Quick results (closer analysis in progress) edit

Proposal	Supported	Opposed	Neutral	Margin	Support %	Proposal was
A.1	61	130	18	-69	29%	Every spin-out is notable
A.1.2	75	69	6	+6	50%	Spin-out articles are treated as sections of a larger work
A.2	82	59	2	+23	57%	Every spin-out must prove notability
A.3	51	49	8	+2	47%	Subject specific Notability Guidelines (SNGs) can define that some spin-outs are notable
A.4	51	35	6	+16	55%	Lists may be exempted from the General notability guideline (GNG)
B.1	26	65	6	-39	27%	Articles must meet the GNG and SNGs
B.2	66	17	3	+49	76%	SNGs can outline sources that assert notability
B.3	23	31	19	-8	31%	SNGs can define when sources probably exist
B.4	14	63	6	-49	17%	SNGs are not needed
B.5	14	54	5	-40	19%	SNGs override GNG
B.6	40	22	9	+18	56%	SNG criteria support reasonable presumptions of notability
B.7	5	1	2	+4	62%	SNGs (only) provide subject area interpretation of the GNG

RfC: Notability compromise edit

This page in a nutshell: There are two main issues with WP:Notability that need clarification by the community.

Does every article need reliable third-party sources to prove it is notable, or can notability be inherited from another article?
To what extent can the General Notability Guideline be overridden by specific notability guidelines such as WP:Notability (music) and WP:Notability (people)?

WP:Notability is a guideline that determines which articles should be included in Wikipedia. This guideline has withstood several disputes, although it is unclear exactly how this guideline should be interpreted. The General Notability Guideline states that a topic is notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject (or, more succinctly, coverage in reliable third-party sources). Even though editors generally accept this as true, there are two issues without a clear consensus:

What is the notability of a "spin-out" article? Does it need reliable third-party sources, or can it inherit notability from a parent article?
What is the relationship between WP:Notability and specific guidelines such as WP:Notability (music) and WP:Notability (people)? To what extent can subject-specific guidelines re-write or override the General Notability Guideline?

For the sake of this discussion, it is important to ignore Wikipedians who abuse this guideline to delete articles that are actually notable, or keep information that is clearly not notable. Yes, abuse is a legitimate problem. But we cannot target abuse of the guideline until we have defined its proper use.

How to discuss edit

Focus on the spirit of each proposal, rather than the exact letter. Wording can be tweaked as needed.
- In supporting the spirit of a proposal, you are encouraged to offer wording or technical changes that will refine a proposal to achieve its spirit.
Be flexible and open to compromise. Literally every editor has their own interpretation of notability, but consensus is impossible if every person insists on their own viewpoint.
Stay on topic. Focus on the main two issues with notability. Further discussion about indirectly related issues should be placed elsewhere, perhaps on the talk page.
Wikipedians are encouraged to support more than one proposal, even if you support one more strongly than another.
Be conscious of WP:civility and Wikipedia:Etiquette. This is not a vote, so don't make multiple votes on the same proposal, let alone with multiple accounts. Work towards consensus.

Events leading to this RFC (why this RFC is important and necessary) edit

In recent months, discussions on notability have become more frequent and contentious. There have been literally dozens of theories of how the notability guideline should be interpreted. However, virtually every attempt at a compromise has faced resistance. As such, most discussions about the finer details of notability end in "no consensus".

The lack of consensus has prompted this RFC. Wikipedians from all points of view have tried to find a middle ground. From the dozens of interpretations of our guidelines, only a few have gained enough support that it would be possible for them to be supported by the larger Wikipedia community. We hope that one of these proposals will be adopted to clarify central issues with the notability guidelines, and allow other discussions to move forward.

Terminology edit

"Appropriate sources": shorthand for "significant coverage in reliable third-party sources". These are sources that help an article meet the GNG.
"GNG": the General Notability Guideline. This says that "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." It also defines words such as "significant", "reliable source", "independent", and "presumed".
"SNG": the subject-specific notability guidelines such as WP:MUSIC and WP:ATHLETE.
"Spin-out" or "Sub-article": an article that is created by splitting a long section out from another article. For the purposes of this discussion, it does not refer to the technology of the use of subpages.
"RFC": Request for Comment, a discussion that Wikipedians use to resolve disputes among smaller groups of editors.

Issue A: Notability of "spin-out" articles edit

Issue: Wikipedians dispute whether every article must prove its own notability, or if notability of one topic can allow several articles to claim notability. On one hand, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia: there is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover. On the other hand, it is unclear how a verifiable article is to be written without coverage in reliable third-party sources.

Proposal A.1: Every spin-out is notable edit

Proposal: A spin-out article is treated as a section of its parent article. If a parent article is supported by reliable third-party sources, then its sub-articles do not need reliable third-party sources to qualify for inclusion. A sub-article is notable when it extends one section of a notable parent article.

Rationale: It is not desirable to delete sub articles with a lack of appropriate sources. It makes more sense to treat those articles as extended components of their parent articles. Splitting content from an article into sub-articles is a practice recommended by the recommended length of articles and summary style approach. By treating sub-articles as though they were sections in the larger article, this would allow editors to write detailed articles on specialized topics.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Support A.1 edit

Support because I oppose notability requirements in general. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tentatively support. I don't think its wise to enshrine "sub-articles do not need reliable third-party sources" without the explicit clarification (which I assume is implicitly there): "sub-articles do still require a source/sources." Logic would suggust that any split section will include a reliable source (third party or otherwise), to support the information included in it; for a list of episodes, the programme itself would be a good enough source for the separate article. On its own, it wouldn't meet notability levels, but episode lists' notability are rightly that of the programme, and thus the domain of the programme's article - which should then rightly be transferred. In other cases also, this proposal should indeed - with the above caveat that sources are still obviously required in some form - be form the baseline from which (as User:Nsk92 notes, below) articles can then still be considered on a case-by-case basis. Doesn't the proposal merely say that sub-articles (essentially split from the parent) be considered part of the parent. Which is what they were before they were split (likely for reasons of length alone). It doesn't say that any-old source-less article can be created, merely that spun-off sections don't require new notability inquisitions. So (if I understand it rightly) the proposal simply allows for the preservation of useful information despite concerns of length.
It is reasonable to assume (since common sense and 'good faith' must be the fundamental tenets of Wikipedia work) that : a) An article contains sources and that b) Sourced sections within that article are of worth. Logicially it follows then, that the only consideration is that of length, and that the information is important and sourced. So, if it is notable-as-part-of-the-parent-article, then it is notable on its own, with notability absolutely transferrable to a split/sub-article, as proposed.
The rationale currently says "It is not desirable to delete sub articles with a lack of appropriate sources." That implies (and should explicitly say) that there are still sources, merely not enough to independantly meet some interpretations of notability criteria. In that case - sources nonetheless being present in some form - it's reasonable not to consider a sub-article independant, and thus to transfer the use of the extra-sources-that-prove-notability from the parent article.
Plus, while User:Simetrical's blanket statement is perhaps going too far, the often-petty-minded deletions and information-losing-mergers are absolutely against the spirit of a LIMITLESS Encyclopedia of all knowledge, which Wikipedia should be. Frankly, I would rather support the removal of length requirements, but this is probably the next best thing. ntnon (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support' with the same caveat as Ntnon gives--there must be some adequate reliable source appropriate to the subject. Otherwise its a free-for-all. I don't think anyway is really proposing to eliminate WP:RS. The point of this is that the division into "articles" is inherently arbitrary. There is no intrinsic difference between a part of an article and a subarticle except the header and screen display. I look forward to a new Wikpedia 2.0 where the material is a a truly modular atomic database, and material can be present without regard to "articles" But we're still trying to look like a paper encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support (if rewritten, plus further caveat) Rewrite to address concerns of DGG, et al. It cannot reasonably go forward in a way that can be misinterpreted as "WP:RS does not apply", only "WP:N does not apply to this sub-article separately, only to the summary-style article and its legitimate progeny as a whole". The further caveat: It also must not undermine the concept that many subarticles are perfectly valid targets of AFDs that merge them back into their parent articles. This is very important, as many topics are subject to incredibly excessive fanwankery (cf. the now-ancient Pokemon issue, with articles for every minor character). Nothing about this draft clarification should interfere with the ability of AFD (or editors in general acting boldly and with common sense) to merge wanky articles back into main articles (including with a loss of "information" if necessary - many such selectees for merge operations are full of blathery trivia that serves no encyclopedic purpose). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go one further. For the vast majority of sub-articles, merging upward in case of cruft should be able to be done without need for AfD, and the subsequently orphaned sub-articles can readily be speedied if they remain blanked and orphaned for a reasonable amount of time without rancor. If anything, a proposal along these lines should make the removal of cruft and fanwank faster and more efficient. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, although like other respondents more thought needs to be given to how this would work in practise. Certainly if we agreed on a word limit for plot summary we may have a better step on the road. Hiding T 15:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per common sense. We are a papeless encyclopedia after all and the "sum of human knowledge." --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support the idea of weakening notability and reliable sources guidelines for spin-off pages. Content of spin-off pages is generally more effortful and takes much longer to furnish with sources, a problem much more ominous for the spin-off than the original article, leaving the spin-off vulnerable to being picked off by an AfD despite the fact that nobody minded it when it was still a part of the original article. --Muna (talk) 02:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support everything must be taken in context, and treating sub-articles as non-notable is taking them out of context. Whether to split or merge content is an editing decision that should be based on how to best present the material in a readable and organized fashion--notability should not be the primary consideration. Note that this is (and must remain) a distinct concept from notability is not inherited, which is a different concept. Dhaluza (talk) 12:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per Muna. 208.245.87.2 (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support with the very important qualification that the material could be justified as a separate section. There are downsides to making articles as long as you would find in the Britannica Macropedia, and notability guidelines should not be getting in the way of good organization. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support because non-support will disincentivize splitting articles into reasonably sized components, incentivizing too-long articles. --R27182818 (talk) 02:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Naturally, as others have said, it needs to be a good idea to have a separate article. However, if the subject of the spinoff article is best covered by a separate article, then it should "inherit" notability from the parent article. Croctotheface (talk) 03:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I can see potential for lots of subarticles, but rather this than no subarticles whatsoever. Article length should be the guiding factor. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It makes sense to me that an article that compliments and expands upon a notable topic should be left. Deleting such articles is deleting content that can improve this encyclopedia. Why delete articles that compliment others simply because a guideline says we should? Scotty dude _review 04:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Partial Support spinoffs need to be treated differently than the parent article as to notability requirements, but the article still needs to be fully supported and referenced or it becomes nothing more that orignal research which is not allowed. Referencing and notability are different but closely related issues. Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support As others have said, the spinouts should still conform to WP:RS. I just don't think it's necessary for them to satisfy WP:N. In other words, the content in a spinout just needs to be verifiable; the spinout topic doesn't have to be the "primary subject of multiple, non-trivial, third-party sources". (Of course, some common sense should be applied. If the content of a spinout can be merged into another article without losing any information, we might as well just merge it, unless it is evident that a spinout can be expanded.) Zagalejo^^^ 04:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. If it's a spin-off article of a parent article, then the parent article, by definition, should serve to contain all the "proof" needed to establish notability. Spin-off articles are considered necessary because of the general bias (not necessarily an unfounded one) that Wikipedia articles should only be a certain length; but in many cases additional information can and should be presented in a break-away/spin-off article. But there doesn't need to be a repetition of sources given to establish general notability. To verify information, yes. 23skidoo (talk) 05:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support. Since spin-offs are mainly used to organize larger articles and avoid having huge walls of text in the main article, forcing strict notability guidelines on spin-offs might result in people just keeping all that information in the main article instead, and we'd end up with some pretty ugly articles. So spin-offs ultimately help keep Wikipedia clean and readable. Of course, if someone writing a spin-off can add good sources for notability, that is desirable...it just shouldn't be required. How about this addendum to the proposal: spin-offs can inherit notability from their parent articles, but are automatically barred from WP:GA and WP:FA unless they have their own sources for notability as well? That way we can still have spin-offs available to keep parent articles from becoming unwieldy, but editors would be encouraged to write quality spin-offs anyway.--Politizer (talk) 05:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support In my mind, the only test for inclusion to Wikipedia should be "Can a Reliable Source be found to back up the article." I am therefore in favor of lowering notability requirements in any way possible. --Falcorian ^(talk) 05:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support because I strongly oppose notability requirements at all. Crowley666 (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support for various reasons already listed that I'm not going to waste your time by repeating.Abyssal (talk) 11:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support For reasons outlined above particularly the improvement of organization of existing articles. Other Wikipedia guidelines impose more sensible constraints than this one. Why have a proliferation of non-Wikipedia Wikis available on-line when their material can be located in an organized fashion right here?--Calabraxthis^(talk) 11:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Spin out articles should only exist when the main topic has so much content that it spills into a second article because of length. So the main article should be notable enough to have plenty of reliable sources, which means that there should be enough sources to adequately source the spinout. I can't imagine a scenario where there theoretically isn't enough reliable sources for the spinout. Royal broil 12:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It can happen when overzealous fans write extremely detailed and OR-filled pages on every minor character, etc., in a work of fiction (similar to the Pokemon debacle that SMcCandlish mentioned above, in this thread). I mentioned an example of that in my comment here lower on this page. --Politizer (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the OR and overly-detailed text would need to be removed and the article re-evaluated. The definition of OR would need to be decided by the community on a case-by-case basis. Royal broil 13:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Detailed articles on specialized topics are desirable.--EchetusXe (talk) 12:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reliable sources should be considered sufficient to demonstrate a need for an article's existence.--Marhawkman (talk) 13:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support with caveat The spin-off article can only be traceable to its reliable sources if the article points back to the main article that cites those sources, so the policy needs to be rewritten to include that condition. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support with caveat (similar to WikiDan61 above): In-text citations are still very useful and important, and most articles of non-stub length need these anyway to provide notability. However, if citations in the parent article are enough to provide that notability, I would like to see footnote/cite additions to the child article that at least point back to the parent, e.g. <ref>See [[Parent article name]]</ref> for statements of fact that were backed up by the parent article's citations. Todd Vierling (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as there is no functional difference between a subsection of an article and a subarticle. The constraints and practices that define paper encyclopedias are being followed here only out of habit. It is tiresome for both sides of this argument to trot out WP:PAPER one more time, but it really is the guiding light here. No one, that I can tell, among those who oppose such a proposition is arguing that the information in the kind of sub articles we're talking about should be removed from Wikipedia, just that there is an arbitrary limit on how it should be displayed. So the opposing argument, that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, does not apply, since most everyone agrees the information being talked about here is largely valid. Most of the the opposers seem to me to be saying that there is some information we should have, that is valuable to the encyclopedia, but that is undeserving of, for some reason, its own URL. Our primary responsibilities to our readers, after factual accuracy, are usefulness and ease of use. We should strive to keep our articles lean and tight, while allowing space to expand upon topics as needed. And I don't understand why using sub articles to do that is being frowned upon. Ford MF (talk) 15:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support This is a good guideline for article extensions that deal with generally uncontroversial subjects, e.g. albums of notable artists, fictional characters from novels and television shows, etc. There is a need to provide information about these subjects; it is of obvious encyclopedic worth to, for instance, provide a detailed track listing of the albums released by any notable musician. If the length of the parent article necessitates it, or if aesthetics favor it, moving these to a sub-article should be allowed without needing to provide a raft of independent critical commentary to support them. Chubbles (talk) 15:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support within reason. Per WP:NNC anything suitable for a subpage should be includable in the main article. As long as we're appropriately applying WP:SIMPLE, problematic issues shouldbe minimized.
Support. Notability considerations in these cases are a waste of Wikipedia contributors' time. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 16:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. If the notability of the main article has been proven, a non-stub spin out focusing on details is notable per se. De728631 (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support The whole concept of notability guidelines is hurting Wikipedia, not helping it. Hans Persson (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. While I don't like the concept of inherited notability, I think the problem posed and the solution are very reasonable. We may need to provide some additional guidance one how this can be used to reduce the chances of abuse as some of the oppose comments have suggested could happen. We need to find some way to strike a balance between overly long articles and a freedom to break out sections. Likewise, it may be reasonable to break out sections of articles within a project so that like material can be categorized together and still be available to readers of the main article. This may also address the issues that some readers have with long tables in many articles that are not interesting to them and make reading the article 'harder'. Maybe the compromise here is to not allow this breakouts at the encyclopedia level, with maybe some exceptions. But instead allow the projects to develop specific project related guidelines on what material can or should be broken out. Rather then starting new standalone articles, we should consider that these breakouts be subpages of the main article. So I guess I support the concept and see that an open discussion lke this could result in improvements in readability. While notability would be inherited, that would not eliminate the need to meet WP:V and maybe as a part of any final proposal a condition of any breakout might be some requirement for meeting WP:V. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support To me, the inherent test is, do the sources listed on this subarticle and on the main article support what's being said? Essentially, we're avoiding the situation of copying over all of the sources into these sub-articles, especially since there will inevitably be cases where people copy over ones they're not sure of "just in case" and we wind up with a bloating of sources that have little to no relevance. I will note the additional caveat that for many sub-articles, particularly when you get into the games and their lists of characters, the source is often essentially the topic of the main article, which may not qualify as a third party. For example, playing through Kingdom Hearts, you get a biography of every character in-game. Is that a notable source? I think this question is going to have to be answered and will eventually lead to contention. -Fuzzy (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The idea makes perfect sense to me because there are certain subjects of certain articles that do merit a significant mention, but don't meet Wikipedia's standards of notability (like celebrities' relatives who are in show business or band members). If the subjects of the sub-articles rise to notability equal to the parent article, then they should get a full, independent article. Also, there is the issue of some articles being too long and yet too important to condense, as some people have stated above. A perfect example of that would be the MTV article, which has a sub-article on Criticism of MTV or Beyonce's parents, who have their own articles as well. Crackthewhip775 (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first of these clearly passes current notability requirements, so no problem there. The second is more of the type of borderline case which this proposal might affect. It seems to me that we don't want to have articles on people parent just because the child is notable. In this case its likely that the would pass current notability requirements, with a bit of digging plenty of refs could be found to the person who designed Beyonce's cloths. Other parents might not pass the current tests. --Salix (talk): 21:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, a good formulation of the concept that notability shouldn't force us into undesirable article structures to prevent information from being deleted; prefer the next though. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but we will need more detail on defining subpage to prevent content forks and content that should have been included on the main page. However from working on WP:AFC most new pages proposed or accepted are not sub pages, but stand alone. OR also is to be avoided, which could cut out the pure fancruft. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support because I oppose notability requirements in general. It is nearly always a subjective argument. Captainclegg (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support because I strongly oppose notability requirements at all. Crowley666 (talk) 01:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. I've seen more than enough articles getting extracted from large pages and then getting deleted because they aren't inherently notable. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 15:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support from the standpoint that anything that helps retain subjects that are only referenced via New/Alternative Media sources can only help improve the depth of the Wiki.BcRIPster (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I think that the notability of the parent article should be enough to qualify its spin-offs. I think that if the notability requirement becomes more stringent on dependent pages, they will be folded back into the parent article, leading to some very large articles. I like that the articles can be parceled out into manageable units. (D.c.camero (talk) 06:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Support As per Chubbles and Admiral Norton above, (and most other comments).--Technopat (talk) 11:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, reliable sources are all that is required for something to be worthy of inclusion. — Werdna • talk 13:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as long as the article has some connection to the parent article Woodnot talk
Support Sub-articles which form appendices to main articles are fine. This is a good common-sense guideline. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support, it will effectively make parent articles more brief (w/o loss of information reader might be interested in) and thus more reader-friendly.--Qsaw ^(talk) 21:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support This makes comprehensive coverage possible. Spin-off articles still need sources, but not every part needs to adhere to the strict notability guidelines (especially requirement of third-party sources). Daranios (talk) 08:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Policy rightly states that notability need not be established for every detail of a particular topic to be included in Wikipedia. Good article design dictates that long articles should be broken up into sub-articles as appropriate. Information should not suddenly go from being proper encyclopedic material to verbotten knowledge simply because of geography. If a topic is established to be notable then it is notable... regardless of how the information about it is organized. The 'notability' guidelines have been mis-used to limit 'depth of coverage' on clearly notable topics. This removal of information we know (and can now demonstrate through page traffic statistics) people want access to is the very opposite of what the 'notability' guidelines are supposed to be about. --CBD 10:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. We are every specialist encyclopedia put together. --Gwern (contribs) 12:44 29 September 2008 (GMT)
Support. In a deletion debate on a seemingly obscure page, this highlights the need for an article on the more general subject. For instance, G. Zlagrib (moldovian fiddle maker) may not become notable without heavy researching, but the existence of the notable page History of Moldovian music instruments where G.Z has a paragraph, could justify his own page. If handled properly, this becomes an incentive for our contributors to create articles on more general themes, clearing a path in towards their seemingly obscure topic and improving wikipedia overall. EverGreg (talk) 13:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Sub pages expand on the notability of the original article - continuing to send these pages into notability discussions is wasteful of time that would be better spent on improving wikipedia content in general.Timmccloud (talk) 19:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Support I know that this new concept is facing overwhelming "oppose" consensus. But not only, if created, will it do what it is said to do, wikipedians will have more time to fix wikipedia. [[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]] (talk) 00:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support just because people need to stop getting worked up over short articles existing. Short articles are better than redirects to sections, which are messy and potentially confusing. - filelake shoe 08:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support This just seems like common sense. We need to be less keen to delete just for the sake of it. Bienfuxia (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support because strong notability requirements restrict the scope of expansion of knowledge.burdak (talk) 14:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wikipedia is not paper. Grue 17:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support The more articles, the more useful Wikipedia is for users looking for information.--Lova Falk (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Splitting an article is ultimately an editing decision, done to enhance readability. This proposal is not about letting in anything that can be tangentially linked to something else - WP:V will prevent that anyways. This is a fix for an unintended consequence of WP:N (namely that WP:N it encourages unreadibly long articles). AfD hero (talk) 21:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support This seems like an obvious and common sense change. As AfD hero pointed out, spin-offs are often done as an editing decision, and it makes sense to relax the no-self-referral rules in cases like that. After all, sections within an article can reference previous ones and don't need to continually re-establish themselves in their own right. Mojo-chan (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A.1 edit

