sentiment, the last thing Wikipedia needs is another damn policy. I also would be concerned that an overall companion policy would simply become another mess of confused wording and poor compromises (as I believe the notability guideline to be), only with people taking more extreme positions because "IT'S POLICY". One should also consider notability origins (and therefore its grounding) as a "common sense" conclusion of NOT and the content policies, which would make "reverse engineering" a companion policy that much more complex.
I think your aims would be much better served by reducing and combining the various notability standards, as well as clarifying the language. Why can't the major points of the subguidelines just be part of the main guideline? Why not just have a section stating that certain facts provide a presumption of available sources? For example, noting that the prominence of a subject in its/his/her field, the receipt of major and notable awards, the topic is a regular subject of academic study, and so on. It may also be worth considering renaming notability to inclusion. Vassyana (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I agree with what you have said. Most sub pages dealing with people (active, proposed and rejected) have boiled down to the same criteria, which has now been incorporated into BIO. Thus the subpages of PROF and MUSIC serve little prupose. However, if you look at all of the special criteria at BIO, ORG etc., these special topic categories likely meet the criteria for WP:N, so why the other pages? I think that the people who write and use these pages don't understand how to apply WP:N. --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Personally, i'd go in exactly the opposite direction, and have specific guidelines for each specific type of article. the general conduct of notability means whatever a half dozen people at afd wish it to mean at a given moment, with the result of lack of stability, lack of consistency,--which together exude an air of incompetence which pervades the whole encyclopedia--a reference work should at least know what it intend to cover, and hold to it, neither throwing out articles that happen to have no support for the moment, or including those where a claque makes a temporary and irrelevant argument. The reason we have PROF is because the ordinary sources in the field are a little different. As for book, I think it wont hold up either--it depends upon where reviews happen to be published--thus the perpetual difficulty with SF, where they appear in relatively unconventional sources. But I dont want to argue these specifics--thats for the individual guideline pages. But as for making this into formal policy, I agree with Gavin--from I believe the opposite side of the fence entirely--that it is much better as guidelines. Policy gets fossilised too easily. DGG (talk) 04:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
It's my belief and assertion that the subguidelines are essentially redundant, repeating more or less the same criteria over and over (major/notable awards, subject of academic study, and so on). Would you object to unifying and centralizing such "broad" criteria in the main guideline (for the sake of consistency, sanity and ease of reference)? Could you point out a few examples that would not be covered by these "universal" criteria? Vassyana (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Not meaning to prejudice anything, but I think that's one of the conclusions pointed to by the RFC above. Of course, there are indications of contradictory conclusions, but the consensus seems to be leaning towards that one. I think there are other aspects that comments above suggest changes to, potentially, but that seems one of the strongest. SamBC(talk) 15:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
My object to the GNC is more from a deletionist point of view; I think the general concept of 2RS=N to be absurd in principle, an an admission that when we use the term notability we dont know what we're talking about--or don't agree. Consider just as a single case the interplay of it with NOT NEWS--the result is that RS does NOT equal N in case its anything to do with a current event--and then this gets applied by people to individual past events as well. I think we have it backwards entirely-- V is the standard for what we can write about, not what we want to write about. (not that V is simple to apply, as distinct from stating it as a general rule--the concept that there are degrees of verifiability and different sorts of acceptable sources for different things, and that no source is either totally reliable or the opposite, has finally become practical, thanks to a long run of discussions at the RS noticeboard.) the basic question is not what people want to write, but what people want to read in an encyclopedia--what reasonable expectations are, and hope we should go about meeting them. I suppose I will have to develop this separately, as I think the best way to deal with the situation is to start over with a proper policy then exemplified into guidelines, for what WP IS, not modify the N guideline. DGG (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I beg to differ. The rule 2RS=N isn't to say what is notable, but to have some kind of minimum threshold. Not everything with 2RS is notable, because not everything with 2RS can be fleshed out into something significant. But this is just the most basic of minimal standards to exclude people from adding their best friend's band, their favorite fansite, or some random video game sword. Again, it's not to say subjectively "if you have reliable sources, you're famous", but to say "if you don't even have two reliable sources, you don't even get off the ground". I'm open to revising the GNG to be more specific or flexible. But there is no consensus to abolish this guideline which has guided wikipedia for years. Randomran (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
It would seem that the GNG leaves us with both false positives and false negatives: it is often (sometimes successfully) used to argue against coverage of things which a great many people argue (based on principle, not ILIKEIT) should be covered, and it's been used to justify retention of things that have been argued to be not worth covering. These two views aren't mutually exclusive. SamBC(talk) 18:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
The guideline definitely isn't perfect. But I think there are lots of checks and balances: "no consensus" on an AFD defaults to keep, and then there's deletion review. I happen to think that more checks and balances is a pretty good answer: allow AFDs to be postponed for a "reasonable time" if someone can offer a reason why they believe the references are out there despite evidence that they don't exist. There are also checks and balances if the notability guideline is too gentle: WP:OR, WP:NOT, WP:SIZE. That said, improving the guideline itself is important. For example, WP:MUSIC basically amends the GNG by offering a broader view of what's considered a reliable source: taking artist/band articles as an example, a "hit on a musical chart" or "gold record" or "album on a major label" are all considered equally as good as "significant coverage in reliable source that is independent of the subject". But for every constructive compromise that people offer, there's a radical opinion that says "let's strike down the GNG completely". Randomran (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
If you take a look at the WP:MUSIC guideline, they basically offer a few ways to prove a few things are notable. I think we could easily offer a simple alternative for how to prove a character is notable, and how to prove a location is notable. Everything else could still be notable, but in accordance with the general guideline. To me, that's how things should be structured. The content is a whole other issue. But I think this lets us organize the debate into something more constructive. Randomran (talk) 23:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I would tend to disagree. I do see DGG's concern, but I think we should go more in the direction that passing the GNG is necessary but not sufficient. Multiple significant independent sources (and that doesn't mean "two newspapers namedropped it") should be a requirement, but it should be one of many requirements, the others being laid out by core policy such as NOT and NOR (one may safely assume that anything passing the primary criterion is verifiable, of course). SeraphimbladeTalk to me01:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
It appears that after a long but failed effort to adopt Wikipedia:Attribution the proponents have devised a new and confusing custom tag to legitimize the instructions as a "summary" of other processes. This lacks the consensus to be anything other than Essay status and should be so tagged. While I don't specifically oppose or support ATT, I don't think that we need to confuse the issue with a new process category which is not described at WP:Policy. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I'm bringing this up here, because ATT was first proposed as a replacement for WP:N and promotion of that essay to psuedo-policy can effect the application of this guideline. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Um... no it isn't relevant... WP:ATT was originaly written to be a merger of WP:V and WP:NOR ... WP:N was not part of the mix. However, as long as the subject has been raised... there is a debate going on at that page as to what its status should be (with opinions ranging from "failed" or "historical", through "summary" or "essay", and on to "Policy" or "guideline".) There are a lot of "there is no consensus for that" type statements, but no demonstration of what the consensus actually IS. Please pop over and opine so we can actually determine a consensus (whatever the status ends up being). Blueboar (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Many among us are concerned about instruction creep and there is much discussion of the topic, but proposals for further creep within the notability concept is at an all time high. There are eight active proposals now, most of which have attracted little scrutiny, but in some cases proponents are claiming that these are ready to implement. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Since I proposed it but it never got legs, I've gone ahead and "rejected" serial works, as to get it out of the way.
The question of whether we need the other guidelines (particularly fiction) I think hinges much on the above discussion: are there more possibly objective ways to demonstrate notability than just through secondary sources. If there aren't, there's not much else for subguidelines, and further advise can be written to MOS and guidelines per appropriate project. If there are other possible ways to show notability, the subguidelines have good reason to exist, but we need to avoid this much division, and the overall subguidelines need to be as generic as possible, along the lines WP:BIO is creating. "Schools" and "Streets and roads" and "Places and transportaton" can probably be combined into a "Notability (places)" or some other name; "Criminal acts" can likely be moved under BIO, and so forth. If anything, if there are subguidelines, we should encourge WP to write out more fully how to implement notability from those guidelines within their projects, with the cavaet that by going past the global notability guidelines will still result in article deletion despite them saying its the case; the wikiproject specific guidelines should further outline is approprite within the context of global ones. --MASEM18:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I re-visit WP:N every now and again because I believe it is one of the most frequently mis-applied of the well-known "core" organizing and operational principles of WP. Others have written exhaustively on this. Popular-media commentators have questioned and even ridiculed how it gets applied. There are strongly-held views and periodic proposals for clarification and reform that sprout up and eventually die out -- cyclically, like the passing of seasons. It's like an intellectual treadmill floating in the midst of a tar pit.
Nevertheless, it's fun to come back every now and again to try to ask people to give their perspective on WP:N. So I offer this challenge.
The WP:N Challenge:
Can you give a specific example of an article or topic that WP:N will help to "keep out", that could not be appropriately "kept out" by applying any or all of WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:COI?
In other words, assuming that (in very glib terms):
WP:OR stomps out: "you've made this up yourself";
WP:V stomps out: "this cannot be verified independently";
WP:COI stomps out: "you're inherently too close to the subject matter"; and
WP:NPOV stomps out: "this is not neutral".
What, exactly, does WP:N help to "stomp out" that cannot already be addressed by one or more of the above?
(Disclaimer1: I've asked variants of this question before, so please don't take this glib summary as a lack of familiarity with possible examples, or the underlying purpose of each core principle. I'm just challenging folks to give concrete examples in order to "keep it real").
(Disclaimer2: This challenge assumes as a basic premise that you can "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge." Participants who do not wish to imagine such things need not respond :) dr.ef.tymac (talk) 17:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Read User:Uncle G/On notability: it is possible to write a bare bones biographical article on just about any individual in the developed world, using sources such as birth, census, geneological and death databases that completely conform to WP:V and WP:RS. However, those databases so not provide the "significant coverage" that WP:N requires. By extension, sources such as athlete statistic databases do not provide the significant coverage to demonstrate the notability of every person that has ever played professional athletics, and a database such as IMDB does not demonstrate the notability of every person who has ever been credited in a film or television show. Hope this helps. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
UPDATE: I forgot to mention, there are other items in the constellation of WP core principles (such as WP:NOT, and WP:Consensus) that I did not enumerate in the list above, those, nevertheless, apply as well. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Reply to UnitedStatesian:
(1) bare bones biographical article on just about any individual ... that's already covered by WP:NOTDIR;
(2) every person that has ever played professional athletics ... [see (1)];
(3) every person who has ever been credited in a film or television show ... [see (1)];
(4) athlete statistic databases is it correct to assume you agree that some statistics are actually fit for inclusion within WP, such as World records in athletics? If so, we can agree that inclusion in a statistics database is not a sufficient criterion for excluding content. Therefore, close calls can be handled by WP:Consensus, no?
Also, the essay you linked to actually reinforces my point, (as it alludes to "writing on subjects close to you" and "wp is not a directory" for support, and yet the phrase "significant coverage" is conspicuously absent). Yes it does help, it helps to reinforce my basic point :). Anyone else up to the challenge? dr.ef.tymac (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I agree that WP:NOTDIR prevents indiscriminate creation of articles about anyone for whom we have basic verifiable biographical date. In fact, NOTDIR says "Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety." From there, the question becomes "by what measure do we determine fame, achievement, or notoriety?" WP:N is the answer to that question. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Sarcasticidealist, can you give a specific example where WP:N is uniquely capable of resolving this question where all the other core principles fail? Also, in doing so, please keep in mind that *Notability is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity"*. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 17:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
No, because any article I could cite that was non-notable would result in a response from you that it was precluded by WP:NOTDIR anyway. Which may well be so, but my point is that NOTDIR isn't actually useful unless we have an agreed-upon metric by which to determine whether somebody has achieved sufficient "fame, achievement, or notoriety". WP:N is little more than the intersection of WP:NOTDIR and WP:V, but is useful because it provides a metric that WP:NOTDIR lacks. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Respectfully, Sarcasticidealist, shooting down individual topics is not the goal. I'm genuinely interested in seeing a specific case of WP:N meeting a need not met elsewhere. You say that WP:N provides a "metric" that WP:NOTDIR lacks, but that seems exactly backwards to me. In my mind, a "metric" is a standard of measurement that is falsifiable, unambiguous, and based on a definition that could be easily reproduced by two or more independent parties not acting in concert.
Everyone knows what a phone book is. Everyone knows what the membership roster for the Screen Actors Guild is. Now let's be blunt. Do you *really* think any two people could independently and unambiguously define what "notability" is, and give the exact same or similar answer? Quite frankly, WP:N (as it is commonly applied) seems more like an ambiguous and touchy-feely "catch-all" that people can mold into their own image ... the exact opposite of a "metric". dr.ef.tymac (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I realize you're operating in good faith here, and I apologize if I implied otherwise. I'll give you an example of somebody I could write an article on who would clear all the policies you provided but still not be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia by the standards of anybody but a radical inclusionist: Morag Pansegrau. She's been a school trustee in St. Albert, Alberta for many years, and I'm quite certain that I could write a neutral, properly-sourced article about her if I was willing to go through microfilms of the local newspapers. But she's not sufficiently notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. You can argue that she is, but if you're going to argue that, realize that you're well out of step with community consensus on what should be included. WP:N and its sub-guidelines preclude the inclusion of this article (in accordance with community consensus) in a way that none of the policies you've cited do. Does everybody interpret WP:N in the same way? Of course not. But I think interpretations of WP:N are less widely distributed than interpretations of WP:NOTDIR would be if WP:N didn't exist. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Actually, Morag Pansegrau looks like she meets the notability guideline: see this and that and there's more out there. I'm not a radical inclusionist, but I think she'd meet the WP:GNG. The question is if there would be enough reliable sources to write a large enough article that this wouldn't be merged into some larger topic, such as Alberta Schools, education theory, or the like. Randomran (talk) 01:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
The two articles I can come up with off the top of my head are Terminator (character) and Paladine. Both suffer only from notability issues. That they exist is WP:V (there's a movie and a book series to prove that). That they are in a movie and book series is not WP:OR (again, see book and movie). The articles are written by several editors, none of whom worked on the movie or books (WP:COI). And none of that information is subject to POV (that there is a Terminator movie with a character in it is not my POV, it's a documented fact). None of this solves the question: Why do editors feel we need WP:NOTE? The only argument I've seen revolve around keeping out articles. But why exclude things? Why restrict the knowlege contained herein? Padillah (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, Padillah, for the examples, you say these suffer from notability, but is it safe to say you agree with the two following points:
"Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge." is a core commitment of WP; and
Any deficiency regarding these articles could be resolved by discussing whether they should be merged into Dragonlance and Terminator (franchise)
If you do agree with these points, one might reconsider whether these examples actually meet the terms of the challenge. WP:N is used as grounds for whether content gets to stay in WP *at all*. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
WP:N is a synthesis of WP:OR and WP:V and WP:NOT that is supported by the consensus of wikipedia users. You could write an article because on research that you read at a fansite or a personal webpage, but then it would be considered unreliable and unverifiable. You could write an entire article that is verifiable from the primary source itself: an article about Spain based on what you saw in Spain, or an article about a TV show based on what you saw on TV. But you'd either violate the rule against original research by making an original observation about what you saw, or you'd violate WP:NOT by going into excessive plot detail or travel detail. It's extremely helpful and important to synthesize multiple policies into a single coherent guideline. It avoids confusion, and improves clarity. Arguably, I could write an article about "The Incredible Hulk's Cut-Off Shorts" based entirely on verifiable primary sources, and I might even try to weasel your way through WP:OR by tossing in a secondary source or two that mentions "shorts" or "pants" or "ripped clothes", and then argue that I'm escaping WP:PLOT because I'm being as concise as I can be about the Hulk's shorts. But WP:N spells it out plain and simple: this crap doesn't belong here. Randomran (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
The Hulk "cut-off shorts" example is another one that seems similar to Dragonlance and Terminator above. On a gut level, I can definitely see how a separate, stand-alone article on this topic would not be appropriate. That, however, is a stylistic question entirely independent of whether it merits inclusion *at all*. WP:N is about wholesale topic deletion, not about how much detail is appropriate for community-agreed legitimate WP topics. There are plenty of "superhero" articles in WP, some of them talk about the superhero uniforms.
Just to clarify, are you of the opinion that discussion of superhero uniforms is *never* appropriate in WP? Unless that's your view, it would seem this example doesn't quite meet the challenge. Thanks much for your reply and perspectives though, something to chew on. Cheers. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Oh by all means, someone might want to briefly mention how the Hulk dresses and his appearance. The problem is that mere truth (or even verifiability) shouldn't be enough to warrant a standalone article. I know it's a pain for people who want to write about all kinds of observations they made, but the best way to give appropriate weight to topics is to follow what reliable third party sources have covered. Extracting all kinds of detail from the primary source itself is the non-notable junk comes from. Randomran (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I think a serious defect in the logic of this test has not been considered. If you discuss any topic, you have to introduce some sort of POV to get a handle on it, in order to provide context, critisism or analysis. WP:N gives you a get out of jail free card when it comes to POV: if a reliable secondary source has expressed an opinion about a subject, you can cite them, as it is no longer your POV that is being quoted. For instance, I think the appeal of Paladine is that like Gandalf, he is the friend and mentor of characters seeking guidance and encouragement and this makes the character attractive, whereas The Terminator is the opposite: brutal, pitiless & violent: exactly the type of character needed to scare the bejesus out of you at a night out at the cinema. However, I can't express my views as I have written them myself (that would fail WP:NOR), as there is no limit to the number of opinions that can be expressed about these characters - even a paperless encyclopedia would struggle to catalogue all the potential opinions that could be expressed. Instead WP:N requires us to find a reliable secondary source that express an opinion about these characters that indicates that someone has gone to the effort of researching the topic and having it peer reviewed. A reliable secondary sources is still a platform for an opinion, but if a few other people have been given the chance to review it, then the opinion is deemed to be validated in some way, and the fact someone has chosen to express their opinion in this way makes the subject matter notable. WP:N does not stamp things out, it brings them to life.--Gavin Collins (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Reply to Gavin Collins:
If you discuss any topic, you have to introduce some sort of POV to get a handle on it ... this is already addressed by WP:NPOV for articles; for discussion pages, POV is appropriate as long as it is relevant to the article and otherwise consistent with WP norms for discussion pages;
WP:N requires us to find a reliable secondary source that express an opinion about these characters ... this is already addressed by WP:RS and WP:V, see also the sections on "opinion" in WP:NPOV;
WP:N does not stamp things out, it brings them to life ... given that WP:N is used almost exclusively to substantiate deletion of entire topics from WP, one might question the merit of this claim, however metaphorical it may be. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
If we could search all reliable sources, NOTE would be a pretty good guideline, although we would still need many blanket exemptions for things like various bug species or villages in Africa. As things stand, NOTE is combined with google searching to decide the fate of articles, and we're probably searching 10% (or way less?) of reliable sources when we make our decisions. Old sources, book sources, foreign sources, etc. are not used at all. It's a problem. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
PF, it's not true that books are not used as source material. I write about sailing and history; for these topics I use a lot of references to printed material not available on the web. A trip to the library when writing an article can be very productive. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Books are great if you have the book, and want to write an article. They're not so great if you have an article and need a book. I like to follow AfDs and improve those articles when possible. That's when the trouble arises. They may be possible to improve, but we need someone who is reading the book already to do so. It's all very sticky eventualism vs. immediatism. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I have tried to save articles from AfD too, and in that situation I'm generally relying on web-based sources. However, a good practice is to ask for help from a project or projects which cover the topic. Frequently an expert can be found. I've thought that we should have a safe-harbor program where dedicated researchers could put a hold on AfD, saying "we think this can be saved, please give us 14 days to go to the library." I think that we need to break from the box of tradition, and find new solutions. --Kevin Murray (talk) 05:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
In answer to dr.ef.tymac, I accept his refuation of my arguments about WP:N, as most of the concerns about WP:N are indeed covered by WP:RS. However, there is one issue still outstanding, which is why should a particular topic have its own article? Effectively what WP:N stamps out is "there is not enough reliable coverage to write an encyclopedic article". An example of where WP:N comes into its own, and probably why the concept was developed in the first place, is were a new concept arises, but does not have sufficient wide spread recognition to justify an article. Very often these are neologisms, such as Socionomics, an article that has been deleted twice.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I would guess new articles would become a function of consensus and surviving AfD. I know I'm not suggesting we accept anything a person writes down as sufficient for an article. But to use such a blatantly subjective "metric" as notability is just lying to ourselves. It's WP:IDONTLIKEIT in a better disguise. Come to think of it, I have an issue with WP:RS too. It relies on the editor to accept a source as reliable and if they don't then we can't use that source. "Reliable" in what regard? Will they take out the trash every Thursday? What makes an article in the newspaper carry more weight than one published on a MySpace page? There are certain researchers and such that study the subject, they are reliable in their knowlege. Some guy that got a job in the copy room?... Not really. The only thing that saves WP:RS, in my opinion, is getting two sources that say the same thing. Then, at least, you have a documented agreement between two random opinions. Other than that it's just more opinions. Padillah (talk) 12:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I've always thought an article titled Madeline Mccann is the perfect example of what WP:N addresses and little else, if anything, does. She's a young child who has invented nothing, achieved nothing, discovered nothing and is not a royal or of nobility. I'm not sure what else would stop an article on Madeline Mccann being written. Regards, Mannafredo (talk) 10:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Much of the above discussion triggered a few alternate pathways to thing about notability that may be helpful in trying to resolve this issue. The main purpose of notability, or more specifically, our inclusion/exclusion guideline, is that while WP is not paper and disk space is cheap, it is impractical to provide coverage on everything for three points: the fact that not everything can be covered in an encyclopedic manner (for the most part, being sourced without OR or POV), that not every topic has a significant impact or importance to make it noteworthy for the average reader (global/national vs local topics), and that maintenance would be impossible.