Oppose Spin-out articles should be treated rather cautiously since they often constitute WP:content forks and, on occasion, WP:POV forks. These issues need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis and, as necessary and appropriate, covered by specialized notability guidelines. The point is, notability is not the only consideration in deciding whether or not a particular topic merits a separate article. Nsk92 (talk) 05:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
of course it isnt, but notability is what we'reconsidering. In practice, spin out articles of the sort being discussed here ar rarely content forks--they are usually more in the nature of subarticles. DGG (talk) 00:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably correct, but even for subarticles I believe it is important to be able to prove their notability in a way independent of the parent article. This does not mean that the subject of a subarticle necessarily needs to receive coverage that is quite independent from the subject of the parent article. But it does mean that one needs to be able to demonstrate notability of the subject of a subarticle as if the parent article did not exist. Otherwise one can easily have a wild prolifiration of subarticles corresponding to minor and fairly insignificant components of wider subjects. For example, say we are talking about some reasonably famous film that clearly is notable in its own right. Does that mean that the topic of special effects in this film is sufficiently notable for its own article? Or costume design? Or sound work? Or the work of a particular stunt-man in this film? Or perhaps some particular event that happened during the shooting of the film? (e.g. the two lead actors getting into a fight). If one accepts that all spin-outs are notable, then the answers to all these questions are always "yes", assuming there is enough data to pass WP:V (which there often is, e.g. from the special features section on the DVD of the film question). In reality the answers should depend on particular circumstances. For films like Star Wars and LoTR the topic of special effects there is notable enough for a separate article. For most other films it probably is not. Things of this nature should be hashed out in SNGs which can and should define in greater detail how notability for subtopics is to be established, but accepting the principle that all spin-outs are notable would be very counter-productive. Nsk92 (talk) 01:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, can be used to violate the "notability is not inherited" principle, which is one of the cornerstones of WP:N and all the other notability guidelines. Nsk92 (talk) 11:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In what way is that phrase a cornerstone? Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a cornerstone in the sense that if no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Articles cannot tailgate or cling too each others coattails; they have to prove their worth by complying with WP:N.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Nsk92, as the opportunity to create spinout articles which utilise the same content is almost limitless. An example of a POV/Content fork where this has already happened is The Terminator: current forks are Terminator (character), Terminator (character concept) and Terminator (franchise). Basically all these articles cover the same ground, but from different angles. It may be obvious to an "expert" which article is the true Terminator article, but Wikipedia is not the place for expert opinion, rather it is the citation of reliable secondary sources that provides evidence that the subject is notable rather than a POV/content fork. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is a problem with NPOV on those articles. This proposal makes no effort to supplant NPOV. Those articles would be valid merge/delete targets under this proposal. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know these articles are based on NPOV? They all cite primary and secondary sources. You say that the various Terminator articles would be valid merge/delete targets, but what criteria would you use? If every spinout is notable, then you do not have any rationale to merge or delete any of them. If you have come up with inclusion criteria that could be used to merge or delete spin-out articles that are different to WP:N, then you should state them. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a major misinterpretation of the proposal. That it can be misinterpreted and needs revision is a major part of my theme at my qualified support !vote above (#4). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a misrepresentation at all. The issue of identifying what topics deserve their own article is addressed by the inclusion criteria set out in GNG. Since any topic can be sliced and diced into any number of articles and sub-articles, the problem (illustrated by the Terminator example given above) of which ones to include, and which one to merge or discard won't go away, in fact sub-articles would make it worse if they are all deemed to be notable. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A bucket with a logic hole. Almost any modern-day TV show XYZ can serve as an example; they obviously deserve a wiki article. Most editors will also agree that List of XYZ episodes is a suitable article ("list") for wikipedia, and that it (or its lead) can be expanded with dozens of third-party sources. So, if this proposal gets accepted, this means all its dozens and sometimes hundreds of episodes (sub-articles of the List of episodes) get a wildcard for their own article and can be as plotty, crufty and ORish as fans wish even though no producer commentary or third-party sources exists *at all*. No, thanks. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Untrue. This proposal merely says that the standards for the length of plot description and the like should be based on our consideration of the overall topic, and use our content policies. If a section is OR or violates WP:PLOT it can still be shortened and removed, and if it is shortened and removed such that it is no longer substantial enough for its own article, it can and should be merged with a parent article. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The reason to have sub-articles is to prevent writing an article that is so long it takes 10 minutes to scroll to the bottom. It's why the more popular TV shows and such things have more than one article. IMO embedded lists and subsections that are more than two pages long should be split into a subarticle. The idea of independant notability is amazingly awkward to demonstrate. As an example, we have the predator technology article. It's a list of tech items used by the Predators. Why is it seperate? It's several pages and the Predator article is long enough without it. Requiring people to demonstrate "independant notability" seems to require the subject to be notable based on sources that 'exclude the main article's material. why? I don't get it. It makes little sense to me. If a subject is significant enough to have sufficient well documented material for a full size article, why not actually give it an article?--Marhawkman (talk) 13:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, untrue, you are assuming the answer to the problem. The question is whether many characters--perhaps 5,000 or 50,000 of the possible 5 million or so counting all forms of classic and contemporary fiction, do in fact warrant separate articles to provide adequate coverage, and whether we should consequently define our article standards in such a way as to include them. There's a difference in episodes too, between whether its Star Trek or [insert your own example of the worst garbage here]. DGG (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the caveats in my qualified support !vote above (#4) for how to resolve this issue. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where does this proposal say that we will be ditching policies on OR, or unsourced material? This is only about notability. OR and unsourced material will still be grounds for deletion. If however there are several articles that don't have these problems, why is their existence a problem? Mdwh (talk) 03:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Too broad. Protonk (talk) 13:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Far too broad. I think we need to institutionalize "List of episodes" and "List of characters" as a compromise, and stop there.Kww (talk) 14:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That still savages our coverage of areas, delivering a big "fuck you" to those who actually use the encyclopedia in these areas. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only in the sense that Encyclopedia Brittanica has delivered a big "fuck you" to TV Guide subscribers.Kww (talk) 16:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware of a past period where the Encyclopedia Brittanica provided coverage of this area, and where articles on fictional subjects were a major part of its coverage and formed several of its most popular articles. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Goes too far. Davewild (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Dave. It only invites abuse. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 18:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So we write a policy that prevents such abuse. I don't think this proposal says that the text above is all that will ever be said on the matter. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Notability is not inherited. Virtually every detail from an article can be split out into its own article. The only reasonable-objective criterion that prevents this is the requirement for non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The inherited notability aspect is really misleading. The proposal is better understood as "Our limits on article length, which come from screen readability and browser limits, should not be hard limits on the depth of coverage of a subject. Topics should be covered in the depth that they would be covered if there were no article length limits, and then intelligent decisions should be made about how to split up the coverage." So the operative policies become the ones that govern what does and doesn't get covered in a single article. Which is something that, looking at the articles we have, we do an OK job with. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Gavin. Deamon138 (talk) 00:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This would just be too imprecise. Virtually any article can attach itself to another article. We need something much more specific, or else we open the floodgates to millions of non-notable, unverifiable articles. Randomran (talk) 02:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am appalled by this. You of all people know the difference between the proposal I offered and the one described here. You know full well that this is a more specific proposal that you cut down to RFC size. To oppose it because of lack of specificity when you are the one who stripped the specificity out is appalling, and speaks to the degree to which this RFC is a meaningless charade. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The meaning between this proposal and yours are essentially the same. And judging by the lack of support, I doubt people are opposing this on some kind of technical wording issue. The spirit of this proposal is just fundamentally flawed: allowing notability to be inherited between articles is going to open the floodgates. Randomran (talk) 04:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, the meanings are not the same. Phil asked that the article length not be taken into account when writing it, that certain logical breaks be observed when deciding how to distribute the article over several pages. That has been turned into an unsupportable "inherited notability" prop that doesn't mention base articles or length or sufficient sources. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 14:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And making article length a non-factor in producing new sub-articles... that would change the opinions of those who are opposed to creating an indefinite number of poorly sourced sub-articles? I sincerely doubt it. Randomran (talk) 14:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those sub-articles would be even easier to deal with under this proposal - remove poorly sourced crufty material outright. Since the pages would be treated as sections of a larger article, to my mind blanking them if they are crap is wholly acceptable. No AfD necessary - any more than an AfD is needed to remove a fanwanky in-universe section in an existing article. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A technical difference that doesn't fix the problem of huge pages with zero reliable third-party sources. Listen... There's literally nothing stopping you from proposing your own compromise at WT:N once this RFC is done (or even before the RFC if you're self-righteous enough to disrupt other efforts to compromise). And if this proposal of notable subarticles were gaining a decent amount of support, I might even recommend it. You'd be perfectly within your right, and why would anyone stop you? But from one Wikipedian to another, I advise you to not waste your effort. If the opposition continues to be as strong as it is, I doubt you're going to sway a sudden consensus with one or two technical changes. Randomran (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring all philosophical differences between the subarticle described in this proposal and Phil's suggested approach, the primary difference is that Phil's suggested method has some type of clear visual indicator that the subarticle belongs to a larger topic (either though the "/" sub-article method, leading templates, or some other means. That actually is a significant difference in the sense that a new user, unaware of how WP:N came to be but that it exists, might avoid tagging a sub-article under Phil's scheme since it has been visually shown to be something else. It is technically not the same, though potentially the same facets of problems come into play. --MASEM 14:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a minor fig leaf papering over a proposed policy allowing everything under the sun. GRBerry 03:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; notability is not transitive, and this just invites parasitic "notability justifications" for fancruft. — Coren ^(talk) 12:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. For information to be split out into a separate article, it should be verifiable, meaning it comes from multiple reliable sources. If reliable independent sources don't discuss the topic, it does not need to be a separate article. If the section is too big in the parent article, then per WP:WEIGHT it should be trimmed to fit, based on what the reliable independent sources say. Karanacs (talk) 15:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This simply goes too far. Giving "spin-off" articles carte blanche will result in a plethora of articles with problems such as (lack of) verifiability, original research, and non-neutral point of view. I'm not saying that every spin-off will have all these problems, but if there is no set limit, many such articles will invariably appear. I think most of us agree that there needs to be some sort of line drawn, and we merely disagree on where that line should stand. This appears to be a "no-line" proposal. Something more moderate is needed. Pagra shtak 04:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - every article is in a sense a spinout; giving spinouts an exemption from notability requirements would remove notability as a criterion from every article. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - effective notability guidelines are necessary to prevent cruft. PhilKnight (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In this form it is equivalent to abandoning WP:N (a different question altogether), for anything imaginable can be reached by stream of consciousness from something notable. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Current criteria are fine and work well. Anyone who is having problems reaching WP:NN concensus can always nominate the article for AfD and see what the community thinks. Usually the best way to deal with notability. fr33kman (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per the above. Effectively demolishes NOTE in favor of a giant set of articles that have problems satisfying WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:WEIGHT. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 04:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am curious. What viewpoint, and particularly what minority viewpoint does a plot summary advance? Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Far too broad. This has an impact beyond elements of fiction, which is what motivated this RfC. This gives free license to any spammer, POV pusher, and promoters of fringe theories to write all they want, without being constrained by the GNG. All they have to do is connect whatever article they have to something that is notable. There needs to be a crap filter, and the GNG is a good one, and one that can be implemented fairly. --Phirazo (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. WP:N has two purposes: First, restricting Wikipedia to topics for which encyclopedic coverage is possible; second, restricting our scope to a level that is maintainable. This proposal counteracts both: It would allow topics to grow beyond the level that can be attributed to secondary sources, effectively giving up the principles of an encyclopedia. And it would allow virtually any level of detail coverage on any topic (that can always be a spin-out of some other), giving up all bounds of our scope. --B. Wolterding (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the distinction between a spin-out and a new article will be unclear at times, and adopting this rule would be a blanket invitation to wikilawyering. --Alvestrand (talk) 11:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Where would the spin-offs stop? Captain panda 02:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While we're on the topic of spin-offs, can someone please review my new article on the guitar solo of song released by my favorite band member of my favorite band which has a one-sentence article? After all, if the band is notable, the notability is inherited to the solo, is it not? Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I believe that a spin out article, when not followed by reliable sources, gives improper weight to a subject that goes against the standards of this encyclopedia. I strongly believe that all entries need reliable third-party sources. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose too broad and would never be ending. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Unless the sub-article provides no more information that the main article, then it makes additional claims. Those claims need to be referenced to demonstrate validity and notability. The Goodyear Blimp is notable. The (made-up) fact that the tail letters are painted in 18-inch letters in black IR-reflecting paint in the font Helvetica is not notable. Notability of additional information is not inherited. If the main article has references that support a claim made in the sub-article but not in the main article, the reference can be copied. One of the premises of this discussion is that "there is no practical limit to" the amount of information that can be placed in Wikipedia. Hence why not take the additional trouble to make the applicable references? Bongomatic (talk) 02:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose The GNG reads "If a topic has received significant coverage...it is presumed to be a suitable article topic". This makes perfect sense in itself and it must be implied further that every article deals with its own "topic"; that is, articles don't share topics. Without this, a reduction to the absurd would be perfectly acceptable, as articles could be created about subtopics of subtopics of subtopics of something that barely passes the notability requirements. For example, a third cousin twice removed of the grandfather of the Queen of England would deserve his/her own article, no matter how notable he/she really is. Themfromspace (talk) 02:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Every article needs to meet WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR, the content requirements that the Notability guidelines are intended to help interpret. If we are breaking out a section of an article due to length, then surely there is a section with reliable sources that can be broken out. If we are breaking out a section because it may be notable on its own then that should be demonstrated or remain part of the parent article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose.Agree wirth 'where will it end' type arguments. For instance, Automotive suspensions are a notable subject, that article is easily referneced. Particular types of suispension, likewise. Particular implementations of particular suspensions, likewise. "My car has got a macpherson's strut" is not a suitable article. OK, maybe that was a bad example.Greg Locock (talk) 04:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. In general, if someone is breaking a long article into two pieces, having some remnant of notability in both pieces is exactly what I would be looking for in deciding where to make the break. Small exceptions don't mean that that shouldn't be the guideline; they mean that it should be a guideline, rather than policy. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too broad and imprecise, leading to potential misinterpretation. In any case, every article should be able to stand by itself and on its own, fork or not. —kur ykh 05:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stong Oppose This would lead to an incoherent mess. The approach described works, to a certain extent, for Microsoft's encyclopedia and Answers, but it wouldn't work at all here due to WP:OWN - Every article, regardless of its origins, should be required to be reliably sourced to prevent WP:OR and fancruft and to keep them maintainable by new editors. The situations described are situations where the text should be aggressively trimmed and/or axed, not split out into an article of splitcruft, or whatever we'll end up calling it if this happens. MrZaius^talk 05:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Spin-out" articles should not get special treatment. They are subject to exactly the same proof-of-notability requirements as any other article. In fact, there should be no concept of "spin-out" articles at all; articles are articles. —An gr 06:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose If the material contained in a "spin-out" article was verified when it was part of the "main article", then the source has already been found and can be cited. If a new "spin-out" article is created with new material, then either it is using the same source as the "main article", which should thus be cited, or there is no source and it is unverified material. I do not see the argument for a special case at article level. Consider that individual sections and even sentences in articles can be challenged and deleted for having no citation, so an article (even if it is for some reason considered a "spin-out") must be treated the same way. Obviously this needs applying with common sense as per wp:ignore, an article or stub should not be deleted because no-one has bothered to put in an obvious citation. Babakathy (talk) 06:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Far too broad, invites abuse, such as articles on minute subjects which are slightly related to the parent articles.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 07:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose each article should be reliable and notable in and of itself, that means ensuring adequate third-party sources for each. DrKiernan (talk) 07:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. Notability should be established for any section regardless if it is within a larger article or spun out on its own. Binksternet (talk) 08:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose every article should satisfy the criteria for inclusion/retention in Wikipedia in its own right. Allowing articles to inherit criteria from other articles is only an open invitation to abuse. Nick Thorne ^talk 08:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - agree with comments above, likely to lead to original research and fancruft. Some exceptions may be possible; for example, breaking up an article by periodisation might make sense, and there may not have been a consistent approach to this to adhere to, but there should still be sufficient sources for what is in the article to demonstrate its importance. Warofdreams talk 09:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Regardless of the formatting choice, any topic that's large enough to deserve more than a couple of sentences ought to have sources. It's inconceivable that we could write a whole section, let alone a whole article, containing nothing which requires referencing. SP-KP (talk) 09:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We simply don't need individual articles on every character that appeared for 1 second in a single Star Wars movie. Whilst that may not be the definition of a spinoff that will be used to justify that sort of behaviour --Blowdart | ^talk 10:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose. If a spun-out article is to be treated as a sub-section of the parent, how does that mean it doesnn't need sourcing and should not be deleted. Completely unreferenced subsections within an article can be deleted, and often are. If a subtopic is not in itself notable enough to be sourced, the subsection should never have been allowed to grow enough to need splitting, and the split should be opposed beforehand or deleted afterwards. The logic of this proposal makes no sense at all!Yobmod (talk) 10:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - By this proposal we would be encouraging spin-off articles with no reliable sources at all to be written, and that would lower the authenticity of Wikipedia.--:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 11:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- far too broad in scope. older ≠ wiser 11:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This would in part legitimize POV forks without specific wording added. And notability definatly cannot be inherited. If a section is long enough to merit being split off, and it does not contain reliable third party sources to establish notability on it's own, then it probably should not have been included in the main article to begin with... Charles Edward 12:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- If this was the case, it would be far too easy to (say) spin out articles for each contestant in a series of soemthing like Big Brother or American Idol; whilst some contestants go on to build a notable career (and then fulfill notability criteria in their own right), some just disappear back to obscurity, and not notable in their own right. -- ratarsed (talk) 12:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Every article should be notable in itself. I also don't see how we can not force references, as that would violate WP:V. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone
Per sguereka and Nsk92. Stifle (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Black Falcon, just because a particular article is notable does not inherently mean that it's sub articles are. For example, one of the articles on my watchlist is AT&T CallVantage. This is a discontinued service provided by AT&T. Granted AT&T is considerably notable, but judging by the article content, the fact that it's being discontinued by AT&T (well, not accepting new customers) and that there are no references to 3rd party sources makes this article not notable in my opinion. If this was any other service, besides an AT&T one, it would have been Speedied 1 day after it's creation. -- ErnestVoice ^{(User) (Talk)} 13:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Each article should be notable and verifiable on its own. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 13:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This will open a bucket full of worms. For example, as someone above points out, this would automatically give the all-clear to create articles for all episodes, all characters (major/minor), all locations etc. in all TV series, films and cartoons already on Wikipedia. No thank you. Each article must stand on it's own in terms of notability. _Talk Islander 13:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose In essence this would mean a multiplication of the acceptable space for a topic by the number of its sections or in case of lists the number of its items. And for which parent articles? Articles with a hundred references, or just ten? Especially in fiction, there are articles on works that are tiny in comparasion to the length or the work itself and the number of its characters/episodes/chapters. Should a small 30k article with 30 references provide notability for hundreds of kilo byte of supporting articles and lists, filled mostly with plot details and trivia? -- Goodraise (talk) 13:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Far too broad, each and every article must stand on its own and meet the notability requirements. --Captain-tucker (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Everything in article space needs reliable sources. Every article, eveny section, every sentence, every bullet point, every list item. This is extremely simple: If it can't be reliably sourced, it can't be part of Wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What Andrew Lenahan said. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Content should always be supported by reliable sources, spin out or not. -epicAdam^(talk) 15:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Possible Oppose - Notability is not inherited, and needs to pass each and every article or list criteria on its own with no help from another article. This is a foundational principle, and keeps this from being a junk encyclopedia. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A stand alone article appears in a Google search; this public exposure indicates the need for the rigorous scrutiny of the notability guidelines. Part of the decision process to break out a section of a parent article into a stand alone article should be the notability of the topic. If the topic does not meet notability requirements but is too large for the parent article, that might be an indication that the section itself needs trimming. SilkTork *^YES! 15:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must oppose this. While content forks are acceptable in certain situations, it causes more problems then a regular article. Many times when a content fork is spinned out of the regular article, it's either one-day and tabloid news stories which clearly doesn't belong in a encyclopedia and at times violate WP:BLP, lets say an article on Paris Hilton personal life or an article on yesterday's Philadelphia Phillies - Florida Marlins game. Other cases is an editor bias view on a certain point of the article, like accusations of some random Eastern European nation of Racism. Many times when a spin-off article exists is for simply unencylopedic information in which few reliable sources exists like Houses on Desperate Housewifes, or endless lists like Cars in Popular Culture, or a nanostub which should just be merged back. Spin-off articles are only good if it's encyclopedic and can be written a full article with proper sources. Secret ^account 15:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, notable sources will determine reliability, not the parent topic. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose All articles must establish their own independent notability. If there are not enough reliable sources to use to expand an article and make it stand on its own, then there shouldn't be an article on that. If the sources exist to expand the article, they exist. That's that... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose All topics should have reliable sources to establish notability. Spin outs could still be non-notable even with a notable parent article. --Banime (talk) 16:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If the topic requires a spin-out article, the details in the spin out article should be found in reliable sources as well; otherwise the spin out article's details should not have been in the original article in the first place. --Trödel 17:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose though I don't have the smarts to leave a decent original reason, because everything that I would say has already been said. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose So I can make an article with no citations and no real notability as long as it is a sub-article? No way. This would be a disaster. Wrad (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. You've got to be kidding. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Far, far too wide open. (It's sad that we have to be discussing this as if it was a general issue for Wikipedia, when in reality all the need for these kinds of regulations seems to stem from the irresponsible cruft collections in the pop culture sector.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If the parent article is too big but the components don't even have enough references to establish notability on their own, that's cause to trim the OR from the parent article, not spill out unverified material. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose articles should stand on their own merits. In mathematics quite a few article have spun out a "proof of" article, ideally these should be notable in some way with citations to support it. This serves as a good way to discriminate the genuinely famous proofs from the many million proofs appearing in papers and textbooks (hence meeting WP:V) which don't need to be in an encylopedia.--Salix (talk): 19:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A flat rule like this would be problematic at best, as it would be quoted as a reason to create an article on anything remotely related to the "parent" article. Ignore all rules can cover some articles that are factual when 3rd party verification is difficult (ie: in print only) or for the exceptions that this rule would cover. While I have no problem with a somewhat lower standard for genuine pop-out articles that ARE well sourced, they still must be sourced, or it is just a page of text that hasn't been verified. In short, every article should be sourced and verifiable, even if the sourcing standards are different for articles and pop-outs. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Seems wrong-headed to me. In fact, while I do not equate notability with having enough verifiable stuff, I would say the concept of notability is at its most useful when it shuts off a too zoomed-in approach. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Too broad, too generic. Can't assume that every spin-off is notable, without the new article having independent assertion of notability itself. -- Alexf⁴² 21:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If there is enough material for inclusion in a spin-off article, then I don't see why notability should be compromised. If there isn't enough material, there shouldn't be a spin-off. --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 21:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in deference to A.1.2, this would by default confer notability from the Wikipedia itself, making notability rationale in effect a circular argument. István (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are only articles nothing to be gained by trying to clasify some as "spin-out".23:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Strong Oppose Re. notability, every article should stand on itself. Proposal A1 would make it to easy for an article to claim a notable article as parent. And if there would be such a claim, what kind of evidence (and how much of the evidence) would be appropriate to support the claim?? No, cross out A1. -- 69.183.102.174 (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
oppose if theres sufficient Verifiable, Reliable source material to warrant a daughter article then there should be enough to establish notability. Gnan garra 00:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the problem there is the requirement of "third party" information. Especially in cases of fictional works, third party sources that are considered reliable rarely deal with anything but the main topic, regardless of the relative importance of sub topics.--Marhawkman (talk) 03:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
if its that important to the topic then the source will be there, if third party sources dont consider it worthy of coverage then why would we... Gnan garra 08:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An encyclopedia is read article by article, not sequentially, and not necessarily following a hierarchical path from parent article to subsidiary article. Each article must support its notability, by itself and completely, for as far as the scope of the article's subject is concerned. Iterator12n ^Talk 01:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If the subarticle cannot be verified by reliable third-party sources, then it probably should not have been included in the original article anyway.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 01:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Could be useful in some cases, but there is huge potential for a lot of useless, vaguely related material to be put onto Wikipedia. -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master (talk) 01:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If an article about a notable subject is too large and needs to be split, but the prospective sub-article is not notable, then the main article contains too much irrelevant detail. The main article should be trimmed instead of moving the irrelevant stuff to another article. Wronkiew (talk) 02:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose These are dangerous waters to wade into. I am generally an inclusionist, but it is very, very important for articles to be verifiable if we are to be taken seriously. Saying a subject can inherit notability would allow many small, miniscule aspects of an article to become their own entities. As it stands, this would mean that every minor character that has ever appeared for five minutes in a television show would deserve their own article, inheriting its notability because the parent article (the TV show) was notable. Also, there should NEVER be a policy stating an article does not need third party publications, as this diminishes Wikipedia to a nothing. We are not merely a collection of human knowledge, but a collection of verifiable human knowledge. The point of the notability requirements is to ensure the quality of Wikipedia. Scapler (talk) 02:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: If a section of an article is so large as to require becoming a sub-article, that section better be supported by enough reliable sources to stand up on its own. If it isn't, something is majorly wrong with the parent article. Most sub-articles are likely to be at least several paragraphs long and should therefore have a dozen or more sources, certainly more than the handful required to meet the GNG. Oren0 (talk) 06:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Effectively throws the concept of notability out the window. With enough wikilawyering, one could argue that any article is the sub-article of another. Jay32183 (talk) 06:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This takes us too far from the requirement that all content must be sourced to a reliable source. --John Nagle (talk) 06:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Notability is not inherited. In many cases topics may warrant a section in an article given the presence of a source or two, but there may simply not be enough in terms of independent reliable sources to be able to flesh out an entire article for it. Hence, while the sub-topic may warrant discussion in the main article, it's not always notable enough for its own. ITAQALLAH 14:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Notability is associated with a topic. Exempting certain types of articles, especially poorly defined types of articles such as "spin-outs", from notability requirements is simply wrong-headed. It makes no difference to a topic's notability whether it is a subsection of a larger article, or a "spin-out". If it is not referred to in a reliable secondary source, then it isn't even verifiable, let alone notable, and should not be in the encyclopedia. The way to address this issue is to clarify what particular types of articles need to do to demonstrate the notability of the topic they cover. These requirements can be very minimal in some cases, but should at least include the provision of a reliable secondary source which refers to the topic in question. Geometry guy 15:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Notable series will have lots of spin-outs, many of them will simply be not notable at all. A catch-all will catch a lot of crap. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose Each spin-out needs to be evaluated on its own. Just because an article is notable does not mean that everything in it (that might be split into a sub-article) is notable. Here are two concrete examples:
- Elementary and Middle Schools. It has been a long-standing policy of Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools that School District articles are generally notable and should contain a list of schools in the district. However, elementary and middle schools are generally non-notable, so to have an individual article about them is generally not acceptable. When this happens, the school article is usually merged back into its district parent article, where it belongs.
- People within a company, organization or school that do something. As a Wiki patroller, I frequently see instances of an article that describes a group within a company, organization or school doing something interesting, perhaps sponsoring a charity run. Within the otherwise-notable company article, that's reasonable. But to have its own article is almost always non-notable and usually quickly speedy deleted. Truthanado (talk) 16:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I support A.1.2 because I think it is important to encourage spin-outs, but I oppose policy A.1 because it would justify creation of articles about utterly ephemeral trivia. --Orlady (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Spin-outs should be required to meet either the GNG or a relevant SNG. Without a spin-out notability requirement, spin-outs can be used to place information that isn't notable about a subject that is notable into its own article. It would be a better practice to simply trim the fat. — X S G 18:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – if third party sources establish the notability of the subject of the spin-off, they should be cited in the spin-off. . . dave souza, talk 18:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The concept of a split-out subarticle is itself flawed. If we have separate notability guidelines for this gray area, we are asking to be abused. Is "List of horse breeds" a subarticle of "Horse"? Probably. Is Brumby, a type of horse, a subarticle of something? An argument could be made either way. So, are all horse breeds notable? Sure. But not because of this flawed logic. In contrast, Da Vinci's Notebook is a notable musical group. But would List of Da Vinci's Notebook albums be notable? Possibly, but they're niche enough that an argument could be made. How about Bendy's Law, their first album? Or Genres in Da Vinci's Notebook songs? No. But as long as this rule stands, people will argue that subitems will inherit even limited notability. And we can't have that mess. JRP (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I think even sections within an article need to establish notability through third-party sources -- otherwise, it tends to be minutiae and trivia. So, whether a section is in the parent article or spun out for size reasons, it still needs to cite significant coverage by third-party sources to establish notability. --EEMIV (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Too broad and would provides carte blanche for a raft of unencyclopedic, unnotable material. Eusebeus (talk) 21:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Its basically saying that part of the subject of an article is notable because it is already mentioned in Wikipedia. It follows then that everything should be included in Wikipedia, which makes Wikipedia the sum of human knowledge (and every other bit of human made crap) not the summery of human knowledge an encyclopedia should be.
Oppose A spinoff becomes its own article and has to be treated as its own article. As such needs to establish its own notability. In practice, a spinoff should only really occur when there is so much notable information in an article that a new article makes sense. In other words, a spinoff should not be a remedy for removing non-notable content clogging a notable article. Notability won't often be an issue if the article is broken up for the right reasons. maxsch (talk) 02:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is much too broad, and basically permits articles on anything. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm reasonably active on AfD and I have seen too many Keep votes for long-winded, rambling and overly detailed fancruft about minor aspects of fictional topics to ever feel comfortable with the idea that the parent article's notability filters through to its spin-offs. Reyk _YO! 08:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for 2 main reasons: (a) it opens the door to a flood of articles about minor characters in notable works (e.g. 2nd murderer in "Macbeth"), articles about TV series episodes which are not themselves notable, characters / factions in video games, etc.; (b) as the previous comment says, there's too much fancruft. -- Philcha (talk) 10:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, despite good intentions, I believe this could be misused to justify the retention of pretty much any article on any topic where notability was not clear. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose. I can see where this is going but this is not the right way to go about it. For example, Fidel Castro is notable, but the potential spinout article on Baseball career of Fidel Castro would not be because he was only an amateur player and claims of something more are supported only by unconfirmed rumours. A spinoff article should demonstrate its own notability rather than relying on that which it inherits; although the base will start higher because of the connection to something undoubtedly notable. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I dread to think of the number of fancruft lists that would arise. In my opinion, computer game character lists are not appropriate. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fronsdorf (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A sub article needs sources. If the material had no sources in the main article, he material is not notable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This would actually gut the notability requirement. Friedrich Nietzsche warrants an article; the sex life of Friedrich Nietzsche does not, even though something might be mentioned about it in the main article. Certain corporations might be notable; not everyone mentioned in the article about them is, but would now be — as would their mothers, siblings, and dogs, as they could be mentioned in the article that branched off from the initial one. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 17:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - This basically invalidates any idea of notability, since one can always claim that something trivial is somehow related to something more notable. I've seen the spin-off defense used as an excuse for keeping countless trivial articles that could never evolve beyond stubs: individual weapons from video games, props or pieces of background scenery from films, minor characters from a single TV show or film, etc. While it is true that Wikipedia is paperless and as such has no limitations, it is our goal to provide encyclopedic information in a manner that is helpful to the reader. Notability is helpful in this regard as it encourages small topics with little to no independent coverage to be presented as part of a larger topic, which academically speaking is a much more valid way to present such information. To my mind there are no such things as "sub-articles" or "spin-off articles", there are only articles, and each should be able to stand on their own and be judged on their own merits. The Summary Style guideline actually agrees with this in WP:AVOIDSPLIT, which recommends only splitting topics that have enough sources of real-world coverage (aka third-party sources) to demonstrate independent notability. If article length is a concern, then identify topics that might demonstrate independent notability, develop them, then split them. WP:SIZE seems to agree with this (the technical issues with article length seeming to be outdated). --IllaZilla (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There have to be limits where spinoffs are no longer inherently notable. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - POV forking is a serious problem with spun-out articles, because it's a clear path to taking the original material to a new page, not adding to the main substance of it, and tacking on a criticism section or suchlike. That can cause oversight problems within WikiProjects, because the number of problem articles can outstrip available resources to police for accuracy and relevancy. Another issue is that there may simply not be enough material available on a spun-out article to make it any more than the section (or part thereof) it was originally - there are plenty of things that are part of more notable things, but that cannot stand on their own. This in turn leads to a heavier load on AfD and Merge proposals, because process then needs to be followed to get the "article" put back in its original location. MSJapan (talk) 02:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 05:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose This invalidates the entire notability guidelines. You are giving a blanket notability pass for all articles related to a certain area. If the page in question has recieved no coverage/attention, it should not have a page. Undead Warrior (talk) 06:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This proposal is simply invalidating any idea of notability we have. Where would the spin off stop? For example take the many articles of barely notable companies that include a list of their products. Par the notability guideline products should be included into the company article unless they are clearly individually notable. What would stop advertising agencies from simply creating a main corporate article, and then hooking dozens of products and services to it (claiming its a spin-off)? Also, how is this supposed to work with new page patrol? If non notable articles are suddenly allowed, how can patrols recognize allowed not (really) notable articles, as opposed not allowed non (really) notable articles? Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 11:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Insane. You can "spin out" any article whatsoever from a parent article. Very few editors accept the "it exists" school of inclusionism, which follows cleanly from this proposal. HiDrNick! 12:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This standard is no standard whatsoever - everything could be made notable.Smallbones (talk)
Strongly Oppose - In order for Wikipedia to have a seperate article on some aspect of a larger subject, that aspect needs to be notable in and of itself. If it isn't, discussion of the aspect belongs as part of the parent article. Blueboar (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Oppose. A reader or an editor might land immediately on a sub-article, which must stand by itself in the reader or editor's mind. There is no reason to require a reader to "back up" to a main article to find the sources for the page in which he or she is really interested. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There should be references for the sub article in any case, or else the whole sub article may be madeup WP:NFT or original research WP:OR etc. or it could be 100% fact but trivia - i.e. should not be in the full or sub article.Obina (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If the parent article has refs supporting the notability of the spin-out, then it is not too much to ask that those refs are cited in the sub-article as well. If the refs do not support its notability, then it aint notable. Too much opportunity for lawyering, all I have to do to defend my favorite non-notable article is to claim that it is a spin-out of some other (notable) article. And whose to say it isn't? What criteria are going to be used to measure its amount of spin-outedness? SpinningSpark 21:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - A spin of must adhere to at least the same notability and sourcing requirements as the parent article. Otherwise it becomes a free-for-all, where dubious information and senseless trivia are just spun-off to evade the otherwise inevitable deletion. --Latebird (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Any and every article on wikipedia should stand on its own merits. That means every article must be able to independently establish its own notability as a necessary (but not sufficient) condition of it not being deleted. This means refs which verify the claimed notability need to be duplicated and so on. DDStretch (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. Too imprecise (every article is in some sense a "spin-out" or related to another article) and invites abuse (i.e. fifty individual character articles for every book/TV show/movie ever released). There's enough trouble with non-notable articles as it is. Mr. Absurd (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Every fact and section of an article needs verification, thus any spin-off must meet the same verification standard as the base article or any section of the base article. WVhybrid (talk) 02:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If it's not verifiable by reliable sources, how can you have anything to say about it? It wouldn't belong in the main article to begin with. This would also leave room open to coatracks and content forks claiming they don't need reliable sources. NJGW (talk) 05:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose All content should be subject to the same source rules no matter where it is presented. Whether it is a section or a sub article it must be equally verifiable. Also, can we have sub sub articles ? All main space pages should be able to stand on their own merits. Peet Ern (talk) 07:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If I understand correctly, this would warrant the creation of articles such as Hairstyles of Robert De Niro. GregorB (talk) 09:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Would this not then lead to Spin offs of spin offs far to broad. BigDunc^Talk 09:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. The GNG threshold really isn't that high. I'm having trouble imagining an article that could pass WP:V without satisfying it. AndyJones (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - There is no inhereted notability from the parent article. All topics must be able to survive on their own, regardless of where they were spun out of. Otherwise, that just gives free reign to spin articles out at will. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. An unsourced article would not qualify for inclusion due to lack of verifiability anyway, and having to contradictory policies in place seems like a bad thing. For example, people have commented about episode summaries above, but these would in most cases all fail under the present verifiability policy. If we really want material like that, we should perhaps change that policy to state that factual claims about the plot of a series or book can be cited in the subject itself, but putting a contradictory policy in place is not a solution. This is just one example I chose because it was mentioned above. I think it holds true much more generally. If something can't be sourced, it isn't verifiable, and shouldn't be included. Shinobu (talk) 12:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral on A.1 edit

Comment - I started a topic^{(now here)} a few days ago in VP (tech) about creating sub-articles (separated by a slash) that may make "spin-off" articles more feasable. You might want to take a look at it. SharkD (talk) 04:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I feared when the RFC was being proposed, the poor and overly general phrasing of this proposal is attracting opposition that, in practice, is dealt with and thought through by those actually advocating thinking about spin-out articles. I repeat my request that this proposal be removed from the RFC so that an actual thoughtful proposal on the issue of spin-out articles does not get itself bludgeoned by the fact that it has supposedly "already been rejected." Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are confusing poor phasing of the RFC with the fact that your proposal for spin-out articles was silent on the need for some type of inclusion criteria that would be used to regulate sub-articles. What this RFC is attempting to do is to fill in this ommission. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As mentioned above I think the proposal is poorly phrased, it is widely accepted by the community that all information contained in articles has to be reliably sourced. The main issues I have generally come across with "spin-off" articles is whether that sourcing deals directly with the spin-off itself or mentions it in the context of the parent topic. When - and only when - there is enough reliably sourced information available on a subsection of a topic, I think how much space to dedicate to it and whether it should be spun of for reasons of size or presentation are editorial decisions that don't have much to do with notability guidelines. Guest9999 (talk) 12:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the issue here is, notability is our primary mechanism for answering the question, "How much is too much?" WP:WAF is good but people ignore it as "just an MoS/content guideline" in AfD and merge discussions, even when the amount of appreciable content (i.e. not mere plot summary) approaches zero. Nifboy (talk) 14:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should encourage administrators to ignore arguments that rely on the disregarding of important and well thought out pages as "just a content guideline" instead of making substantive arguments about the content. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Something workable may be possible, but we haven't figured out what yet. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is a difference between a "spin-off" as a measure of organizing the main text, where the separated material is still a legitimate integral part of the parent article, and a "spin-off" that becomes an independent subject. Both yes and no options may be appropriate. NVO (talk) 12:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would like to see more in-depth discussion on situations where spin-off articles are in the form "Characters/Items/Vehicles/Locations/etc. in/of Game/TV Show/Movie/Story/Series" (for example, List of items in the Metroid series). These kinds of articles tend to attract a lot of cruft, trivia and non-notable information, spark vigorous debates, and often lead to someone getting warned or even blocked for escalating the argument too far. However, under this proposal, this type of article would easily qualify as a spin-off of the highly notable Metroid (series) article. So, if this proposal addresses this issue satisfactorily, I'd be willing to support it, but I'm worried that it would cause more problems than it would solve, and it would lead us around in a big circle that we've already been through. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: On the one hand, I don't think Toothbrushes of Sarah Palin is notable, even if this is an extension of a mention in the main article. At the same time, a reasonable spin-off article should be able to rely on the collected sources of the parent article as evidence of notability. Walkerma (talk) 04:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: I agree with some of the points above about the need to have a strong line to stop "Political standpoints of some Third Party Deputy Leader" from being regarded as instantly notable. However if a spin-off or "forked" page at least shows SOME of the citations which enabled it to be forked off in the first place, then I would support a shift in emphasis. However, saying that, I don't want to get into the same long, long, long AfD debates about whether "The Cheshire Cat in popular culture" deserves to stay, as happened a few months ago. doktorb _words^deeds 05:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: A spin-off article should not need to establish its notability with repetition of the parent article's notable features/facets, but it still needs to use reliable sources for any statements of fact. I should not be able to create a spin-off and source its claims to my own blog, for instance. --Good Damon 23:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Spin-outs that cause too much debate can be merged into the main article. I'm also currently considering some of the articles related to The Weather Network meteorologists for deletion, but with the general notability guideline in upheval I'll wait until the temporary fail period subsides. ~A H 1^(TCU) 01:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: I agree to a certain extent, but only insofar as the topic allows. For example if you had a Wiki page on a well known film and then you had a spin off article on that films budget I think it needs valid information to go along with the numbers and amounts given. But if the spin off article was only a list, for example, of crew and talent th only real validation you should need is whatever is in the main article.(or a list of the films credits) The problem is unless you break it down per topic we will run into the issue we already have, and a main reason for these discussions.Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: Within reason. Id est, reasonable spinoff articles should be able to rely on content from the main article to a reasonable extent.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: The current proposal is too broad. Spin-offs can easily be non-notable. The test still needs to be made, but the criteria may be relaxed somewhat. Ingolfson (talk) 07:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: I agree that spin out sections should be treated no different to a section in the main article, however, the later claim of "then its sub-articles do not need reliable third-party sources to qualify for inclusion" does not follow. Even if an article as a whole may be notable, we still remove content from articles on the grounds that it may be non-notable. Thus the way it is worded, it seems to give extra protection to a spin out article, compared with the same content in the main article. Mdwh (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: Where would it stop?? One article would provide the reference and you would have 100 articles with there verifiability based on that single article. I liked SharkD idea of ALL sub articles, that are NOT REFERENCEDbeing seperated by a slash. Jez ☎ ✉ ✍ 09:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral because this is too broad either way. Spin-offs are capable of being well written and well sourced with non-independent sources. In these cases I would say that it is acceptable to have a spin-off that doesn't show independent notability to normal standards. However it is common for spin-offs to be expanded with original research, and once this OR has been shrunk down to a decent size it is possible to merge back into the parent article. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, way too broad. For reasonable spinouts this may be fine, but I can think of many unreasonable situations. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Proposal A.1.2 Spin-out articles are treated as sections of a larger work edit