So when we start considering the general classes of articles that we cover, there's obviously points we need to set up to say "this topic cannot be included because it doesn't have this criteria." This is moreso a point when the number of items in that topic is very very large, continually unbounded, or infinite. We cannot cover all 6 billion living humans or whatever billion of all humans that ever lived; this is a unbounded set that continues to grow. On the other hand, we can cover every chemical element (but not every compound), every country, every town and village in these countries, and similar sets that may be large but around reasonably bounded.
What this comes back to is that each topic area we cover is going to have a different point at which topics within become worthy for inclusion. This of course needs to be aligned with the goals of WP, but the type of information that we can use to judge a class of topics will vary from topic area to topic area. What I can use for people will be different from what I use for animal species, and will be different for what I use for stars and other celestial bodies. Some of these choices are going to be based on the quality and likelihood of the information available for that topic.
When you come from it at this angle, it is quickly apparent that what we currently call subnotability guidelines are actually as important if not more important than the general notability guideline of significance in secondary sources. The general criteria is still important as a catchall - it helps to keep WP's main goals in mind, and for some topics, this may be perfectly appropriate and overlap exactly with the inclusion criteria for that topic, and for others, it may be the perfect catchall for topics that yet to be considered. However, based on these though, we are trying to force this criteria as a "one size fits all" for every topic, which should be clear is not working out given all the discussion about WP.
I know this screams of having more and more topic-specific "inclusion" guidelines as well, but I think that appropriate grouping will help to make tons of news rules, keeping the number of these as small as possible. WP:BIO's approach is probably the way to go, simply listing off objective easy-to-check cases for why a person should be included. We would need to consider how much resorting of these can be done to help improve them. Maybe there is no FICT, but instead one for inclusion for "Literature, Arts, Film" to include magazines, artwork, music, television shows, etc. I'm figuring we can probably end up with at most 5 of these if we play it right. Mind you, some of these may be large, though sectioned like BIO, but the other option, given this concept, is that we either allow numerous topic-specific guidelines, or we allow Wikiprojects to define these, neither option I see being acceptable.
Again, I'm trying to brainstorm this from another direction, and still hold that the general notability criteria is a good baseline for any topic, but that the way we're approaching this, by starting at the GNC and building from that, is part of the problem in trying to resolve this. --13:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I accept the challenge
I put it to you that the article Mad Cow-Girl, currently at AfD where commenters assert that it fails WP:N, meets the challenge. It is a non-stub article on an encyclopedic topic (i.e. individual person) whose content is thoroughly verified, neutrality is assured, and unoriginal by virtue of the fact that the information in the article is cited to reliable sources. Yours pugnaciously, Skomorokh22:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
No need to comment on the merits of the subject matter itself, I will just suggest that if this topic is finally deemed inappropriate for WP, WP:NOTDIR would suffice as a rationale for removal -- again, it seems the amorphous concept of "notability" need not even be invoked here: WP is not likely to become a roster for every human being who has ever run for some kind of political office. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Although the subject has now received non-trivial coverage, I still think it would merit inclusion had it not. NOTDIR is so vague as to be applicable to anything ("WP is not a listing of all things of type x", where x is the type of article in question). Sure, if we accept NOTDIR as policy, it suffices for removal, but this creates a problem of overdetermination: "Bill Clinton should be deleted because WP is not a roster of every human being who has been President of the US". Clearly you need something more than NOTDIR to draw a line, and notability enthusiasts (of which I am not one) will say it's notability. I argue that the point is that the article meets the five pillars, and is not a stub; Bill Clinton just as Mad Cow-Girl. Of course we cannot dispense with WP:NOT on this account, but we can and should downgrade it from a sufficient reason for removal to an INUS-condition or similar. Skomorokh21:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Earlier, someone stepped up to this challenge by advocating WP:N as a useful "metric" for removal when other standards failed. Your reply underscores why I think such reasoning is actually an inverted image of the reality. Your critique implies a need to draw a line, but that is *precisely* why the hazy and indistinct notion of WP:N (at least as it is applied in practice) is such a justifiable target for reform, overhaul and (apparently according to some WP "outsiders") even scorn.
Let's take your evaluation of WP:NOTDIR as a case in point. Consider the traditional formulation, and then consider the alternate ways to resolve the formulation and bring it to a logical conclusion:
Resolved: "Foobar Politico Man" is not a suitable topic for inclusion in WP because X
Now, in order to arrive at a coherent consensus, we have to fill in the value for X and then individually resolve whether we agree or disagree.
Alternative resolution paths: different ways to fill in X
(with WP:N)
WP:N says that Wikipedia is not a repository of non-notable topics that lack significant coverage; (agree or disagree)
(without WP:N)
WP:NOTDIR says that WP is not a directory of every human being ...
who ever lived; (agree or disagree)
who has ever run for political office; (agree or disagree)
who has ever won political office; (agree or disagree)
who has ever served as a politician in the U.S. Federal government; (agree or disagree)
who has ever served as the President of the United States; (agree or disagree)
Consider this: regardless of which points you choose to agree with in this hypothetical case, there is a stark and undeniable difference between the "WP:N" way of doing things, and the alternative. Even if everyone agrees that the hypothetical case is not notable, under the WP:N model, there is no measurable or repeatable indication of what people are actually agreeing to in the first place. It's a total grab bag. Sometimes, it may exclude highly accomplished individuals who are unfamiliar to a wide audience, other times, it may include individuals who are little more then very shrewd publicity hounds.
In contrast, even if one disagrees on the proper "boundaries" associated with WP:NOTDIR, it at least includes the ability to unambiguously derive and record for posterity what people actually think those boundaries are. If the WP community one day agreed that all US President articles should be permanently kept out, everyone but the illiterate could understand such a rule and follow it. Even if there was a need for one or two exceptions, discussion and consensus could provide for that also, without any need to rely on or cite WP:N.
Bottom line: Implicit in this challenge is a basic assumption: no matter what standard you choose, it will always lack credibility unless it is unambiguous, repeatable and falsifiable.dr.ef.tymac (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hi.
Someone reverted the changes I made, and said I should bring it here for discussion. May I hear their objection?
The revised text was:
""Presumed" means that substantive coverage in multiple independent reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of suitability for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion. This is not done wholly arbitrarily and subjectively: for example, it may violate what Wikipedia is not. Not even all "notable" topics are fair game for Wikipedia. Notability is a criterion for inclusion, but not the criterion. To be guaranteed for inclusion, material must pass all relevant content policies and guidelines.[1] "
from
""Presumed" means that substantive coverage in multiple independent reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion. For example, it may violate what Wikipedia is not.[1] "
To me I do not see what the problem here is. First off, that notability is _a_ criterion, but not _the_ criterion, for inclusion, should be uncontroversial: WP:NOT is not part of WP:N, and passing it is required for inclusion. WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IHATEIT are not valid arguments for keeping and deletion either, so that the idea the process of deciding whether or not X is worthy of inclusion is wholly subjective is false. That material must pass all relevant content policies seems obvious as well. Unless you're saying that somehow, biased, unverifiable, original research is allowed somewhere on Wikipedia... If so, where is this? I'd like to hear some real objections to the change. mike4ty4 (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I wasn't the one who reverted, but personally I think we should leave it at this:
"Presumed" means that substantive coverage in multiple independent reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion.
We don't need to go on to state that articles must (generally) conform to our policies and guidelines in general -- not only is that intuitive, it's rather out of scope. It wouldn't hurt to clarify somewhere that although WP:N generally most the pertinent guideline with regard to inclusion standards, there are other considerations (BLP deletions for example) -- but I don't think the clarification of "presumed . . . to be notable" is a good place for that. — xDanielxT/C\R02:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Here's another. What do you think?:
"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is considered notable and presumed to be worthy of inclusion.
"Presumed" means that the criterion establishes a presumption, instead of a guarantee, that the subject matter is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. This presumption may be refuted if there is rational, objective evidence to point to other reasons it should not be included."