Proposal: Sub-articles of a notable parent topic are permissible when the same content could realistically be expected to appear in the parent topic's article, if length and structure were not an issue (i.e. the content is relevant to the notable topic, verifiable, and encyclopedic - not original research, speculative, instructional, or indiscriminate).

Rationale: Long standing guidelines like WP:SS, and principles like Wiki is not paper, encourage comprehensive encyclopedic treatment of articles. When acceptable content becomes unmanageable in one article, deleting that encyclopedic information should not be Wikipedia's reaction. Rather, the content should be split apart across multiple articles. Sometimes this can create sub-articles that are on topics not inherently notable (receiving significant coverage in a third party source). This proposal allows the good information to remain on Wikipedia while discouraging an "inherited" mentality. A neighbor's dog is not suddenly notable, nor deserves an article, because both Dog, Poodle, and Earth are notable. Content on the neighbor's dog would never pass the litmus test of being in those articles in the first place.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Support A.1.2 edit

While I wish that, were viewpoints being added to the RFC in part due to my complaints about the lack of correspondence between them and views actually proposed, someone might run wording by the people proposing them, I, generally speaking, support this approach, provided it is coupled with the development of a system to adequately manage sub-articles from both a technical and editorial standpoint. I should be open, I'm working on developing a proposal along these lines at User:Phil Sandifer/Branching. One aspect, to address Nifboy and Protonk's concerns, would be that sub-articles shouldn't be AfDed - consensus to merge should be found on the talk pages of the articles. I'm still working to address Kww's concerns, but currently lean towards all or some proposals to branch articles going through a "Branching proposals" page to get community support before the branching begins. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - while I wholeheartedly support a holistic approach, I share Protonk's concerns about how it would play out at AfD. Nifboy (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Somewhere in this direction is the answer. Not sure how to implement it, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support While not perfect, somewhere along this line lies the logical path. --Speedevil (talk) 12:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sometimes a sub-article exists for technical reasons. This is not a free pass for anything and everything, so guidance is needed.. It's just really tricky to nail down. -- Ned Scott 03:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
support While there may be limits to this, as long as there are no problems with original research this is more or less what we should do. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my argument above; we should not be disincentivizing people to create reasonable-length articles. --R27182818 (talk) 02:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support parallels my thoughts on aritcle length etc. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems a reasonable approach, albeit no different to current policy. Greg Locock (talk) 04:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support the split off article should be considered as part of the parent article and treated as if it were as subsection of that article. Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think spinouts should be considered notable as long as their main article is notable (of course), as long as they have an obvious main/spinout relation to the parent article (for example if the spinout is linked via a {{main|*****}}-tag from a section in the parent article), and as long as they have enough reliable sources to conform completely with WP:V.·Maunus·ƛ· 04:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the same reasons I gave for A.1. Spin-off articles are created because Wiki standards frown upon super-long articles, so topics are routinely split off so that they may be covered in more detail. 23skidoo (talk) 05:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Someone once described Wikipedia as an onion. You can keep peeling away to find more detailed information. I like that image -- wish I could remember who came up with it! Zagalejo^^^ 05:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - No change required We do this already at United States and most country articles with no apparent issues. The status quo is fine, though - No new policies needed. The current notability guidelines and WP:NOT already help prevent the downside of this, where the topics that get split are titled and focused in a manner that leads to "stuff made up one day" accusations. MrZaius^talk 05:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support In my mind, the only test for inclusion to Wikipedia should be "Can a Reliable Source be found to back up the article." I am therefore in favor of lowering notability requirements in any way possible. --Falcorian ^(talk) 05:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but only with the establishment of defined limits. Specifically, I support that these articles be allowed under the purview of a purely descriptive guideline (i.e. not wholly reliant on notability) in which we analyze what classes of "spin-out" page do and do not have consensus by looking at AfD precedent. It's not the ideal solution, but as shown by other guidelines such as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) it can be made to work when the writing of a normal, principle-based guideline fails. --erachima talk 07:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I don't think we should limit the amount of text that can be written about a topic. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 07:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - this proposal offers the right level of control over the content of spin-off articles. Let's face it, you shouldn't be able to create a spin-off article with no reliable sources at all - a paragraph in a main article shouldn't be allowed to stand on such a basis. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Per WP:SS and WP:NOTPAPER. Wikipedia articles are in practice constrained to less than 20 printed pages or so, but yet much more than that can be written about many topics. If a topic has had 800-page books published about it, we can aim for more than 20 pages! Yet any random 20-page slice of a book might not look "notable" (i.e., publishable) when taken out of context of the larger work. The same goes for our subarticles and lists. --Itub (talk) 09:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support The perfect solution - separates the issue of notability from format choice. SP-KP (talk) 09:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is by far the most sensible approach. It ensures that the information WP contains is encyclopaedic without limiting the amount of information we publish. Waggers (talk) 09:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This allows lists like "Notable people who live in such and such place" which can get very long for populous places. Binksternet (talk) 10:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This allows for natural expansion without restricting coverage or distorting an article due to over large subsections. A re-word of caveat such that articles falling under this criteria should have to pass scrutiny under NPOV closely so as to avoid POV forks, and that significant good sourcing is present so support the content. --Nate 14 81 10:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems a most sensible approach and in my experience the most in line with general historical practices on Wikipedia. older ≠ wiser 11:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the same reason as A.1. Spin out articles should only exist when the main topic has so much content that it spills into a second article because of length. So the main article should be notable enough to have plenty of reliable sources, which means that there should be enough sources to adequately source the spinout. I can't imagine a scenario where there theoretically isn't enough reliable sources for the spinout. If the content is off-topic it should be removed and spinout reconsidered. Royal broil 12:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support This already goes on, opposing this proposal means supporting overly long articles or supporting the deletion of information.--EchetusXe (talk) 12:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support As stated above by the many editors.. I won't restate. Morphh ^(talk) 13:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - Wikipedia is not paper, but that's not the only reason. Some topics can only receive sufficient coverage on Wikipedia if they are split into many articles. There's no reason to trim a broad topic just to satisfy WP:SS if the trimmed version offers clearly insufficient coverage. Wikipedia is the sum of all human knowledge, and not an online version of Britannica. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support what Hockey^ said. Wikipedia's main limitation is in presentation of information, not the actual volume of information.--Marhawkman (talk) 13:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong suppory Coming a little late to the party I think, and most of the good protestations have already been taken. As a means to keep large topics from becoming uselessly obese articles, this is only sensible. Ford MF (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. This is very well-put. It is an embarrassment to the project that there is no WP:COMPREHENSIVE; this is one step towards fulfilling that unfortunately neglected goal. This proposal serves the needs of Wikipedia's non-regular-editor users far better than current practice, because it allows for manageable expansion of content such that any detailed or specialized topic may be covered robustly. Chubbles (talk) 15:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as intrinsically expected under current consensus. Jclemens (talk) 15:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is the way that makes best sense and is/will be most obvious and transparent to the average editor. Mfield (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support On balance ok. Davewild (talk) 16:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Not a fan of the WP:SIZE policy. Encyclopedic content should be retained in some form and this suggestion works for me. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support If reliable sources exist, then sub topics should exist even if the topic itself would not support an independent article. --Trödel 17:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support The whole concept of notability guidelines is hurting Wikipedia, not helping it. Hans Persson (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support with most of my comments from A.1.1 still being valid. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I like the idea of being able to have sub-articles for main articles that are too long; however, I don't like the "inherited" aspect of option 1. —the_ed 17— 18:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support As long as we are saying that "A subarticle's requirement for notability still exists, but is held to a lower standard as long as the primary article is verifiable and sourced" then I would agree that a somewhat lower standard is fine. Having NO sources would not be. If properly done, would be a benefit to the encyclopedia, making many articles more readable, while allowing you to drill down on specific facts. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Making a marked designation between a page and an article, such that an article can span multiple pages allows WP:NNC to be supported without concern of WP:SIZE. -Verdatum (talk) 21:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support so long as the main article is referenced below the title - this allows a spot for overeffusive detail that would otherwise clutter the main article, but may, in some instances, be valuable to some users. One must distinguish between the two scopes of 1) verifiable facts and 2) notability of subject. Subarticles do valuable service to main articles and should exist with 1) even though 2) may be lacking. István (talk) 21:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support I have encountered many such cases. Nergaal (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is how I have understood spinout articles all along.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support; a good formulation of the concept that notability shouldn't prevent us from organizing our content in the most effective way possible. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Length in particular is a big problem for me, because my computer takes too long to load and edit very long articles. Wiki is not paper. ~A H 1^(TCU) 01:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though I see the potential for abuse. Specific policies should be referenced to define what is encyclopedic so that sub-articles are not held to a lower standard than the main article. Wronkiew (talk) 02:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better suggestion. Pretty much the same argument as Pharmboy. -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master (talk) 02:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - this is how it should always be. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support This seems like a reasonable compromise. As Pharmboy observed, this means spin-out articles still have some standard of notability, but the standard is more flexible. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 03:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I've had issues defending places and ONEVENT criteria. By citing this clause, it would help contain needless merge issues when notability of a person despite ONEVENT claims (eg Manu Sharma) is clearly established. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is critically important that Wikipedia policies allow the creation of spin-offs in order to prevent articles from becoming unduly large. It is also inevitable that some spin-offs will be lack stand-alone notability, but are important elements of the whole parent article. In order to foster the orderly splitting of large articles, it must be possible for some split-offs to exist that would not be individually notable. (For example, some of the fictional characters in Doonesbury probably are not notable by themselves, but others are. The quantity of content that ought to be included in articles about the characters is too large for a single article covering all Doonesbury characters. In order to allow/foster the maintenance of articles about particularly important characters, it becomes necessary to have articles about each of the individual characters.) However, the splitting of an article should not be allowed to justify long articles about non-notable topics. Accordingly, it is reasonable to judge the notability and scope of split-off articles on the basis of the question "Would this content be appropriate in a subsection of the parent article, if there were no practical constraints on article length?"--Orlady (talk) 14:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Spin-offs are sometimes necessary to maintain a comprehensive treatment of a matter without the page length skyrocketing. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 15:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support from the standpoint that anything that helps retain subjects that are only referenced via New/Alternative Media sources can only help improve the depth of the Wiki. BcRIPster (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Orlady's well-reasoned argument.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree Orlady's argument states it very well (D.c.camero (talk) 06:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Support Support as per Orlady. Ingolfson (talk) 07:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Technopat (talk) 11:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Material in a spin off article should be treated to the same standard as material in a main article. This version avoids the poor wording of A.1, which could imply that spin off articles are treated less strictly than the same material in the main article (see my comment above). Mdwh (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I believe this is what we do already. At any rate, it's how I have been dealing with subpages. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 17:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support We should encourage articles to be small because this suits our online readership, especially those using mobile devices. They are also easier to create and edit. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support While not perfect and still liable to abuse, this seems like the best path. It is very important that this policy is not an invitation to original research. While I question a lot of content I find in wikipedia, I think erring on the liberal side regarding notability is probably the right path. philosofool (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support As someone who errs on the side of tagging {{notability}}, it seems to me that content is generally notable if it is (actually or in spirit) the target of a "see main article:" in the notable parent. I would tend to tag for merge instead of deletion if the subpage's content were relevant but not quite notable enough for its own main article. chrylis (talk) 05:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Policy rightly states that notability need not be established for every detail of a particular topic to be included in Wikipedia. Good article design dictates that long articles should be broken up into sub-articles as appropriate. Information should not suddenly go from being proper encyclopedic material to verbotten knowledge simply because of geography. If a topic is established to be notable then it is notable... regardless of how the information about it is organized. The 'notability' guidelines have been mis-used to limit 'depth of coverage' on clearly notable topics. This removal of information we know (and can now demonstrate through page traffic statistics) people want access to is the very opposite of what the 'notability' guidelines are supposed to be about. --CBD 10:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Sounds reasonable without being too permissive or too restrictive. --Willscrlt (Talk) 16:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Agreed, sounds very reasonable and gives us a decent guideline. However, this will be open to interpretation which can be abused, but I can live with that. Timmccloud (talk) 19:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Reasonable, big-picture approach. Bearian (talk) 20:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It does risk a glut of niche pages that have no use, but still, I think this is the best approach. It's simple and doesn't make the process any more obtuse, but it's still constructive. -D (talk) 23:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - sort of I think - the wording is a bit confusing If the content is notable and encyclopedic enough then it makes no difference whether it is in the main article, a section, or a sub article. But what is a sub article anyway? It is just a main article about a narrower topic? Peet Ern (talk) 07:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is reasonable. As long as everything is encyclopedic and sourced, it doesn't really matter whether it's a standalone article or just a section. GregorB (talk) 09:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't see how this is different from 1.1 Grue 17:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support as per Orlady --Lova Falk (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If the content meets the quality standards mentioned in the proposal then the parent article's assertion of notability should be taken into consideration. It's worth mentioning again that if the article only has bulk due to OR and is unverifiable then it doesn't get a free pass as a spin-off. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per my statement in the previous section. AfD hero (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. But we would need to get much more serious about deleting unverifiable information and articles. Shinobu (talk) 12:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A.1.2 edit

Oppose: Still appears intended to permit entire articles to exist that are sourced only by primary sources, so long as there are third-party sources for the parent. Every article, even those designated a sub-article, has to stand on its own feet in terms of notability, and rely on independent, third-party sources. I'm willing to tolerate some limited lists, but this opens the door for becoming a TV Guide on steroids combined with a video game and anime trivia guide.Kww (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would your opposition stand if a system for managing sub-pages (I prefer the term to sub-articles, since the whole point is that the sub-article is not an article) were developed such that they could be efficiently managed from both a technical and editorial standpoint? If so, what would you consider to be essential aspects of that system? (And I am not looking for the answer "each sub-article should prove notability," which is just denying the basic premise of reconceptualizing what we consider an article to be. I'm looking for "What do you consider necessary to prevent an article from becoming a trivia guide? Put another way, what prevents any given article on any given topic from becoming a trivia guide internally without creating spin-off articles? Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reliance on secondary sources is the primary tool for prevent this kind of unwelcome expansion. If third-party sources have considered an element to be notable, then it usually isn't a problem to include, so long as those third-party sources aren't trivia guides themselves. That's one of the reasons why I favor interpreting "relies on third-party sources" as meaning that I should be able to find most of the information in an article in third-party sources, with primary sources used only to provide such information as necessary to make it the information derived from third-party sources comprehensible. We went down this path with Gunsmoke before: if we wound up in the end with 2 pages of critique of Gunsmoke as a series and 500 sub-articles, one per episode, with a plot summary and cast list and a picture, that resulting 502 page article doesn't rely on third-party sources: it overwhelms the third-party material with first-party. I actually wouldn't oppose your sub-article system so strongly if I didn't know that that 502-page article was your goal.

I also consider it important to not view sources designed to be exhaustive as conveying notability. That's why I oppose using atlases, censuses, and Complete Guide to Ballpeen Hammer 70000 type books as demonstrating notability. Once the work has being exhaustive as its guide, it becomes useless for judging the relative importance of things.