Failing WP:NOT, WP:BLP, etc. do not make it "non-notable", it makes it "not worthy of inclusion". "Non-notable" means it fails WP:N and/or it's associated subject-specific guidelines. Also, the emphasis on objective evidence and logic I feel is important since it helps provide a stumbling-block for WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IHATEIT types of nonsense arguments whose acceptance as valid criteria for the inclusion and removal of material are detrimental to Wikipedia. Also, there's those "NN, D" (non-notable so delete) "arguments" which occur so readily in Articles for Deletion (AFD) "debates". "NN, D" is not a good argument for deletion -- why is this "NN"? What evidence do you have to refute the presumption of notability/suitability for inclusion? 170.215.65.87 (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
If you're correct, the guideline should not talk about presuming notability. It should instead use that space to make clear the distinction between notability and worthiness of inclusion. As I've said before, we can't say "presumed to be notable" if it is not possible to "defeat" that presumption. It's vitally important that policies and guidelines use words to mean something that they actually mean. Croctotheface (talk) 06:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Yes, so therefore why not draw such a distinction? Notability is a, not the criterion for inclusion. I don't think WP has a single criterion for inclusion, either. mike4ty4 (talk) 00:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I have to ask, what has promted these proposed changes? Can you give provide examples of articles where the changes would apply? Otherwise I propose we keep the guideline the way it is, as change for change sake makes no sense.--Gavin Collins (talk) 07:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I don't know if this is what prompted the initial changes, but per the above, I think we've come across something of a flaw. Currently it says "subjects are presumed to be notable if X, but consensus may preclude this presumption of notability based on other concerns". So in the context of a BLP deletion of a notable subject, our notability guideline would essentially say "the subject is presumed to be notable, but the article fails an unrelated policy (BLP), so the subject isn't notable after all." It doesn't quite make sense. The guideline should read either "subjects are presumed to be notable if X, but consensus may dictate that they are non-notable despite X", or "subjects are presumed to be worthy of inclusion if X, but consensus may dictate that they should not be included for reasons unrelated to X (i.e., matters not related to notability)". — xDanielxT/C\R18:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
You are mostly right. It makes it sound like a non-notability policy or guideline somehow affects notability, which is weird. If something passes WP:N but fails WP:NOT, for example, it does just that: fails WP:NOT, not WP:N. Furthermore it stresses "consensus" that it not be included as opposed to "evidence", which suggests unwritten, subjective, and even ad-hoc criteria could dismiss the article's inclusion. But ILIKEIT/IHATEIT are bad arguments. So I'd suggest "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable" become "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is considered notable, and presumed worthy of inclusion". Then have ""Presumed" means a rebuttable presumption that can be falsified by presenting logical reasons that the article may still be unsuitable for inclusion under other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If a consensus is reached that these reasons are valid, the presumption is falsified the article is still not worthy of inclusion even if the notability criterion is satisfied." This stresses both and gives less "wiggle room" for ILIKEIT/IHATEIT crap. mike4ty4 (talk) 00:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I like the phrasing you suggested; it eliminates that confusion while still being fairly succinct. The only (potential) objection I can foresee is that some non-notable articles might receive "incidental" coverage, but it is just a general guideline after all; we generally regard the more specific notability standards (including WP:NOT#NEWS) as preclusive of the general notability guideline anyway. — xDanielxT/C\R02:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Yes. Although I don't really see how the proposal would suggest such an objection. If it's not notable then it is not worthy of inclusion, no? Unless you are referring to mentions of the subject in other articles, not it having it's own article. In that case, though, the suitability of such coverage would seem to be determined more directly by policies like verifiability, no original research, and neutrality (especially due/undue weight considerations.). mike4ty4 (talk) 06:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Also, I just thought of one more proposal. One could have "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is considered notable.". Then go on to have another section called "Notability is not a guarantee of suitability for inclusion", similar to the sections "Notability is not temporary" and "Notability requires objective evidence", and then put under that something like "Notability is not the sole arbiter of inclusion. Just because a subject satisfies the notability criteria does not automatically make it worthy of an article. All other Wikipedia content policies still apply, and if there are solid reasons accepted by consensus that it's inclusion goes against such policies (for example, it violates What Wikipedia is not), it is still not suitable for inclusion.". mike4ty4 (talk) 06:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Up until this edit: [1], the sentence reagrding presumptions read: "Presumed means objective evidence meets the criterion, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors"; now it has been modified to say "multiple sources", which was carefully avoided when WP:N was rewritten last year, a part of attaining consensus. I’m not sure if this was an error or a subtle attempt to make WP:N more restrictive. My edit was only to leave this issue out of the presumption sentence, which is now being used as a coatrack for a separate issue. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Well, since "presumed" has no meaning that's even close to "objectivity," if that's what we mean to say, we should use some other word or phrase to say it. Croctotheface (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I am sort of understanding what is going on now since Masem's recent post. Since WP:FICT has not been accepted, the focus of watering down Wikipedia guidleines has now switched to WP:N, and it is now a key inclusionist objective to water it down so that content without reliable secondary sources can be included in Wikipedia. I understand that this will be achieved by altering the guideline to say that topics should only have to meet the GNCor any subject-specific guideline, instead of that they should meet the GNC and any subject-specific guidelines. It is a very subtle change, but marks a huge paradigm shift for Wikipedia. However, I think you have forgotten that WP:N provides an important defence against bad content, and I don't think this change is appropriate; I don't want to allow the inclusion of non-notable topics, fringe scientific theories, hoaxes or in appropriate content about living persons in Wikipedia, no matter what subject-specific guideline say is allowable. This whole push to change Wikipedia guidelines to make it more inclusive to such content is just not acceptable, and I propose this stops now, it is just not ethical. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Gavin, I don't think that you are familiar with the history here. I was among the people that really supported the retention of this guideline last year, but not in support of it being overly restrictive. I do believe that third party source material is the most likely evidence of notability, but in some extreme cases one very solid and highly credible source can be sufficient. My main concern here has to do with minor historical figures, certainly not garage bands. I absolutely oppose all subguidelines except at this time ORG and BIO which seem to be necessary evils. I vehemently oppose bad content, but I also oppose overly complex restrictions which eliminate good information. --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
The problem we are having right now is that while this guideline probably should be used for common sense determination of notability, neither those that are creating the articles, nor those looking to clean up the excess articles, are using common sense often for determination as of late - the spread between inclusionists and deletionists is very wide and getting wider (I believe the RFC on FICT showed how far apart they are). It would be great if we had one single unified notability guideline, but because there is pull from both of these camps, it is necessary to line out specific objective cases (the subguidelines) so that we can cut back on the edit warring over certain topics. They are necessary evils, as well put, as long as there is a split between inclusionists and deletionists; the best we should do is try to minimize high specificity for these and generalize as much as possible. However, there still is the issue if its "GNC and subguidelines" or "GNC or subguidelines" that needs to be resolved. --MASEM17:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
It's funny, I got involved in this discussion about 18 months ago with the objective of getting rid of WP:N. However, though the process and rewriting, I became a fan. It's a gret concept, just poorly understood and unevenly applied by those who don't understand it. In my case, involvement in the processes brought me more toward the middle. Rabid inclusion will turn this project into junk, but blind deletion equally harms the versatility of the project. I really think that we can solve the problems if we focus our good thoughts here and abandon the contentious subpages which are full of highly charged ILIKEIT. What works for politicians and numbers should work for fiction too. I think that a more sophisticated application of the independent third party concept could be the trick. --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
With regard to Jim's literal reading, we always use plurals when dealing with arbitrary numbers. The only case in which we would write "source" is if we knew invariably and unequivocally that we were dealing with exactly one source. If we're dealing with "one or two sources", we use the plural; likewise for the general "one or more". — xDanielxT/C\R18:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
In response to Masem, I have to disagree with the view that guidelines are here purely to fuel the inclusionist vs. deletionist debate, since WP:N does not inhibit or restrict the range or quantity of articles that can be written about fictional topics. Reliable secondary sources enhance article content, and readers place greater value on articles that cite such sources, more so than any other form of content. Fiction is the one subject area where content can easily be sourced from reliable secondary sources in newspapers and magazines as well as academic journals, and does not require a PhD in astrophysics to be understood. Changing WP:N just to accomodate more fictional coverage is itself a contraversial proposal: you probably are well aware of my view that GNC is the only criteria by which articles, or lists of fictional elements such as ficitonal characters, can be judged suitable for inclusion, as reliable secondary sources in the form of analysis, critism or discussion of their development is the only evidence of their notability because fictional elements cannot be observed in the real-world, but reliable secondary sources can. However, if you disagree with this view, then lets deal with it at WP:FICT. Watering down WP:N so that WP:FICT can override or provide exemption from GNC is an intellectual crime in my view because it will permit bad content in, and the disputes this will cause will be endless. If WP:N is going to be changed in a radical way, then I must insist that it is formally proposed at RFC, not in this stealthy manner. Not only must you make a formal proposal, but you must provide examples of the articles you feel should be included as a result of the changes, so that this proposal can be subject to scrutiniy in practical terms, as well as in principal.--Gavin Collins (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Gavin we did all this last year, and yet the result has been nibbled at constantly since. I agree that we only need WP:N and the sub-page whether they justify greater inclusion or exclusion are problematic. There should be no changes made to WP:N in order to include more fiction. If we need changes these should be to best affect the objective of the entire project consistently. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I don't accept your explaination, since the changes are in direct conflict with WP:V which states that "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". Now you are saying that it can, and it just won't work.--Gavin Collins (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I have never said that. WP:N does not allow reliable primary sources to establish notability. WP:V deals with content, and I agree that if there is no content there can't be an article. But WP:N goes to the next step; while not prohibiting content, it will prohibit inclusion of a topic for which notability can not be demonstrated by a reliable secondary or tertiary source (preferebly multipe). I don't think that you are seeing the differences. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
(EC) I don't claim to be an inclusionists, but if you believe that WP:N does not limit what topics regarding fiction can be covered, you need to look at the discussions here, at FICT, and at NOT where the inclusions are claiming that it does. The whole reason we are here (NOTE being questioned because of the failure of FICT, its rewrite necessitated by those thinking it too strict way back last year) is because there are those that feel WP:N is a limiter in what can be covered given what available sources there are out there, particularly in the area of fiction works. I am not saying they are right, nor that you are wrong, but both inclusionists and deletionists cannot be right. We may have to make a decision that will be completely unsatisfactory to one side or the other simply to make the concept of notability simple, or find an approach that is the middle ground which unfortunately does lead to more guidelines, if only to stave off problems. Remember, consensus drives policy and guidelines, not the other way around, and though I do believe that the GNG is a very good clause to stick to, I cannot ignore the fact that's a good number of editors that have provide clear rationales of why it should not be the only notability clause we have. --MASEM19:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I think it's time to call for a proposal from people who want something more inclusive than the notability guideline. I don't really care what the proposal is. But if they don't think this guideline reflects a consensus, then they should offer a proposal that they think reflects a better consensus. You said it well: we can't all be right. So let's find out who. Randomran (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
More inclusive than the notability guildeline? Verifiability is the policy that defines inclusion, and anything that passes WP:V automatically passes the secondary requirements of WP:NOTE. Many things that pass WP:V may not meet the wording of WP:NOTE, but that is not required. Policies always supercede guidelines. Notability, as written, gives us a reason to keep an article because we recognize that it probably belongs here, but does not yet meet WP:5P. Even considering myself as an inclusionist, notability only provides a limited amount of time to meet WP:V before the article should be deleted anyway. I find the wording to be ambiguous only in the use of the word "presumed" which should be replaced with "established" to make the guideline conform to the policy it is meant to interpret. Notability, much like truth, should never override verifiability. WP:V is the standard. Jim Miller (talk) 06:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
It's no secret I'm an inclusionist, as such I'll put forth that there nothing WP:V let's past that WP:NOTE has any right excluding. So my question becomes, if I can provide verifiability doesn't that preclude notability? What RSS would pass WP:V but not pass WP:NOTE?Padillah (talk) 13:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