In short, if an article is structured around presenting information found in multiple, independent sources, while preserving the relative prominence of that information as found in those sources, trivia problems become, well, trivial. If an article is structured around multiple editors' view of the original source material with no overarching guidance as to importance, trivia problems become insurmountable.Kww (talk) 00:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I'm asking, though - I'm asking what tools and methods you would see as necessary to simultaneously satisfy WP:NOT#PLOT's demand that we offer a concise plot summary as part of our larger coverage (remembering that concise means brief but comprehensive) while also maintaining appropriate article balance. Put another way, our coverage of fictional works demands concise plot summaries - what tools do you see as necessary to keep those plot summaries in balance with the rest of the coverage? Pretend that we never split articles - that there were no size limits, and a 5 MB article on a work of fiction was considered perfectly acceptable in theory. How would you want to control the balance of that article? What would you see as necessary to do it? Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would enforce the concept that the total size of plot summaries must be well under half of the aggregate size of the article, with some wiggle room around simple word count as a measure. If that means emphasising the "brief" aspect of concise while sacrificing the "complete" aspect of concise, that doesn't bother me. I honestly don't believe that 99% of individual episodes warrant mention in an encylopedia, much less a plot summary, and I think that looking for information in truly independent sources bears that out. Look how much of the articles we have on episodes today are derived from commentary tracks on DVDs, and those don't count as independent third-party sources at all. Aside from fan-sites, no independent source finds detailed plot summaries to be a necessity. Series tend to be notable, episodes not so much, and there is generally no reason to provide a plot summary of individual episodes to discuss a series.Kww (talk) 01:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I point out that articles can reach good article status with 42% of the article being plot/character info, suggesting that an enforced "well under half" rule is probably too high a bar for the basic question of inclusion (where we ought to set the bar well, well below "good article status"). Which is fine - you're perfectly entitled to the view that we have the bar too low for good articles, and that an article with 42% of the article plot/character info shouldn't have GA status, but the point remains - I think this view is far outside of current practice, and unsupported by current policy. I hope you'll consider working your view up into a full policy proposal so that it can gain consensus or not. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You conveniently neglect that the sub-article version of Gunsmoke would have been 500/502 plot, or roughly 99.6% plot. If you think a 50% guideline is stricter than current consensus, it's still a hell of a lot closer than 99.6%.Kww (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not neglect it - I have not looked at the Gunsmoke articles in any state, and have no opinions whatsoever on their quality now or previously. I agree that 99.6% is clearly an unacceptable number. But without seeing the articles and being more familiar with the available sources for improving them I could not comment on what the best course of action with an article in that state would be. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get too wrapped up in Gunsmoke, it's just an example. Since your plan is to have an article page for every episode of every series ever produced, with the episodes hiding from deletion under the notability of the parent series, the problem is inevitable. Once a series hits 20 episodes or so, the resulting aggregate article is going to be dominated by those plot summaries. Once a series has been running for five or six years, the series article is reduced to a coatrack for the plot summaries. If you want leeway to view aggregate articles as one article for notability purposes, you have to view the article that way under the other polices as well. Taking your example of Buffy, there are 144 episodes. What are you going to write about the series that is going to be substantially larger than 144 plot summaries? And why? Sure, I laughed when Oz was fascinated by the eyes of the cheerleading award in Season 3, because I remembered that Amy's mother's soul got trapped in the statue back in the first episode. Is documenting this kind of connection between episodes really the goal of an encyclopedia? Or is it the responsibility of a Buffy trivia guide?Kww (talk) 13:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not my plan, actually. My plan is to have concise coverage of the plot of any fictional work that we consider notable, and to solve the problem of splitting it into the 60k chunks we call "articles" once we see what that coverage consists of. Episodes are a pretty good way of doing that for some shows, but not for all shows. Is Buffy likely to hit the 50% line? It'll be tough. Easier for Buffy than for some shows, because of the depth of academic response, but still tough. But, as I've shown looking at good and featured articles, I don't think your 50% line is well-supported by policy. And I think it runs against the general spirit of the project. For the vast majority of fiction, you're absolutely right - plot summary shouldn't be 50% of the article. But for extremely long serialized works you run into a problem where a work with equal cultural impact to a major motion picture has a wildly, wildly more complex plot. I'm uncomfortable with the attitude that a hard numeric rule should hold supremacy over a small subset of our 2.5 million articles has a big chunk of information necessary to encyclopedic understanding of the topic but best understood via primary sources. Situations like that seem to me to be why we have IAR - because a hard and fast rule - especially one interpreted as a simple pass/fail number - is unlikely to apply correctly to 2.5 million articles. I think that the peculiarity of extended serialization is a clear special case where we either have to accept that the general rule doesn't apply well here, or we have to decide that this category of topics gets less comprehensive coverage than topics of comparable notability. For me, the choice to discard the general rules is transparent. But I don't want to discard them in such a way as to allow an endless flood of fancruft. The point isn't that our content rules don't apply to fictional articles - it's that extended serial fiction poses one very specific problem in providing comprehensive coverage, where one aspect - plot - often takes much more space to explain than it does in other articles. Which is why I want a solution that starts from the question "what would comprehensive coverage of this topic consist of," then develops that coverage, then solves the problem of article splitting last, not first. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Kww, I think a good way to view the argument is this: let's say we have an article (aggregate or otherwise) on a notable series, Fooey. Fooey became very popular while still in it's first season, but only had 8 episodes. The 3rd party commentary on this great fictional work easily outpaced the two-paragraphs or so given to each episode, satisfying a 51/49 majority. The summaries are well-written, don't contain speculation/excessive detail/OR. The second season of Fooey is just as popular, however because the show's been out now for a couple years, less press exists, however more is likely to come should this prove long-running (case in point, Buffy). This goes on for 5 years - oops we've run over the 51/49 majority line. What your argument seems to be is that in order to preserve this split, we should cut out information that before, was alright to have. I think Phil and others believe that since this info was good in the first place we shouldn't remove it - making the article patently less informative - in order to satisfy an arbitrary limit. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 13:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Basically, this is moving in the right direction. However, I do not think that setting up a general principle like this one for spin-articles is a good idea. As a default position, I would say that a spin-out article needs to be able to stand on its own as if the parent article did not exist. In most cases this means that significant non-primary source coverage needs to be available. One should be able to perform a mental experiment of sorts: would it be possible to establish notability of the subject of a spin-article (sources, depth of coverage, etc, whatever is required by the applicable SNGs) if the parent article was not there? This does not necessarily mean that there always needs to be sufficient coverage of the spin-article subject that is independent from the parent subject (although in many cases I would want to see that). Things of this nature need to be worked out by specific SNGs that can properly take into account significant differences between various topics and, as necessary, set up specific exceptions and exemptions. I do think there may need to be exceptions to the "default position" stated above and that they need to be defined by relevant SNGs. I personally have little interest in fiction-related articles and am quite indifferent on the topic of episodes and characters that seems to be so controversial here. I do accept that it would be fine for a relevant SNG (presumably WP:FICT) to simply define some exceptions and declare that certain (well defined) elements of fiction are deemed notable once some specific WP:V requirements are met. I do not object to that sort of thing being done on a case-by-case basis in individual SNGs (in fact it is necessary to do this with some non-spin-out topics as well). But setting up a general principle like A.1.2 applicable to all topics everywhere is too inclusive for my taste and would, in my opinion, be a mistake. Nsk92 (talk) 14:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
genereally speaking, can you give a non-fiction example of why this could be disatrous? -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 13:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If something can "realistically be expected to appear in the parent topic's article", then it can certainly be expected to be attributable to reliable, secondary sources, thus proving notability on its own. If we amass material from, say, primary sources, so that it does no longer fit into the (technical) limits of a Wikipedia article, the way to go should be shortening and summarization, not splitting. --B. Wolterding (talk) 19:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the target maximum size for an article is 60k, this puts a very, very sharp limit on the scope of plot summaries that effectively means we abandon plot summaries for long, serialized works. More broadly, I don't see the logic for making a technical limit (60k) become an editorial limit (depth of coverage). Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
B. Wolterding, other existing guidelines appear to disagree with you, specifically, WP:SS, but also the spirit of WP:NOTPAPER. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 13:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to point out that Notability doesn't apply to content. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 19:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A retread of the "Every spin-out is notable". I doubt this "Does it belong in the parent article?" approach will work in practice. I have found in AfD that some people want every last detail in Wikipedia. Taking a "Wiki is not paper, so I can write as much as I want" approach to fiction also introduces copyright problems. There is a market for Star Trek episode summaries, Star Wars vehicle statistics, and other such fancruft. Without independent sources, it becomes harder to claim fair use. --Phirazo (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal does not seem to me to be supporting copyvio. And yes, the market exists for Star Trek, Star Wars, Buffy... but what about non-genre shows? I mean, clearly we need controls on a scheme like this, but I really don't see why conrtols would be so hard to develop here, but so easy for AfD, which is clearly having tremendous trouble handling fiction deletion as well. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by "genre", but if you mean sci-fi, there is enough of a market for Seinfeld trivia for the producers of Seinfeld to sue the publishers of a Seinfeld trivia book. Merely parroting the plot of any fictional work, regardless of the genre, is a copyright violation. There needs to be critical analysis. This can come from two places: secondary sources, or the editors' own opinions. The latter is original research. --Phirazo (talk) 03:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Castle Rock vs. Carol is a poor example - we are not for profit, have educational, not entertainment purpose, do contextualize the information with real-world information. We do include production, transmission, and casting information. We draw from DVD commentaries, reviews, interviews, and whatever else we can have. We are, simply put, not parroting the plot, but providing plot as contextual background for the discussion of a fictional work. So long as we work generally instead of providing excessive and trivial detail, and provide overall context I see no reason why we'd fall afoul of it. The basis for comparison is marginal at best. A concise summary (as mandated by WP:NOT#PLOT, and as opposed to a focus on trivial detail) contextualized as part of overall coverage of the cultural phenomenon (as opposed to focusing wholly on the fictional world as the SAT did) and in the realm of criticism and academic commentary (which we are, and which Castle Rock vs. Carol specifically noted as areas where the fair use would not weigh towards the copyright holder) is, by all appearances, fine. We ought not let copyright paranoia based on no serious legal insights by an actual lawyer get in the way of our basic mission of providing encyclopedic coverage of information. The fact of the matter is, a concise but thorough plot summary is part of that for works of fiction. We need to be careful about copyright concerns, but there's a mile between careful and paranoid. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add a point here: about 4 months ago a statement from WP's lawyer, Mike Godwin, basically stated that there's no reason to bring up any fears of copyright due to too much plot, thus copyright concerns should not be a factor; that's not to say to concern how plot summaries, which are derivative works and thus are non-free material, interact with WP's "free content" mission, and why we should strive to keep plot information to what is necessary in conjunction with appropriate commentary and additional information to justify its use. --MASEM 04:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
thanks Masem... this approach is meant to reinforce the difference between relevant details, and indiscriminate information. When I see an article that lists every move Pikachu (sick of Star Wars refs) can learn, you might say it's bad because it's "cruft", or "too much plot". But I see indiscriminate information. People can still be shot down at AFD for excessive detail, which is a much better argument than using inflammatory words like "fancruft". As for your fair-use worries, that gets reduced to us simply having any encyclopedic coverage on a notable fictional topic being at-risk - because there's a market for it. And besides, we shouldn't do/not do things because of such-and-such law, that's why Wikipedia has lawyers. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 13:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that anything's at risk (legally) due to non-free concerns, just in the same vein as we consider non-free images as being appropriate per NFCC - and while contested non-free images stay around while they are discussed and no one is suing WP for having them - we should make sure non-free plot summaries are similarly considered (the NFCC could easily be matched one-for-one in how we consider plot summaries). Part of this is done by WP:NOT#PLOT; a bare plot summary with nothing else to support is an unjustified non-free media and should be deleted or, better yet, shortened and amended with real-world context as to justify the need to include non-free media and to better achieve the free content portion of the mission. But, definitely, until we get a warning from Mike Godwin or the Foundation, we are free to develop the guidelines without concern of any possible legal recourse at this time. We just need to be fully aware of WP's mission and make sure we stay true to it. --MASEM 14:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of your point :) I was trying to respond to 2 parties at once. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 19:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Phirazo that this proposal is a virtual rehash of "Every spin-out is notable", which I fundamentally oppose on the grounds that notability cannot be inherited/presumed/acknowledged in the absence of reliable secondary sources. Every article and spin-out must be able to stand on its own feet when it comes to GNG, otherwise we are giving sub-articles special treatment, despite the fact there is little or no difference between them and ordinary articles. There is a subtle difference with this proposal and A.1, namely that a spin-outs would be allowed if "the same content could realistically be expected to appear in the parent topic's article", but it seems to me that only so called "expert opinion" can make this judgement call, as there are currently no agreed rules or mechanism to identify when or where notability could be inherited/presumed/acknowledged in this way. It seems to me that if every article and sub-article cites reliable secondary sources about their subject matter, then every editor can make merger or deletion decisions without "expert" assistance when it comes to dealing with duplicate articles or content forks, examples of which are The Terminator, Terminator (character), Terminator (character concept) and Terminator (franchise). --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am struggling to figure out how, if expert opinion would be needed to figure out if content could be expected to appear in the parent article, we are capable of writing articles at all. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've mentioned this split very often, for all intents and purposes, the character concept and franchise pages are "Lists" without using the word exactly. The former listing the robot characters, the latter listing fictional works, if renaming them as lists would make them better, than go ahead. And same goes with other "content forks." That information can likely be merged or (like in this example) be taken care of with other non-GNG guidelines. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 13:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - same again - effective notability guidelines are necessary to prevent cruft. PhilKnight (talk) 11:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - this is still just 'all articles are exempt from WP:N' in disguise. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I actually find that assertion rather superficial. This proposal reinforces verifiable, relevant, encyclopedic information where the other one did not. This effectively prevents several types of garbage articles from being created. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 19:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose with a "but". As others have noted, this is going more into the right direction than proposal A.1.1., but it unfortunately leaves the definition of relevance and encyclopedicness to fanboy opinion again. E.g. I confirm User:Protonk's observations about the discrepancies of Doctor Who versus Warhammer 40k articles when AfDs and mergers come up for crappy spinouts. If a spinout article cannot prove its relevance and encyclopedicness outside a main article directly through significant third-party sources, or non-trivial and reliable real-world info in the case of fiction (I am talking at least strong C-class quality here), there simply is no reason to have a spinout article (I am excluding lists in this argument). If WP:NOT#PLOT was as well-respected as WP:GAMEGUIDE to determine unencyclopedicness at the core, I'd show more willingness to adopt a proposal along this line here. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the core diff between GAMEGUIDE and PLOT is that one is explicitly forbidden, while the other is explictly allowed. We are then left to our own devices to figure out what the "right amount" is. But then you don't feel that we can still keep articles under control with WP:V, WP:IINFO and other content guidelines/policies? -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 19:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This blanket policy is too wide to be applicable in all cases. NVO (talk) 12:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
as in... -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 19:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: My reasons are virtually the same as opposing 1.1: this would open the floodgates to a lot of non-notable and verifiable sections. Treating sections as articles and articles as sections solves nothing, and perhaps makes the problem worse. Yes it's easier to delete a poorly written section than it is to delete a poorly written article. But then it's also easier to bring it back. I think this would create a lot more edit warring, as opposed to the finality that comes from an AFD for an entire article. Keeping all articles to a specific WP:SIZE has a way of enforcing WP:UNDUE and WP:NNC that we don't over-cover certain topics. If someone writes a section with lots of appropriate sources, of course it's notable, and of course it belongs in Wikipedia with its own large article. But if someone writes a gigantic section with zero appropriate sources, why should we offer it some vague umbrella of protection because it's related to some other topic? Once again, WP:AVOIDSPLIT combined with WP:SIZE is highly important to keep an appropriate quantity and quality of coverage for Wikipedia. I'd be open to making specific exceptions for specific kinds of articles, but this is a mess. It's a technical change that doesn't fix "notability is inherited", and arguably may even make it worse. Randomran (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this proposal is a sugar-coated version of 1.1. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because this blanket statement could lead to possible Weight problems, especially with BLPs. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my opposal to the first case. Themfromspace (talk) 02:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The wording here is unclear but nonetheless, either it is asking for allowing sub-articles to not meet WP:V,WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR, which is a no-go, or it is needless instruction creep. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I was almost behind this one until I read the part of the rationale that says "Sometimes this can create sub-articles that are on topics not inherently notable (receiving significant coverage in a third party source)." Sorry, no. "Sub-articles" are articles too, and are subject to exactly the same proof-of-notability requirements as every other article. —An gr 06:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Angr. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a thin edge of the wedge approach. IMO all articles need to meet the same criteria, regardless. Nick Thorne ^talk 08:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This has the same problems as the previous suggestion. --Blowdart | ^talk 10:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Jepp, nicer wording, but really no different from 1.1.Yobmod (talk) 10:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Similar to 1.1, it encourages unsourced spin-offs to appear. --:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 11:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per Gavin.collins. Stifle (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I actually agree with this in theory, but I feel that if made a policy or guideline it would open the door to tons of misinterpretation and wikilawyering. At best, this is a common-sense (but unneccessay) restatement of existing policy/practice. At worst, it's a disruptive wikilawyer's wet dream. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Much the same as 1.1 really. Sandifer's commentary simply makes me more convinced that this would result in yet more amateur[ish] exegesis. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Opppose - THis is virtually the same thing as the first proposal, which is also fundamentally flawed. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Same reasons as for the first proposal: Part of the decision process to break out a section of a parent article into a stand alone article should be the notability of the topic. If the topic does not meet notability requirements but is too large for the parent article, that might be an indication that the section itself needs trimming. SilkTork *^YES! 15:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, almost identical to previous proposal. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If there is enough information on a subject in sources outside of Wikipedia to allow a subsection of an article to become large enough to merit its own article, then notability is already established. If the sources don't exist, then the subsection is simply filled with speculation and personal analysis, and should not be that long in the first place. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seems the same as the first proposal. Per above. --Banime (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Banime, Angr, Kww. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, although I don't agree it's identical to A.1. Concur with KWW and Jayron32, among others. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This sounds reasonable, but it still leaves too many doors open for the pop cruft pushers. If we were only dealing with reasonable encyclopedists, it would be different. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per many of the above. Just because a topic is notable does not mean any section on its own would be notable. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose same rational as my comment for A1 above.--Salix (talk): 19:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose same reason as my comment for A1 above. Every article would have to be independently notable.-- Alexf⁴² 21:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, still not a well-formed proposal. Basically this needs to become a version of "not indisciminate" that really gets to the point. It is not true that if one example is good, 20 examples would be justified; nor that if one quote from a historian is good, a quote farm article would be good. And so on. We would still need the ideas "this is for Wikibooks, this is for Wikiquote or Wikisource, this is for Wikia". In fact encyclopedias have always been selective, and we should also note that following academic sources in formulating topics is a strength of our current approach, rather than a weakness. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. A spin-off article is an article. Having two sets of standards for the same thing (article) is a recipe for disaster. --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 21:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I agree that the wording "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" sounds too strong, making apparently impossible that a sub-topic is inherently notable. But on reading the expanded definitions of words at WP:N, I understand that the spirit of that rule is not that strict, and it is reasonable to require that from any nontrivial article, spin-out or not. Maybe the wording should be made less drastic, but I don't think there should be any difference between main and spin-out articles (except in the case of trivial lists; see my support vote for A.4). -- A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ! !  23:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose For the same reason as for my opposition to proposal A1. "when the same content could realistically be expected to appear in the parent topic's article" presents a hypothetical that would invite abuse. No, drop proposal A1.2. -- 69.183.102.174 (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too openly worded, notability isnt/shouldnt be inherited. Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia not a tabloid newspaper. We dont need articles on every one of Britney's boy friends nor do we need to chase a pregenant actress down the street to get a photo for an article on her pregenancy. This is about Wikipedias credability and reducing the verifiability of information isnt going to do that. Gnan garra 01:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm with Randomran. Iterator12n ^Talk 01:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's really proposal A.1 in sheep's clothing. --John Nagle (talk) 06:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is an attempt to game the system using WP:SS as a loophole to avoid WP:N, rather than attempting to use the two in conjunction. Jay32183 (talk) 09:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If the section is large enough to be spun out into its own article, then it should already be well-sourced enough to meet notability requirements on its own. If it isn't, then it should be pruned down to a more manageable size, not spun out.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 12:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - same reason as A.1. ITAQALLAH 14:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A3 is a better formulation. VG ☎ 15:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to oppose oppose. This statement is essentially vacuous, as notability concerns a topic not an article, and it makes no difference whether the material is covered in a section or an article as to whether the topic is notable or not. The idea that certain types of articles only need to demonstrate their notability as if they were sections in another article makes approximately zero sense, unless it is simply an excuse for not providing a reliable secondary source which refers to the topic. The latter, is, of course, in violation of WP:V. Furthermore, this proposal concerns the extremely ill-defined notion of a "spin-out" and the even more unhelpful term "subarticle". Is History of biology a spinout of biology, history of science, both, or neither? Can it defer its demonstration of notability to either of these articles - certainly not! Geometry guy 15:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - If an article is getting too large or there is a section of an article which is being considered for a spin-out, it should also be considered for deletion, "trimming the fat" as it were. If notability for that section can be asserted, a spin-out is appropriate. If not, the information should be better-summarized and specific, trivial details should be removed. — X S G 18:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – nothing wrong with splitting an article, each spin-off should include third party sources establishing the notability of the subject. . . dave souza, talk 18:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. In practice this would be no different than option A.1. What is the measure of indiscriminateness? ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Worse than the first option. Why would we want a whole class of "sub-articles" that are somehow less important and thus less in need of notablity that "real" articles? Every article needs to be notable on its own. maxsch (talk) 02:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This doesn't seem to be a major change from the current arrangements, but I don't see anything wrong with the principle that each and every topic of an article must be notable in isolation. If something is only notable in relation to something else, then writing so much about it that it is too long for the main article probably violates WP:UNDUE and shouldn't be encouraged. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If the subjects of such spin-offs don't have enough RS to be notable in their own right, it's unlikely that they should have been in the parent article in the first place. This kind of spin-off also invites padding-out. -- Philcha (talk) 10:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, better than A.1.1, but still problematic, in that it would be quite easy to manipulate and abuse to make sure that articles are kept on the flimsiest of notability pretexts. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose. Unfortunately this still opens the door to cruftsmanship. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with the sentiments above": this leaves too much room for unencyclopedic cruft. Eusebeus (talk) 13:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Some editors use this as a subterfuge to bypass WP:UNDUE. Thanks, but no thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The article may have got it's evidence from other articles but may be something completely different Woodnot talk
Oppose: Basically a weasely way around the "inherited notability" issue. I could only see this even being a consideration in an article longer than 100K, in which case there should certainly be sections with enough third-party sources to be able to be split into independent articles. A truly comprehensive article will have third-party sources for most of its sections, and therefore this would ideally be a non-issue. If it can't stand alone, it shouldn't be made to stand alone. The reader is not well-served by this approach, as these subjects would be presented independently of the "parent" topic which provides the necessary context. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This assumes inherent (or inherited) notability, and unfortunately editing patterns are such where once an article has been spun out, it needs to be dealt with separately as something that stands on its own. If that cannot happen, the article should not be spun out. MSJapan (talk) 02:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No practical difference between this and proposal A1, which, as was pointed out earlier, is insane. HiDrNick! 12:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose.The intent seems to be to allow something not currently viewed as notable. If indeed the spin-off met all the conditions listed, it would be notable under the current rules, but then the argument will be about conditions. No thanks to this end run. Smallbones (talk) 14:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Each article should stand by itself. Don't force the reader to jump back to a Main Article to determine the Notability of the sub-article. Yours in Wiki-dom, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This still leaves the difficulty with trivia and truly made up things. If a sub article is to trivial to have sources, it is unhelpful. True <> encyclopedic.Obina (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Same objection as to the first proposal really. If the sub-article "could reasonably be expected to be included in the main article" then surely the main article's refs support the sub. The sub can have these copied into it (trivial effort required). If the refs do not support what is going in the sub, then it would not have been legitimate to put the material in the main article either. Signing retrospectively SpinningSpark 22:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Each and every article should stand on its own, which means all supporting refs that are found in other "parent" articles, etc need to be duplicated. The possibility of editing of the "parent article" which would remove the refs that made the sub-article sourced just makes this point more persuasive. DDStretch (talk) 22:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. - We don't need to open the floodgates just yet. Spin off's that really need a page are already covered in the current notability guidelines, and being a guideline it allows for exceptions when there is something that deserves an article that doesn't meet the guidelines. Matty (talk) 00:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seems the same as the first one, all articles need to meet the same criteria. BigDunc^Talk 09:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agree with the comment above mine, that there's no meaningful distinction between this option and the previous one. I am strongly in favour of the "Wikipedia is not Paper" policy, and I am firmly of the view that we should give coverage in as-much-depth-as-Wikipedians-are-prepared-to-offer on encyclopedic topics. However, a topic ceases to be appropriate for inclusion at the level of detail where reliable secondary sources cease to exist, and that's where the GNG breaks off, also. AndyJones (talk) 12:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Wikipedia is not paper does not mean anything other than we don't have a size limit. If the content being split off is real world information, then sure that's fine. Unfortunately, that usually is not the case with fiction related articles, where editors seem to think that when they have 20kb of plot prose about a character then that character must need to have its own article. This is not true, nor should it be made so. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral A.1.2 edit

Moved from Oppose This is moving in the right direction, but it leaves us with WAY too much fighting in the trenches. the problem we face with sub-article notability is almost exclusively in the fiction world and it is dealt with in the breech, over and over again, at AfD. Right now we have an easy to interpret general guideline which is obviously a square peg for the round hole of fiction articles. I don't want to replace it with an inchoate instruction which leaves us to argue over "reasonable" and WP:SIZE. We will end up doing the same thing then as we do now. Some fictional topics (Star Wars/Star Trek/Dr. Who) will be vigorously defended and kept regardless of the guidelines. Some fictional topics (Warhammer 40K, video games, anime stuff) will be defended by a small clique of individuals and deleted steadily in accordance with guidelines. Honestly, nominate a Dr. Who article and look at the shitstorm that you reap. Then nominate a 40K article of the same disposition (unsourced for 2 years) and wait for the crickets. Granted, sourcing is possible for most Dr. Who stuff, but you get the point. We need a guideline that offloads that discussion from AfD. AfD needs to be a narrow discussion on the particular merits of an article with regard to the guidelines and policies for inclusion accepted by the community. It should not be a proxy debate for Notability each time. I oppose any policy to change the notability requirements in such a way that the burden of debate is shifted further on to the editors and admins at AfD. Protonk (talk) 01:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I agree with you. As I said in my support, unless we come up with a viable system to handle the expansion of articles from a technical and editorial standpoint, this proposal would be a disaster. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I should rightly move this to neutral, as my opposition is based more on an application sense than a philosophical sense. Protonk (talk) 01:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What would you think of having sub-articles not be AfDable, but rather demand consensus to merge on the talk page of the article? (Which is something we need to work out - what to do with talk pages of sub-articles) And, to balance that, having a Proposals for Branching page where many (if not all) proposals to branch articles would be discussed before being implemented, possibly coupled with a whitelist of branches that are generally acceptable? Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Take a quick look at this Deletion policy proposal. I think that would dovetail nicely with a branching discussion. The proposal went stale after a while but I think the basic idea was sound. I'll take a look at the branching idea in a bit. Protonk (talk) 02:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like that. I think that better instilling an ethic of "deletion is an extreme measure" and "making content easy to access for future use is a good thing" is an important goal. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about it in the opposite direction, an Articles for Merge/Redirect page to get fictional subjects out of the notoriously hostile environment that is AfD, by taking the option for D out (because hiding the history is really a formality and some 90% of these articles have really obvious redirect target). Nifboy (talk) 02:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well that policy (in the end that it eventually resolved to) sort of did that, without creating a new board. Subarticle goes to AfD. The AfD goes the 5 days with the option of merging or moving to a merger discussion. The AfD is closed with a timed, community enforced merger discussion. IF that discussion fails to reach consensus, the article gets deleted. If it does, it is merged. Kinda takes time but most fiction articles that go to AfD aren't really the kinds of articles where an extra 10 days of discussion damages WP. Protonk (talk) 02:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting and compelling rebuttal. And I would love it if half of my AfD discussions weren't tiny notability battles, but I don't think a one-size-fits-all rule system is possible. Even a little. As with obscenity, there is always going to be a degree to which notability is in the eye of the beholder. The GNG are, I think, mostly right on, but they break down in the face of a very large class of articles. For fictional subjects they often fail to adequately separate the wheat from the chaff, plain and simple. The problem is that works of art (which is what we are talking about here) are going to be elusive in nature and subject to wide interpretation. And when dealing with them, codified rule systems aren't going to give you great internal consistency (see also MPAA ratings). It's like trying to formulate a rule to guarantee common sense. Ford MF (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like where this is going. There needs to be something to better define a sub-article. But this is far to open interpretation and will lead to more even problems unless something more specific is came up with. Charles Edward 12:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I would support it if the proposal said that such spin-outs were themselves notable aspects of the parent topic. I'm not sure whether that's implied by or deliberately excluded by the statement. --EEMIV (talk) 21:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - On it's surface, this seems to be a restatement of why we have sub-articles in the first place (when full discussion of some sub-topic would make the parent article overly long, we summarize the the sub-topic in the parent article and create a sub-article to discuss the sub-topic in more detail). However, to fully support the proposal, I think we would have to make it clear that a) the sub-topic does need to be summarized in the main article, and b) the sub-article needs to establish that the sub-topic is notable in and of itself. Blueboar (talk) 14:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I agree with Blueboar (above). For this to work, it must apply only to articles that are summarized in the parent article, and the article must still be sourced and generally notable. However, I think it some ways this proposal is trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Rather than preventing the deletion of relevant subpages (which, if done properly, should be notable enough on their own already), I believe it will only lead to the promotion and increase of non-notable articles, particularly about elements of fiction (television series and movies, in particular). Mr. Absurd (talk) 00:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I think that if we assume good faith in the creation of the spin-out, nearly all spinouts are probably notable; however, even so, a spinout could be on a non-notable aspect of a notable subject: Fidel Castro - notable; Cars driven by Fidel Castro, Exercise habits of Fidel Castro, Fidel Castro's opinions about North Dakota, and List of television shows watched by Fidel Castro, not notable but perhaps interesting... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Proposal A.2: Every spin-out must prove notability edit

Proposal: The notability requirement applies to every article, every time, and sub-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.

Rationale: Our notability guidelines are essential to maintain all of Wikipedia's high standards. An article with zero reliable third-party sources cannot meet our policy on verifiability, which says that "if no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Without reliable third-party sources, an article may also violate other policies about what Wikipedia is not.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Support A.2 edit