There's nothing in WP:V that contradicts or overrides WP:N. They complement one another. That said, you're proposing that we get rid of WP:N and just stick with WP:V? Randomran (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Yes. By your own admission there is nothing in the one that can't be accomplished with the other so I am left with the question of "Why"? The discussion I was having that brought me to this talk page - whether Paladine deserves his own article - could easily be quashed with pleas of WP:V#Reliable_sources. The first sentence is "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." that excludes any of the sources we have on the article currently and means we need to merge it back into the list page. With a few exceptions for article length (I wouldn't want to have to keep everything from Lost (TV series) in one article) WP:V has all the restriction we need. As long as it's verifiable there's no need to exclude it from the 'pedia. And, in the end, that's all WP:NOTE is - a means to exclude articles because some editor doesn't think they are "encyclopedic enough" (or, if they are a real intelectual "encyclopaedic"). What is the impetus for excluding verifiable information from WP? WP:V includes third-party sources, it is the very deffinition of verifiable... I don't see why it doesn't stand on it's own (again, article length not withstanding)? I've seen the past rejections of removing WP:NOTE but in my view they amount to a legitimization of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Padillah (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Don't tell me what I admit or don't admit. Nothing in WP:V overrides or limits WP:N. WP:N extends WP:V by combining it with WP:NOT and WP:OR. The reason we need WP:N is because you can write an article about nearly anything if you rely on verifiable primary sources. Literally anything. I could write an article on the tree in front of the Simpson's house. It appears in multiple primary sources, and everything I say could be verified. If you want to get rid of WP:N, you're welcome to propose it. But I think you'll attract a better consensus by compromising. Notability is here to stay. But who knows? I might be wrong. Go ahead and propose it if you want. Randomran (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be confrontational. Your statement "There's nothing in WP:V that contradicts or overrides WP:N" is your way of admitting that there's nothing in WP:V that contradicts or overrides WP:N... At least, that's the way I understood it. The assumption that you are making is that WP:V mentions primary sources, it does not. According to the sentence I quoted above, it requires "reliable, third-party published sources" and demands that those sources have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". So, unless you can find a reliable third party source for the tree in front of the Simpsons house, your SOL. However, I will admit that this will probably never get accepted since WP:NOTE is way too important for editors that are trying to shape WP to their philosophy of what they want it to be, rather than sticking to the 5 pillars and what WP should be. Padillah (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
That's okay, apology accepted. That's exactly what I said: WP:V and WP:N are totally compatible and don't contradict each other. The point I disagree with is when you said "there is nothing in the one that can't be accomplished with the other". Plenty of articles rely on information from themselves: articles about the President that are based on white house press releases, and articles about games that are based on their instruction manuals. But this can't be enough to assert notability, otherwise everything would be notable: notability would be a circular argument. I think it's important to remember that wikipedia's guidelines are a reflection of the philosophy of the editors. It's bigger than me or you. WP:N, if nothing else, clarifies what is expected for an article to qualify for inclusion in wikipedia. If you're realistic enough to see that WP:N will never be abolished, then perhaps you might be able to help us find an acceptable compromise? There are several proposals to revise WP:N below, and I'm sure there are a lot of good ideas that have yet to come out. I think one of the problems is that there are people on both sides who are turning WP:N into a "yes or no" discussion. There's a lot of room in between. Randomran (talk) 20:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Well, first off, if there are articles that are based on primary sources then they need to be removed. WP:V specifically mentions "third-party published sources" so without those the articles are violating WP:V. Second, "compromise"? Sure. But to accept that WP:N is inevitable? I don't agree. I will do what I can to keep it from becoming a legitimization of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as seems to be it's current use. I don't understand why the project as a whole must limit itslef, but that's apparently the way it was established so there's little I can do with that. Padillah (talk) 03:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
And a lot of us are trying to guard against an erosion of WP:N as a legitimization of WP:EVERYTHING. Well-crafted guidelines are the best way to avoid "I don't like it" arguments, because it gives us a baseline that we all have to respect (even if we don't like it). I hope you can help us think of ideas and work out a compromise. Randomran (talk) 03:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Much was discussed last year. What is it that you specifically object to or what types of articles does WP:N preclude which you would prefer to include? --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
NOTE precludes articles on fictional characters that people deem notable in AfDs based on "I know it when I see it." It would be nice if a certain number of trivial references could add up to notability. That would help out characters who make many appearances, but the articles are about the comics or episodes they appear in, not about the character specifically. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
This is an interesting proposal that I'd be willing to hear out. Right now, the guideline says that anything without significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject are not notable. Significant is defined as more than trivial, but less than exclusive. How many less significant or "trivial" references (e.g.: just someone who mentions the character by name, maybe in a plot summary, but without any further detail or analysis) do you think would make something notable? I'm not asking for a precise number, but more asking you to try to articulate your gut feeling about something that you feel is notable, but would be rejected by the current GNG. Randomran (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I tried to sell this concept last year but failed to get it included in WP:N, but I have had reasonable success with the concept at AfD. Writing a guidline that doesn't open the door to a plethora of trash will be tough but not impossible.--Kevin Murray (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Ignoring that it's not a generic guideline, what this suggests is that "Major and minor/reoccurring characters in a notable serial work (tv show, comic, etc.)" should be considered as this type of notability. At least, as I'm reading these responses. Mind you, it would be nice to generalize that if we can avoid a separate guideline but we may not be able to. --MASEM20:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Trivial - Moi?Like Masems proposal for non-notable lists, I don't think criteria for inclusion based on trivial sources will be the least bit popular: there are no editors who would ever admit that their contributions are non-notable or trivial, anymore than they would admit to, say, plagiarism or clubbing baby seals. However, this proposal does provide me with a useful idea: why not have a guideline called WP:TRIVIALSOURCES which would provide guidance on what are condsidered to be trivial sources and how to avoid them? I think this would be a practical application of this idea. As regards what is trivial and what is not, this is a very subjective concept like Wikipedia:Importance, which was dropped in favour of WP:N because it was thought to be too judgemental in approach. As regards the effect of this proposal, I see no benefit. Readers notice when articles are sourced from trivial sources, and prize reliable sources not just for content but for research purposes. If articles were sourced from trivial sources, there would always be the temptation to replace trivia with reliably sourced content or merge the article with a more notable subject. One clever thing about WP:N is that it marks the end of the line in terms of quality; its not a minor stop along the way to a good article.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
(EC)I actually see this as a great answer to the specific discussion we were having in Paladine. I can find several "tiny" references to the character but no "one big source" that you were arguing for. This would allow the article to stay displaying several trivial citations. I don't see an issue in calling a citation trivial, it's done right now (only in a much more belittling manner, as if they don't mean as much ). I see this being a nice equalizer. An example (Please put aside WP:BIO#Athletes for this), I couldn'r care less about sports, doesn't interest me. So, to me, the idea of a sports figure getting an article simply because they are a sports figure is, quite frankly, stupid (at least win an award). That does not mean that the subject is not notable to someone, just that it's not notable to me. Even if they were written up in some obscure, but important, trade magazine I can dismiss this as not notable - "if they aren't in Sports Illustrated then they can't be that notable". Allowing for the use of less than internationally renowned sources would give more stability to these and other articles. Padillah (talk) 13:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
The problem with most of the trivial sources cited in the article Paladine, and indeed with trivial sources generally is that they are questionable at best or fail other guidelines, such as WP:SPS and WP:V. The article now cites one reliable source, but that is Italian, and no translation has been provided as required by WP:V, so technically notability is still unproven. It seems to me that to draft a clause within WP:N to accomodate trivial sources without conflicting with other policies and guidelines would be a complex and verbose undertaking. By contrast, GNC are simple and easy to understand. As regards WP:BIO, I agree with you on this point about having articles about athletes such as Ashley Fernee make no sense, but I don't think anyone could disagree with such infomration being rolled up or merged into a list such as List of Adelaide Australian rules footballers.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I propose that WP:GNG explains that more specific guidelines are allowed to define what kinds of sources assert notability. This reflects the current practice. Allow me to explain. NOTE is based on significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. When we think of sources, we think of journals, books, academic articles, and so on. But we also have WP:MUSIC that says notability can be asserted from sources such as having a certified gold record in one country, or charting a hit on a national music chart. These are really just an extension of "reliable independent secondary sources" for the purposes of notability. I think if WP:GNG were to clarify this point, then a WP:FICT guideline could focus on the kinds of reliable independent secondary sources that could assert notability for characters, episodes, and locations. This isn't really a change to the current guideline so much as a reflection of the existing relationship between WP:GNG and the specific notability guidelines. Randomran (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
(Having lurked for a while viewing all of the conversations...) This is how I've always viewed the subject specific notability guidelines. I don't think they exist to somehow "subvert" WP:N but to clarify them in the context of their subject. Like Randomran said, WP:MUSIC says that notability can be asserted by a having (verified/verifiable) gold record. WP:BK has, for example, a criteria about awards, etc. I don't view these criteria as a contradiction to the GNG, but rather how to interpret the words "independent", "reliable", "sources", etc in the specific subject field. WP:NUMBER, for example, clarifies what sources can (or should) be used to assert notability for a number or class of numbers (like the Smith numbers, which admittedly needs more sources, or the Bell numbers). So, contrary to what has suggested elsewhere, in my mind this isn't a case of "GNG and a subject specific guideline" vs "GNG or a subject specific guideline" as (if they are correctly written), the subject specific guidelines won't be contradicting GNG. Your mileage may vary however. (Now back to lurking...) --Craw-daddy | T | 21:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I'd like to see a provision where notability can be established by whether our article can answer a notable curiosity. This would allow us to use information which meets the requirements of WP:V and WP:OR to answer logical curiosities where interest in the answer is likely to be widespread. Clearly the answer would have to be documented with references to independent verifiable sources -- but this would open the door for notable article where only primary source materials are available. --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Yes, the idea is confusing. It is hard enough to explain yet alone try to write a guideline. I often run across articles on journalists or writers at AfD, where it is argued that nobody has written a comprehensive book or article about them. But we see their names everywhere on article and in blogs, and they are cited in many places including our WP articles. I would at least like to have a WP stub that tells us who they work(ed) for, academic affiliations, and a list of publications. All these things can typically be found through verifiable primary resources. It doesn't give much, but it can be a starting point for our readers to do further research and interpret a variety of sources which we can't use. I can't use a book jacket at Amazon as a reference for WP, but I can link to it and let the reader determine the validity. I can't quote from the subject's website, but I can send the reader there to make their own assessment. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Would another example be NASA missions? Let's be honest, the only real source for infromation about the Mars Rover is NASA. Which kind of makes it a primary source that fails WP:N, but there's no reason to doubt NASA and it does answer very valuable scientific questions so it's worth the technicallity. Padillah (talk) 12:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I'd like to see a separate class of notability allowing what I call "soft redirects" where there is a brief page to describe why you are being redirected and to where. These could also be modeled after a disambiguation page, where the topic is pertinent to more than one redirect. I think that these would have to be protected in an established format to keep them from becoming POV magnets etc. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Here is an example of a protected soft redirect: Napolean Solo
Interesting, it's like an alternate variation on using redirects to non-notable lists of characters, except that each character (or element) is brought to its own page with minimal details about it. Yes, they would definitely need indef protection to keep them clear of OR/POVness. --MASEM22:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
We need to have clear guidance if notability needs to apply to every article (including articles that come out due to WP:SS) or if it is applied to a topic which may be something covered across several articles, some limited types of supporting articles lacking their own form of notability (eg, specific, is a list of major characters w/o their own notability fine as part of coverage of a notable work of fiction?) I know, this is one of those areas that FICT got dinged at by those wanting stronger notability guidelines, but NOTE is presently not clear on this, and it needs to be more explicit. --MASEM21:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I think WP:AVOIDSPLIT squashes that question. That said, I'd be comfortable with a FICT guideline that says a *list* of characters is notable if the fiction itself is notable. But that could only be determined by consensus. Until then, I'm enforcing the GNG as is. Randomran (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Even AVOIDSPLIT is passive in that the final advice does not exactly answer the question "are split-off articles required to be notable"? I don't strongly care which way it is taken, but this has been a key point that was argued back and forth in that there is conflict between how this and NOTE interact, and thus should be resolved if we are talking a new proposed version of NOTE. --MASEM21:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I think it's pretty clear that a topic has to demonstrate its own notability to justify a split. Are you proposing that we change this? It would be a perfectly legitimate proposal. Randomran (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I'm only suggesting changing NOTE to be specific about this point, whether it is or isn't a requirement for split-offs (I don't have a good handle on what that consensus is, my guess is that it's generally "split-offs are required to be notable") --MASEM21:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Articles that concern fictional characters or weapons that appear in multiple works of fiction (films, video games, television shows, and or toys) are notable, because of the millions of fictional characters and weapons only so many have actually appeared across multiple media. So, any notability guideline to actually reflect what the article creator, writers, and readers want would allow for say video game weapons that are titular weapons and that have been made into real life replicas, or characters who also have been made into toys. It is unreasonable to claim these exceptions are not notable. So, again, what I suggest we indicate as notable characters or weapons are those that share the name with a major work of fiction (like say the Soul Calibur sword), those that appear in multiple media (like the BFG from Doom in the game and film), are those that appear as special controllers (like the Resident Evil 4 chainsaw), those that appear as toys or also in comics, etc. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho!22:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I'm uncomfortable with asserting notability purely through primary sources, even if those primary sources are across multiple media. That's because everything within the primary source becomes notable. Not just the plot, characters, and setting, but every person, place, or thing. Every single article of clothing would be worthy of their own article because they would have appeared in multiple primary sources across multiple media. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect more than a prolific creator to prove notability. Don't get me wrong, you're welcome to propose this guideline, but I'll reject it strongly. Just my two cents. But I'll make it count. Randomran (talk) 01:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I'm comfortable with it as that's what the original encyclopedias did. We are a paperless encyclopedia with thousands of editors; we can afford to cover these things and notability should not be the basis of inclusion and I'll reject any proposal that prevents such articles as those I'm referring to. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho!02:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Chances are you'll extract more consensus by showing a willingness to accept proposals other than your own. But you're entitled to try. Who knows? Maybe you have more support than both of us know. Randomran (talk) 02:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
In answer to Masem's proposal that exemption from WP:N should be given to supporting articles lacking their own form of notability, such as characters of unproven notability as part of coverage of a notable work of fiction, there is a combined problem with WP:AVOIDSPLIT and WP:POVFORK that only reliable secodary sources can resolve. For instance, The Terminator character played by Arnie has been split a few too many times into multiple articles: Terminator (franchise), Terminator (character) and Terminator (character concept). Clearly these articles more or less address the same topic matter, but only reliable secondary sources can determine which is suitable for inclusion. If we relaxed WP:N, I think we would see many more articles supported by primary sources, but which essentially cover the same notable topic. In this instance, WP:N acts as a common sense check on when it is appropriate to split an article, and it is difficult to see how the guideline could deal with the issue of redundant duplication, without having to resort to a set of complex and verbose rules. I think we should stick to WP:N, because it is the Best, Least-complex, Unbiased Equivalent (BLUE) of notability.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Could we assert that you can't split an article that's already been split? Terminator (character) is a child of Terminator (movie) so you'd have to provide valid reasioning to split the other articles from the parent Terminator (movie) aricle. This might help with the proponderance of split articles that end up with circular support. Padillah (talk) 12:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I think this is an important issue. Our notability guidelines essentially mandate that we evaluate notability on a per-article basis, which at times is extremely undesirable. It makes more sense to treat certain articles as extended components of their parent articles. Editors seem have become comfortable with the idea of applying different standards to lists, even when they technically (and often blatantly) don't meet our notability standards. (List of bridges is most certainly not notable; neither is List of Harry Potter characters. There are many other examples.) But looking for "list of" in an article's title is a poor test; hence we end up keeping bad lists while deleting good plot summaries and what not. Admittedly, it's hard to define what a good test would look like, but IMO it should center on whether a page has a strong child-parent relationship with another article, and whether the notability of the parent article is great enough. List of bridges is strongly associated with the parent Bridge, which is a subject of very high notability. As it is now, our notability guidelines don't acknowledge these important exceptions. — xDanielxT/C\R22:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I agree that we should take advantage of the linking characteristics of a web-based format to do this and keep the parent article more manageable, but establishing notability for each component stands in the way. I've seen logical splits end up in AfD, which has cused lost info. or recombining. Though one problem I see is that splitting up controversial articles, makes the small articles targets for special interest cabals. --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I'm uncomfortable with giving a free notability pass to any article that can demonstrate a relationship with a parent article. We'd have to reign this proposal in. WP:FICT tried to do this by letting lists of characters piggyback on the notability of the fiction that they are from. But this proposal has been rejected so far. So we're back at the general notability guideline of reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Randomran (talk) 02:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
No, it's not a problem for a comprehensive reference guide to do that. The problem that I have is that I am increasingly seeing some actually dismissing reliable secondary sources even in AfDs, so we need to prevent that as much as possible. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho!02:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I agree that a piggyback-esque system contains a lot of potential for abuse, but we could give careful consideration to both the strength of the association and the notability of the parent article. The standards would need to be looser, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing -- en-wp seems to have become far more bureaucratic than it ever intended, to the point where AfD is mostly just a matter of scrutinizing sources (and little else) and debating policy interpretations. Most other large wikiprojects are far more discretionary, and it seems to work effectively. — xDanielxT/C\R04:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
We can keep the rule simple and still be precise. WP:MUSIC does this by having specific rules for songs and albums, rather than having a blanket piggy-back rule for anything associated with a band/artist. Randomran (talk) 04:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I agree that this movement toward specificity is a Good Thing, and if carried out effectively, would at least mitigate these WP:N problems. What I don't like about previous work in this area, i.e. the recent developments around WP:FICT, is that they've been guided primarily by the existing (and general) notability standards, as opposed to pragmatic notions of what's most favorable -- hence the flaws, in particular the per-article assessment problem, have for the most part just been propagated. — xDanielxT/C\R09:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Not technically my proposal, but Masem and Percy Snoodle and a few others have worked on a proposal called WP:POSTPONE. Basically, it would allow an AFD discussion to be postponed until more evidence had been gathered. Even though this isn't directly related to WP:N, I think it might actually solve a lot of problems with WP:N. I hear a lot of people saying that WP:N isn't bad in of itself, but that it's often abused in AFDs and used on articles that haven't had a fair chance to be worked on. I basically support it, although I think it needs work. Just wanted to put it out there. Randomran (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Outstanding idea! I think that WP:N and the deletion process must be considered together. Logistics and enforcement are a concern, but the concept is great! --Kevin Murray (talk) 06:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Unfortunately, the guideline as it stands now is too weak and watered down. It should really make clear that, firstly, no number of trivial mentions or name-drops confer notability, regardless of what or where. Secondly, it should reiterate the prohibition from verifiability against articles which have no reliable, third party sourcing. And thirdly, while we certainly need to go back to requiring significant coverage in multiple independent sources, we should clarify that this does not mean "two such sources mentioned it"—if we were going to write an article from only two such sources, those two had better be very reliable and in-depth. Finally, it should be made quite clear that it applies to every article, every time, and that "spinoff" articles must assert notability of their own subject. If they can't, and the parent article is becoming bloated with information about it, it's time to trim, not to split. Quality control is important, and as the number of articles we have grows, we must make sure that any article we have has the potential to be excellent. The way we do that is by ensuring that we have sufficient sourcing to write from. It is verifiable that a subject is notable. Have reliable sources, that aren't affiliated with the subject and don't have reason to promote it, actually taken significant note of it? The answer to that question tells us whether the subject is notable or not. SeraphimbladeTalk to me09:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Further discussion
Notability is a matter of deciding what material is desired by the community to be in the encyclopedia--it is not an intrinsic property, and the meaning is only in some particular context--our context is whether it is appropriate for an article in this particular encyclopedia. This has nothing to do with whether 2 sources of a particular type should happen to have highlighted it. That's confusing it with V--whether we have adequate sources suitable to the purpose to write an article about. If a fictional character, for example, is important in an important work, it may well be that people think it is appropriate o have an article based on the work of fiction itself. It doesnt matter in any way whether or not it happens to have been written about in secondary sources, as long as we have some means of writing a verifiable article, and think the article is worth the writing. I accept that there is an ongoing question of what fictional characters are worth writing about in a separate article, and there are very widely different views on that. We should therefore discuss it in its own right, not tied to irrelevant criteria about plot and particular types of sources. DGG (talk) 00:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
To be blunt, I think DGG is wrong, not so much that he people may believe in that sort of real-world interpretation, but because it is the wrong way to go. Material that is desired by the community sounds like Wikipedia:Requested articles, an entirely different animal.
WP:N is about deciding whether sources exist now to write an article now. We want wikipedia to have some degree of reliability, and as we don’t engage expert contributors, our reliability is limited to the reliability of the sources. We don’t decide if the article is worthy based on some intrinsic property of the subject, but on whether anyone else, of sufficient reliability and reputability (ie not myspace, etc) has written about it. A logical consideration of this necessarily means that not just any sources, but secondary sources are required. Someone has to have written about the subject, not just reported or regurgitated data. Going in this direction means that to write an article on any subject, you have to have sources to base your contributions. If you don’t have these sources, then what are you doing? Making it up? Synthesizing original commentary? Perhaps you think and article needs no commentary? Well, to me, that means it is directory information, and probably an original directory too, because if such a directory of data already existed, then it would be best to simply link to it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I would also disagree with DGG's analysis, as identifying what is desired by the community and what is not desired by the community is either impossible ascertain, or is too subjective a criteria to specify in a guideline. At the moment, we have 3 articles on The Terminator character, but we have the means of writing a verifiable article for 6, 9 or 12 articles on the same subject. I don't see how content forking could be controlled, except by writing an a set of inclusion criteria that have exactly the same effect as WP:N.--Gavin Collins (talk) 10:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I, oddly enough, agree with Gavin 100%. Leaving the whole thing up to "the community" would lead to so much fancruft it would ruin any credibility WP ever had. If that were the case we could get stuck with "the tree in front of the Simpson's house" and we'd have to live with that article. Not the way I see WP going. Padillah (talk) 12:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I have to agree. Wikipedia is not a democracy for the exact reasons that we have guidelines and policies that limit what people would otherwise want to do. Just because "enough" people want a POV article about pundits who have compared Barack Obama to a terrorist, it doesn't mean that we have it. Just because "enough" people engage in edit wars to genuinely improve the encyclopedia, it doesn't mean we ignore the 3RR. If the guidelines need an update, they need an update. But the standard required for inclusion isn't "people want it". It's totally circular. Virtually every article that is created is wanted by an interested minority, at the very least. There are rules here, and our foundation comes from the policies set by the founders. WP:N strikes me as a logical outcome of WP:NOT, WP:OR, and WP:V. But if someone wants to suggest an tweak to WP:N that's consistent with policy, I'm willing to hear it. Randomran (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
As a food for thought question: The current discussion is basically saying that a topic without any secondary sources should not have an article (hard-nose sticking to GNG); let us assume this stays. What do we do with such topics?
I am getting a very strong read that people want to not even have these covered unless there's third party sources available for it, but in going this direction, I think we're losing the focus of what WP can be. I am not proposing that we give non-notable topics their own articles, but, it is completely reasonable that a user should be taken to an appropriate page of context when they enter a non-notable search term in the search bar to the left; it may be through a re-direct or through a disambiguation page, but the user can identify with what large, more notable topic the term is associated with. This is regardless if there's no third-party or secondary sources to describe that one specific aspect. V and N limit "article topic" issues, and while V says "should" for third party sources within the context of an article, it is important to note that between it and WP:RS give flexibility when the topic matter is not one usually covered in academic sources.
Obviously we need balance this type of coverage against OR, POV, non-verifable information that can typically result when we loosen the sourcing requirement. We don't cover non-notable aspects of non-notable topics. We don't give non-notable aspects a significant amount of weight. Non-notable topics need to be defined in terms of their relevance to the main notable topic. What non-notable topics that are covered should be objective and not subjective.
Remember, we have a good number of editors that are pushing back against pure GNG requirements for notability and want to have things that are non-notable per GNG covered to various degrees. WP's policies and guidelines are built on community consensus, and I'm worried that the direction the discussion is going in is going to disenfranchise their view. If it was only one or two people fighting this point, I'd say they'd be fringe editors, and a blip in overall consensus, but this group is large enough to not be ignorable. --MASEM13:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
But we can't ignore the people who think the WP:GNG is already a low standard. There's a good chance that the people who feel this way are beyond a majority. I'm still concerned about every minority opinion. But people who push for an abolition of WP:N may very well marginalize themselves if they lack the support they hope they have. I've tried to offer several compromises, as someone who basically likes the GNG. But I'd really appreciate more proposed compromises from critics of the GNG. Randomran (talk) 15:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I am in fact going to propose an alternative policy where notability is defined as importance in the RW, or the part of the RW where the material is pertinent, and where sourcing is considered a completely separate issue. I dont want to denigrate the need for sourcing. But we all do agree we do not want to write about everything we can possibly source. The secondary source requirement for notability is a different issue--I accept primary sources for many things, I accept informal web sources for some things. And I'm a realist about it. the rules in Wikipedia are made by the community for its own purposes, where the community means the groups of active editors--the 10,000 or or so people who work regularly at enWP, and those additional ones who will choose to join us. We can have whatever rules we want to have. At least, if we're going to keep Wikipedia as it is we can have whatever rules are compatible with the basic purposes.
I dont think people realise I am not really all that much of an inclusionist, even about fiction. I want to keep this a general encyclopedia, not a conglomeration of purely parochial interests. There is some level of detail which is not appropriate here, because in practice we do seem to be used by the wider world as a standard of the importance of things. We have the obligation to maintain this just as we do to maintain a standard of accuracy and responsibility. and, in fact, I'm not primarily interested in popular fictional media. I personally would be very happy if nobody either here or in the RW cared for television serials, and a lot of similar things. I'm just in the situation of defending them because I think they are being unreasonably attacked. what I want to expand our coverage in is the traditional academic subjects in the humanities. since many people think it not important, the practical way is to let people have a good deal of flexibility and not dictate to them, and for all of us to put up with each others hobby-horses. When I came here, I was horrified by the inappropriately childish and uncritical coverage of most fictional material--but then I saw people trying to reduce it below the level of intelligibility. The first step is to accept the material, the second is to improve it. My key example, and what really got me started, was the attempt to reduce the coverage of what is wrongly called trivia, but is really cultural influences. To many academics, this sort of material is the main point of studying fiction in the first place--to see the development and the influences. Traditionally, thats what most scholars actually write about. I also know what the first part of any serious academic study of fiction consists of: an analysis of the plot. Plot and characters and setting. and the very same people who disliked the cultural influences part, which is as real-world as you can get--authors influencing one another--also disliked the coverage of plot. And then I see that some oft he people who dont like the coverage are actually themselves interested in these fictional worlds--I interpret this as a reluctance to realise that what t hey themselves spend time on may actually be important.
The other reason why I disagree with relying primarily on fixed types of sourcing as a factor for inclusion is the inconsistency it provides: a mature well developed work of reference offers consistent coverage. this is very hard in Wikipedia , because we have no way of getting people to write on particular topics. But the first step is to provide that everything at a certain level of importance is treated similarly. To take a different unsettled question, we can include professional minor league baseball players or not, but we should have a consistent standard of level where we do so or not, rather than have it vary according to what sources seem to be available to the people who work here. (Thats the other problem in sourcing as a criterion for notability--most of those working here are unable or extremely reluctant to use proper professional sources and research methods.)
so I see it as two levels--the things we want to include if we can, and the things we can in practice write about. notability, and verifiability. One depends on importance, the other on reliable sourcing. DGG (talk) 16:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I'm not asking for something totally set in stone where a robot decides what's notable or not. But as a precisionist, I'm really uncomfortable with defining notability with something as vague as "real-world importance". You're also assuming that wikipedia is a democracy, which it isn't. Policies like WP:SOURCE and WP:PRIMARY have been formed by the founders of Wikipedia. The reason WP:N is useful is because it has a very low threshold for articles to cross, and leaves the articles that do qualify to the discretion of editors. (e.g.: apply WP:NOT, apply WP:NPOV, merge it into a broader topic, etc...) It's precise, but still flexible. Randomran (talk) 17:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
In answer to Masem, "coverage" is not limited by WP:N, but seperate articles are. You can still cover most non-notable subjects within a notable over arching article, so you don't have have articles that fail WP:N, at least in theory, as WP:N does not specifically regulate the content of articles. This aside, I think what Masem is proposing is that WP:N should be replaced by a new guideline such as WP:COVERAGE, which if use our imaginations for a moment, would be accepted by both inclusionists and deletionists in equal measure. However, drafting such a guideline based on Masem's idea that "relevance" is the key to this revolutionary guideline has already been tried before at WP:RELEVANCE, and similar attempts have been tried as well, such as Wikipedia:Article inclusion. The problem is that, at best, such a guideline would be the same as WP:N but dressed up in new clothes, or at worst it would be WP:N with complex exemptions for everybody's favourite line of articles, such as trading cards. What we realy need is a proposal for article inclusion that would be the Best, Least-complex, Unbiased Equivalent of WP:N, but this is were my imagaination fails me, and I suspect this is like the Holy Grail, its going to involve a long fruitless search. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I don't think there's any support for a revolution. I think there might be support for evolution, though. We should focus on improving WP:N, rather than trying to toss it out or rewrite it. Randomran (talk) 17:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I am not trying to argue for a COVERAGE proposal; again, I'm keeping the presumption that the GNG sticks for article topics (not necessarily something I agree or disagree with, just a point). However, what I think that if we are rethinking NOTE, I am suggesting we need to consider non-notable topics that can clearly be covered in the scope of a larger, notable topics - making sure that we keep in mind that deep coverage of these is not appropriate.
Specifically I'm calling back to the part that I know Gavin had problems with in FICT: the section for allowance for lists of non-notable fiction characters and episodes as supporting material for a notable work of fiction. As I read the general attitude here, I don't see anyone against the inclusion of discussing characters and the like within the body of the article when they can only be sourced from primary sources; such inclusion usually easily brings concern if there are problems with the include: undue weight, in-universe coverage, OR/POV discussion, etc. (If editors are against this specific case, please speak up) However, at some point, we have to recognize SIZE issues come into play, even if all primary-sourced materials are kept in strong check. At some point you have to split off part of the article, and per general splitting process, you want to split off the information that has the least value to the general reader; this for most works of fictional are the specifics on the characters. Yes, this split may create some problems in that you now can't easily keep some aspects in check compared to the main work, and basically you now have a non-notable article floating around. However, if we agree that coverage of non-notable primary items within the body of the article, but that splitting off of the same information into a separate article per MOS/SIZE is not, then there is a serious disconnect that we need to resolve because either our MOS/SIZE approach is wrong (which I don't feel is the case) or the absolute adherence to the GNG when it comes to not enforcing "coverage" is not consistent.
This is the general type of concern that needs to be made here. I'm not saying that it's wrong to try to make the GNG more absolute if that's the way it goes. However, we need to make sure our approaches are consistent throughout to remove concerns of subjective treatments of various subjects. --MASEM21:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
In practice, I'm just not buying the size problem. If a topic has so much coverage in secondary sources that you can write a 100K+ article, then surely you have enough sources to split that article into multiple articles that all pass the GNG. And if an article is 100K+ based on first-party sources, primary sources, unreliable sources, or all of the above, then you shouldn't be splitting. You should be cutting and summarizing the information in there as per WP:NOT, WP:OR, and WP:V. Randomran (talk) 21:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I have no beef with lists, navigation aids, and templates. The problem is when they summarize and organize non-notable topics. List of famines is notable because famines are notable. Topical outline of chemistry is notable because chemistry is notable. Someone can make a list of characters from a book, game, or movie. But then the characters from that book game or movie would have to be notable. Randomran (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
In practice, I think it is very simple. Either it is a list of mostly blue links (with explanatory prose is good) or it is a stand-alone list which is (or should be) usually subject to a notability guideline. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Indeed. My impression is that the hostility to fiction is just intellectual snobbery - a pretentious form of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If we have an article about an obscure insect that might only live in a single tree in the Amazon jungle then this would be considered notable (it's an endangered species!). The same applies to obscure bits of pure mathematics, minute asteroids, hamlets, etc. But, if the topic is something popular and well-known like Pokemon or Scrubs, then it is furiously attacked. This is blatant systemic bias. It should be resisted firmly because it specifically attacks material that is popular and so hurts our readership. Wikipedia is here more for its readers then its writers. And wannabe legislators and arbiters of taste are not wanted at all. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I'm sure the "destroy all fiction" boogieman exists somewhere out there. But speaking only for myself, I have no problem with articles about fiction or elements of fiction. But whatever we write an article on, it should meet our guidelines. Randomran (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
In answer to Masem, you know that there are two problems with non-notable lists: no editor will want admit their list is non-notable anymore than, say, they would want to admit to clubbing seals, and secondly, a list of non-notable stuff will probably fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE in any case. From the perspective of writing the Best, Least-complex, Unbiased guideline, I object to providing exemptions from GNC/GNG on two grounds: such an exemption is basically a method of evading criteria which have consensus support, but also because everyone will want their own exemption for their favorite topic. The implications of this are that people will ignore any exemptions provided to non-notable lists, becuase WP:N has not been replaced by a better guideline, and see through the attempt to evade WP:N in this way. And if an exemption were ever granted for a non-notable list, the guidelines would be under a continous state of revision, as everyone woule then try to get an exemption for their favorite topic (which in a way is what is happening now). These issues aside, the only reason I can imagine why you want to change WP:N and WP:NOT is because, and correct me if I am wrong, you want to be able to write articles (dressed up as lists) about television episodes that just contain a plot summary, without the effort of citing secondary sources which follows on from your failed proposal at WP:EPISODE. Am I right in my understanding, or am I wrong on this issue? At least make it clear why you have an interest in non-notable lists, when I don't think anyone else wants them.--Gavin Collins (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I could care less about actually writing such articles; I want to see the right balance so that we still cover all notable topics and non-notable topics that are part of that notable topic, just not as far as giving non-notable topics their own article. The issue I am more worried about is that while strong guidelines should be present to prevent large amounts of fandom creep or math kuzdu or what the field's equivalent is, the extreme position of what people have expressed they want to see for notability both completely neglects ~25% (based on the FICT RFC) of the editors and also puts restrictions on content which it is not supposed to do. We need to prevent creep, that's a given, but at the same time, we should be able to cover every single non-notable aspect of a notable topic (pending any issues in WP:NOT) as part of that topic, obviously with not a lot of weight, but enough to establish context. If the only place that this can be mentioned is in the main article on that topic and no other aspects can be split off as they are the key parts to understanding the topic (per SIZE, SS, and other guidelines), then the argument is turning to trim (which yes, should be done, but there's practical limits necessary to establish context) or remove, because moving these details is being stated as not an option, and thus is implicitly restricting content that is otherwise allowed by all other policies. --MASEM11:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
You say that like that's a big change. There IS an implicit restriction on the content of a topic beyond our policies. WP:UNDUE and WP:NNC suggest that covering every single non-notable aspect of a notable topic would not be appropriate. Randomran (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
It is a big change if we are allowing the only definition of notability to be "significant coverage in secondary sources"; UNDUE and NNC are neutral on the exact definition of notability , but once defined, it describes what should be done with non-notable aspects. However I still feel that there is room for balancing both a strict adherence to notable topics via sources, while also allowing certain allowances within the context of other policy/guidelines and WP's general mission that we can further include concise, balanced details of non-notable aspects of a notable topic to provide well-rounded coverage that all readers of that topic (those learning for it for the first time, and those that already know it and want to know more) can appreciate. I stress heavily that this is a balance that has to be achieved - it is not free passes for separate articles for every non-notable topic, nor to use a separate list as a new empty glass to fill with excess details. We still want a high quality encyclopedia that minimizes OR and POV, and is verifiable through established sources, and notability should help towards that. The question is, exactly what is the balance between the rigorousness of notability to meet those aspects, and the extent that WP is not paper or simply a traditional encyclopedia thus allowing for farther expansion in what topics it can cover? --MASEM16:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I don't think we'll ever have a problem with less notable aspects of a topic being covered in a main article. I understand that you're worried about WP:SIZE. But I don't think it's possible to violate WP:SIZE without having either (1) enough good sources to support a split or (2) too much inappropriate information that violates WP:UNDUE, WP:NOT, WP:OR, WP:NNC and so on... Randomran (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Well they got reverted again, by Kevin Murray. He said he was willing to discuss it on the talk page.
May I hear his objection, if he's here? mike4ty4 (talk) 00:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
"Presumed" means a rebuttable presumption that can be falsified by presenting logical reasons that the article may still be unsuitable for inclusion under other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If a consensus is reached that these reasons are valid, the presumption is falsified and the article is unworthy of inclusion even if the notability criterion is satisfied
I support Mike's change on a substantive level (we discussed this above), but I agree that some of the rhetoric may be confusing (though the old version was a bit unclear as well). Here's how I would word it:
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is considered notable, and presumed to be worthy of inclusion.
"Presumed" means that notability establishes a rebuttable presumption that an article is worthy of inclusion. It is possible that a notable subject may still be unsuitable for inclusion under other policies or guidelines. If a consensus is reached that this is the case, the presumption is overruled and the article should not be included.
Not withstanding other issues, the last sentence is not necessary since the outcome is described elsewhere and each paragraph does not have have to stand alone.
I support a clarification of this paragraph, but only with some demonstration of consensus at the talk page. It is not worth destabilizing a delicate consensus to make a minor clarification. Sometimes stability is prefered to precision. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I don't support saying that. It simply is not what presumed means. We may as well say "a topic is oglornaxed to be notable," since if we're just going to make up a brand new definition, we may as well make up a brand new word, too. If we actually mean that something that meets the guideline IS notable, but it may not be worthy of inclusion, we should say something like that. We shouldn't use a word differently from the way it's defined anywhere else. Either something is notable if it meets the guideline or it's presumed to be notable. They're not the same thing. Croctotheface (talk) 03:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Are you sure you're not getting the proposed clauses mixed up? (They are admittedly rather disorganized.) I agree that nonliteral language is a Bad Thing, but I don't think that's a problem with these proposals. For instance, the wording I prefer is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is considered notable, and presumed to be worthy of inclusion. [bullet] "Presumed" means that notability establishes a rebuttable presumption that an article is worthy of inclusion. It is possible that a notable subject may still be unsuitable for inclusion under other policies or guidelines." So according to this, adequate coverage (as defined elsewhere) establishes notability (no presumption involved), and notability establishes a presumption that an article is worthy of inclusion. Seems logically sound, no? — xDanielxT/C\R05:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
OK, I didn't see that "presumed" was moving someplace else in the main definition. I'd be fine with that change as far as the language and use of words. My only remaining concern is that I'm not sure that there exists a consensus behind saying "is notable...presumed worthy," but I don't object to it personally. So long as there's a consensus behind that change, I'd be fine with it as well. Croctotheface (talk) 06:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I don't see why we need any change at all. Can you explain which articles this will impact or why? I am against cosmetic changes for changes sake. --Gavin Collins (talk) 06:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I feel that there is a bit of a contradiction between WP:NTEMP and WP:NOT#NEWS, and it may be better to rectify it somehow. This is especially true since WP:NOT is a policy which trumps WP:N which is a guideline. WP:NTEMP implies that once a topic receives sufficient coverage, that topic becomes and remains notable even if that coverage quickly ceases altogether. This goes somewhat against WP:NOT#NEWS which says:"Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own." The key phrase here is historical notability. To me this means that there has to be some evidence of a historical impact and significance of an event, as demonstrated by coverage that extends beyond the time the event was taking place. Of course, such coverage need not be as numerous and intense as the coverage during the even itself. An example of this would be something like a crime (a bank robbery, a highway chase, a murder) that gets significant coverage for a few days and then no coverage at all. Or a presidential press-conference. Or a 300 points DOW drop on a particular day.
There is a related but somewhat distinct issue which I think ought to be addressed as well. It'd be good if WP:N mentioned that notability is not the only factor in deciding if a topic deserves a separate WP article. There may be some topics that formally pass WP:N but should be covered on WP in the context of a somewhat larger topic rather than on their own. A good example here would be something like a sports game, e.g. the recent victory of Russia over Netherlands in the quaterfinals of the Euro 2008 soccer cup. The game received plenty of coverage in national and international media but it is fairly clear that it does not deserve a separate WP article, but rather should be covered in the Euro 2008 soccer cup article. Another example is a significant political announcement (e.g. somebody announcing their presidential run). Nsk92 (talk) 04:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I see no contradiction at all, but there is plenty of scope to explain it better. WP:NTEMP says once demonstrated notable, always notable, and stems from the notion that notability is only established by proper sources that show that others have already written about it. WP:NOT#NEWS says that we are not about recording mere news.
A subtle but critical distinction here is the difference between news coverage/stories and news reports. Here lies the fine line between primary and secondary sources in journalism. Mere reptition/republication of information, without commentary or tansformation does not change the information from primary to secondary. Reports are just reproduction of facts, times, events, quotes, etc. Stories are different in that they include editorial commentary or opinion. “Coverage” implies some non-trivial breadth of coverage, implying that the information is not mere repetition or reporting from a single source. WP:NOT#NEWS is referring to news that is primary source material, “reports”, routine journalism, and is not referring to news that can be called secondary source material.
So, they way I see it, WP:NTEMP and WP:NOT#NEWS are not in conflict. They have different purposes, but both presuppose that “news reports” or “new events” are not suitable bases for articles, and that “news coverage” or “news stories” may be suitable.
I agree with you on the related but somewhat distinct issue. Editorial consensus is required to judge whether a subject should be stand alone, or part of a broader subject, and WP:N doesn’t necessarily offer guidance on such a question. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hmm-m, I have seen people invoke WP:NOT#NEWS in AfD debates quite a few times and they usually do it in different circumstances from what you describe. Namely, it is invoked even where there is substantial in-depth but very short-term coverage of a particular topic, and not merely superficial reporting. The phrase "historical notability" in WP:NOT#NEWS also suggests this approach. For example, U.S. Presidents give many speeches and these speeches usually are covered and analyzed in substantial detail by the media. But very few such speeches (even very few State of the Union speeches) receive substantial coverage beyond a few days after they happened and very few such speeches get their own WP articles. Rare examples of this, like Nixon's Checkers speech or Reagan's Tear down this wall speech, do get their own WP articles but only after it becomes clear that their significance and effect extend beyond a few days or weeks after the event. Another example of this sort of thing is various crimes that often get detailed but very short-term coverage in the media and then quickly fade into oblivion. There was an interesting recent AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Packwood where this kind of a problem came up. The AfD resulted in a "no consensus" closure and it was clear that there was indeed no consensus on how to reconcile WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E with WP:BIO in that case. Nsk92 (talk) 13:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