Support with the caveat that notability through third-party sources needs not be immediately (time of article creation) but eventually be demonstrated (a week, a month, or on demand). The overuse of primary sources calls for a trim and potential merge per WP:UNDUE, but is not necessarily a sign that a spin-out article should be deleted in its entirety. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support: if over time, a subsection of an article gets too long, then either it is a notable subject in itself, and can get its own article, or it is a case of undue weight on a non notable subtopic and should get trimmed. The only exception I can see is with lists where none of the subsections are notable enough for an article, but the main list gets too long anyway. An example would be a list of episodes which gets split in to season lists. But this should only be done when the number of subsections gets too high, not when the individual subsections get too big. Fram (talk) 12:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Reflects the best current practices, although the specifics of what this means should be worked out in SNGs and elsewhere. I would say that the formulation of A2 is not quite sufficient. One also needs to look at whether the subtopic is sufficiently coherent as a subtopic to be suitable for a stand-alone article and if it has sufficiently wide coverage as a subtopic, and sometimes sufficient independent notability. Some of these issues need to be worked out in SNGs (e.g. WP:MUSIC specifies that band members should demonstrate sufficient independent notability from the band to merit a separate article). Some of these issues probably do not belong in notability guidelines at all but rather in general style guidelines or in other policies (such as WP:BLP1E, issues of content and POV forking, article length, etc). I actually disagree with the caveat mentioned by Sgeureka above. An article needs to be able to survive an AfD at the moment of its creation. That is, the requisite sources proving notability should, at the very least, be producible on demand. This is consistent with the WP:V spirit and requirements. Saying that one may need to wait a month or some undetermined amount of time before the necessary sources may materialize is not sufficient. Nsk92 (talk) 12:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Are we allowed to comment to each other?) Being able to survive AfD is not equivalent with assertion of notability. E.g. the articles of Daniel Jackson and Jack Shephard, created in 2004 and 2005, lacked and still lack any demonstration of (independent) notability (the few bits of real-world info were just added recently), and serious attempts to AfD or merge them would either result in speedy-keeps (without any improvements to the articles) or topic-bans by arbcom. Add-third-party-sources-now-or-die approaches are simply not well developed at en.wiki yet, but the word "eventually" helps us until we get there (de.wiki already has a seven days AfD-!vote option, which I quite like). – sgeureka ^t•c 13:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are allowed to comment on each other's endorsements, I don't see a problem here. What I mean is that an article needs to be able to survive an AfD at the moment of creation and that, if pressed, the article's creator needs to be able to establish requisite notability in such an AfD and not have to appeal to WP:CRYSTAL type arguments. This does not mean that an article actually needs to have all the requisite sources in it at the moment of creation (although it is desirable) or even sometime later. But it should be possible to make a convincing contemporaneous keep case if pressed. Certain types of sources are not in fact appropriate for inclusion in the article, such as, say, hundreds of citations of the work of some academic used to establish notability of such an academic. But it is important that they exist and be producible in an AfD if necessary. Nsk92 (talk) 13:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I think we need to institutionalize "List of episodes" and "List of characters" as exceptions, and stop there.Kww (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is a great idea, and should help reduce the flood of trivial spinoff articles (many of which end up in AFD). RobJ1981 (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with the caveat that notability guidelines should not apply to lists (of any kind, not just lists of characters and episodes). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Fram echoes my thoughts about undue weight. Lists are trickier but I'm wary of green-lighting any kind of subarticle at the moment. Nifboy (talk) 01:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Having seen all sides of the argument, I'm sympathetic to people who find this too strict. Perhaps we can make some exceptions. But honestly, this wouldn't be that bad. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect every article to have coverage in two reliable third-party sources. It's actually pretty lax, and lets in a lot of low quality articles as is. It's a pretty basic standard. Randomran (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Imperfect but close to right support. GRBerry 04:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like Randomran, I can understand why many editors find notability a burdensome guideline at times, but there is such a vast quanity of reliable secondary sources just waiting to be harvested (more and more of which is being put online all the time by the likes of Google Books) that it is really not that difficult guideline to comply with. I agree with GRBerry that it is close to being "close to right" in the sense that it does not require "expert opinion" to determine what subjects are or are not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, which makes WP:N a very democratic guideline in a way. Furthermore WP:N dovetails so well with other Wikipedia policies and guidelines (particularly WP:V and WP:OR), which regulate article content in such a way that it encourages good quality artilces. If someone could table an alternative set of inclusion criteria that work just as well as General Notability Guideline, then I would seriously consider changing my vote, but in all the years it has existed, no one has proposed an alternative set of inclusion criteria that work without expert intervention. It is far bettter to stand on the shoulders of giants than on a mountain of spam & cruft. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support; although I'm not sure we need to be overly zealous with the trim ax either. — Coren ^(talk) 12:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, primarily per User:Fram. WP:WEIGHT instructs us to elaborate pieces of the topic depending on its coverage in reliable independent sources; if there is only minimal coverage in those sources, then WP should likewise have only minimal coverage. I do believe, however, that a separate guideline may need to be created for lists. Karanacs (talk) 16:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Black Falcon, GRBerry and Randomran express my reservations. Otherwise, I think the idea presented here is spot on. We need to have sufficient sources to craft an article that is of decent quality, in line with our basic content rules and well clear of what Wikipedia is not. Vassyana (talk) 17:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, notability covers topics, not articles; but spinout articles have spinout topics and those topics should be held to the same standards as normal. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - this is necessary to prevent cruft. PhilKnight (talk) 13:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support the spirit of this. Without prejudice to how notability is defined or how flexible it should be, every article should stand on its own two feet. Creating a separate class of articles (I do not mean lists) is a cure worse than the disease. Would we put a context box on the page saying "Gentle reader: Be advised this subject is deemed to lack notability when considered in isolation, and should be understood in the context of main article" or more succinct words to that effect? ~ Ningauble (talk) 00:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support fr33kman (talk) 22:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Notability is not inherited and there is absolutely no need for exemptions. Standalone article should always be able to establish enough notability to stand alone. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support more than I oppose. I think there could be exceptions, but this, or something close, should be the general rule. Articles need third-party sources for raw material. This typically corresponds with notability, so if an article subject is not notable we don't have the necessary raw material to construct the article. Thus, trimming and locating in the main article is usually the best solution for this case. I'm not opposed to a separate discussion regarding whether character lists should be handled differently. Pagra shtak 16:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support — the general rule we should follow. There are exceptions such as episode lists and character lists that have basically been accepted via consensus, but otherwise, this rule should stand true. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 18:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Wikipedia's coverage should be encyclopedic in every article. Thus we should apply the notability test every time. --B. Wolterding (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - spinouts should have sources to prove notability execpt in exceptional circumstances (case-by-case). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per above. This prevents fiction and other things from ballooning from 1 article to a zillion articles on a few reliable sources.--Crossmr (talk) 02:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Only articles with a notability proved by reliable sources can be permitted on Wikipedia. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support because this is a summary of Weight. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as it is the current best practices, with the exceptions being episode type lists (which often can still show their notability with at basic reliable sources covering the overall topics) and character lists. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Per above. and my comment under A.1. Bongomatic (talk) 02:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support An article establishes a topic, that topic MUST be notable for inclusion. If the topic isn't notable, then don't spin it out. If an article exists, the topic's notability is implied by the notability guidelines. A reader shouldn't have to guess whether an article he/she is reading has met the guidelines or is an insubstantial, rarely referenced version of a more notable general topic. Notability must be established for every article, every time, with no exceptions. Themfromspace (talk) 03:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If there are not adequate sources for an sub-article, then it surely needs correcting in the parent article not being split out into its own poorly-sourced article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wikipedia is not EB; we do not have a staff of professional editors and we do not have complete control over our content (far from it!). We sometimes do better than EB; we often do worse. We must hold ourselves to very, very high standards of accountability, otherwise we will never be taken seriously. Please salt and pepper this comment with links to WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOT etc. to taste. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 03:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support, while we should include a lot of stuff, we must be sure of the existence of something before an article should be written about it. If it is not as notable to create a specific article, than a section about it should be included. Marlith (Talk) 04:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS basically say the exact same thing. Everything non-obvious in an article must be referenced to reliable source. If the spin-off was still part of the article, it would have to be referenced, and therefore notable. So must it stay if it is spun-off. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 04:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is a significantly higher requirement than the requirement of reliable sources (often editors argue for deletion based on notability, even though the thing clearly existed and is referenced). WP:N also states "These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles." - thus if the spin-off was still part of the article, it would not have to meet notability requirements. Therefore this new proposal places a higher burden on spin-offs. Mdwh (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The status quo is working just fine, in this regard, per my comments in the prior two questions. MrZaius^talk 05:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support absolutely. No special status for so-called "spin-out" articles. Articles are articles and they're all equally subject to the same proof-of-notability requirements. —An gr 06:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Please pretty please with sugar on top. Plrk (talk) 07:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Every section must prove itself even within a larger article, let alone if it is spun out. Binksternet (talk) 08:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not true according to current WP:N guidelines - please see my comment to #32, above. Mdwh (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - with a possible light touch approach for lists. Warofdreams talk 09:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Notability makes sure that new articles are properly sourced to be included. --:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 11:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A sub topic would need to be notable to get sufficient verifiable sources to write anything other than a stub, and I believe that articles should only exist for topics that could progress beyond a stub. In addition the article might not be read as part of the parent topic, given the way that people may find the topic -- ratarsed (talk) 12:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup — if it's notable it can be here, otherwise not. Stifle (talk) 12:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - An unverified spin-out could potentially fester for months if there is not a high level of interest in it. Then it just becomes another unreferenced article and no one remembers that it was split from some notable parent. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 13:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the system only works when articles are viewed by many editors. Keeping non-notable articles around allows POV and error to fester in cul-de-sacs. Coemgenus 13:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, this is the right way for an encyclopedia. If there is a source in the main article, why not copy it? (and all unsourced articles should be deleted.) Sebastian scha. (talk) 14:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'm not quite following the thinking that certain mainspace pages are special cases that can bypass or avoid the consensual guidelines and policies that we have built up. Of course every mainspace page must meet the basic policy requirements of the project! SilkTork *^YES! 15:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To expand a bit. If there is a body of information within a section that cannot pass the notability guidelines for a standalone article it is likely that the information is not essential to the main article, and it's quite likely that if the information has become so large that a summary style split is being considered, and this information does not pass notability guisdelines, then a trim or rewrite should be considered. SilkTork *^YES! 15:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support but reword: the "bloated with information" part is nonsensical, but the idea is correct: if there are sources, you can write about it, if there is a lot of information, start splitting. "Trimming" is maybe not the right word, because it gives the impression of less information, whereas the real idea is to put the details in a subtopic article and an overview in an overview article. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support but slight reword: Every article needs to prove either that it is notable enough to exist or if it is an extension of another article, notable enough to exist in a seperate article. By extension, this includes topics that are notable enough that they have become too huge to fit in the parents article. SGGH ^speak! 16:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Question: Why are articles "spun out"? Answer: Because the section has become long enough to stand alone as an article. If it is that long, it should be referenced to reliable sources. Therefore, the section has the sources to prove notability... If the sources don't exist, the section shouldn't be that long, because it contains large amounts of un-referenced personal analysis... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Every article should always prove notability through third party sources. --Banime (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely. Most sensible of the three so far. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, generally. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as the most practically workable suggestion. I agree with other editors' comments about clearly endorsing episode lists, but when explicating the rule to be followed, it seems to me that this formulation will do the best job of encouraging proper behavior (article creation discipline if you will) from the greatest number of well-meaning editors, while keeping workable standards to be applied in merge/redirect/deletion discussions. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - This is pretty much what I have believed for a while. How we go about creating an article should not influence how we then treat them. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, has always been reasonable practice. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support No free passes. An article should be able to stand up to our standards regardless of its origins. --JaGa^talk 19:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support This makes perfect sense to me; the article is either notable or it isn't. It's quite possible for some minor aspect of something that is notable not to be, and the same standards should be apply to both. If it's notable there'll be a reference, and if it isn't, there won't be. Anaxial (talk) 20:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support The logic that leads to my opposition to proposals A1 and A2 now leads to my support of proposal A2. -- 69.183.102.174 (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support For the same reasons that I oppose A1 and A1.2 do I support proposal A2. Iterator12n ^Talk 01:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support For the reasons given in the proposal. Sub-articles should not be a place to dump irrelevant information. Wronkiew (talk) 02:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support If we are to be taken seriously, EVERY article needs to prove its notability so that we are not bloated with a load of worthless articles. Scapler (talk) 03:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Having written a couple of articles where notability has been challenged, it would have been helpful to have some consistent guidelines for asserting it. I've taken to saying "X is notable for its Y" in the text of the first draft of the first stub of the article while it's still in underconstruction mode just to avoid having that particular issue come up. A problem however is when you are doing a series of edits and parallel research to discover which parts of a tangled chain of relationships are notable (viz. AIG and its hydra nature) and thus notability research involves systematically deredlinking names which have come up in other contexts. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 04:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Hits the nail on the head. Should it not be able to pass notability on its own, then it should not be a big part of the parent article in the first place.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 12:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, 69 said it well. ITAQALLAH 14:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support because if we are going to have notability guidelines, and no official sub-article process, the guidelines have to apply to every article. Otherwise, practically any article can be alleged to be a spinout of some other article, because topics are interrelated in myriad ways. It will then be very unclear what level of sourcing is required. I don't think this proposal is too strict or effaces Summary Style; if we have a large block of text that is NPOV and well-sourced, by all means, move it and the sourcing to a spinout article. If, however, the text to be spun out has an embarrasing lack of sourcing or is a POV fork it likely needs trimming, as this proposal suggests. Take for example a List of Episodes. Given WP:NOTDIR, there is no reason to list the episodes for minor or unsuccessful shows. But many shows will generate sufficient coverage to support content in the spinout article. I'm also a supporter of B.6 which allows for some level of presumed notability in subject-specific areas, based on editorial consensus. The guidelines should just be consistent for all articles. Fletcher (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support without prejudice. In so far as this is stating policy I support it. However, I also have a broadly inclusionist view per WP:PAPER. All articles should comply with WP:V and this is already a minimal notability requirement that there must be a reliable secondary source which refers to the topic. However, I find talk about "proof" and "high standards for inclusion" unhelpful. For articles which meet minimal notability requirements, I say live and let live. Geometry guy 15:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support spin-outs that are really notable won't have problems proving it --Enric Naval (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support keeps the playing field between articles and "subarticles" even and good split-outs shouldn't have any difficulty displaying notability. JRP (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wholheartedly support. --EEMIV (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is in keeping with our existing policy. Rare individual exceptions, as needed, can be accommodated under WP:IAR. But basically, if a topic merits an independent article, it should be demonstrably notable and have reliabel sources and references. Eusebeus (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support As the proposal says, if such spin-offs can't prove notability in their own right, their presence in the parent article should be reduced. N.B. I agree with Geometry guy's liberal interpretation of notability - if there are one or two sources that satisfy WP:V, that's good enough. I suspect this debate has arisen largely because WP:Notability's wording gives too much leverage to deletionists: what is "significant coverage"?. -- Philcha (talk) 10:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, on the principle that any topic that can be shown to be notable, is notable. The handful of spin-out exceptions can be handled with WP:IAR, as said above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Support. An encyclopedia should contain notable information. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Not notable, no article. •Florrie•leave a note• 15:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support: This is, indeed, the very spirit behind the notability and verifiability policies and also behind several important parts of WP:NOT.Each article should be able to stand on its own and be judged on its own merits. It is a high standard, yes, but there is nothing wrong with aspiring to such standards. In fact, it is to be applauded if we truly wish Wikipedia to be a reliable source of information. Of course each article need not have the third-party sources immediately present upon creation, but it should be able to be reasonably assumed that such sources exist, and they should be able to be provided if demanded, say, in an AfD. Articles must be given time to develop; such is the nature of Wikipedia and the community editing process. However, articles which have existed for some time without demonstrating independent notability should either be deleted or merged into articles on the larger topics. This is simply good writing and in the best interests of editors, readers, and the encylopedia as a whole as it promotes the presentation of infomation in a comprehensive yet verifiable and contextualized manner. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Notability is not inherited, and any attempts to make it so only serve to fragment articles on topics that are actually notable. HiDrNick! 12:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Notability is not inherited... also, some sub-topics may be notable when discussing them in context (ie in the main article), but when taken out of context they become non-notable on their own. Blueboar (talk) 17:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with "assert" changed to "show", since any hoax article can assert notability, but sources are needed to show notability. If there are no independent sources on a topic you can't write about this without either just indiscriminately listing facts or using your own judgement about which facts are important. The first option violates WP:NOT, the second is OR. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong support: The opposition notes that "we are not paper", but I fail to see why the fact that wikipedia is not a paper medium permits for gads and gads of spin-offs which make no effort to demonstrate their own notability. Sure, this is an electronic encyclopedia, but by what process does this automatically grant contributors carte blanche to create potentially insignificant articles? Blue Danube (talk) 06:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong support ALL main space content should be able to stand on its own merits regarding notability and verfiability. Peet Ern (talk) 07:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per HiDrNick and Blueboar above Notability is not inherited. BigDunc^Talk 09:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Each article whether you call it a sub-article or not, should be able to establish that it is notable by reference to reliable sources. AndyJones (talk) 12:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - All articles must hold their own weight. None should be relying on their parent article to prove they should have an article. Not every character of a fictional show is notable, but if you allow for inherited notability, then if the show is notable everything down the line must be as well. This is not true, and should not be made so. If you have no real world content that needs to be split off, then the plot drive content shouldn't be split off. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Of course, notability is necessary regardless of where the content sits. The same is with encyclopedic nature of the content: either it's there or not. If it isn't, it has to go. GregorB (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A.2 edit

Oppose until you better define notability. WP:V calls for a reliable third party source. WP:N calls for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The guidance contradicts policy, and the tail is wagging the dog. yes, we need to be able to source information, but there are instances when we can source minimal content on someone or something which merits coverage by dint of achievement. We need to reflect that this process is not black and white. Minimal coverage can be reflected in a small article. Our minimal coverage may inspire people to seek more facts and publish more material we can summarise. We are beholden to writing neutrally. This should mean more care is taken in deciding what we write about by avoiding as much prejudice as possible in what we summarise. This means we should take care to not limit ourselves to subjects on which a propensity of material has been published only. This isn't to say we should cover anything and everything; however, we purport to be a comprehensive encyclopedia. We should not compromise that position based on elitism. I for one would rather have a stub or a redirect on an obscure 19th century Olympic medallist than no coverage of that person at all. If that means opposing the GNG in principle to improve Wikipedia, so-be-it. Hiding T 12:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - What happened to the idea of WP:Summary style, and splitting articles? The biggest problem I see with this idea are things which are types of lists. The list may be an inherent part of an article, but since it's a list it's sometimes better to split it to a separate page. But that doesn't mean that the list itself should need to determine "extra-notability", I would presume? Episode or Cast lists for a TV series, for example. I think that this "all-or-nothing" approach may not be the best idea. - jc37 12:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Goes a bit too far, agree if there are no reliable sources third party sources, we should not have an article however this is not the same as establishing notability where exceptions in particular instances can and should exist. Davewild (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Exceptions are needed, and this, like allowing all, would only be used as an excuse. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 18:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because I oppose notability requirements in general. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The logical extension of this is that the depth of coverage we can provide on a given area of a topic is constrained by the notability guideline. This is not an acceptable outcome. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think notability is determining the extent of coverage is a good thing, as it forces the fancruft, the conspiracy theories, the fringe science, the spam, and all the other weird stuff to prove it is important. The GNG is keeping the encyclopedia neutral by forcing editors to find independent sources. --Phirazo (talk) 03:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Phil Sandifer. Hobit (talk) 16:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose under the logic and examples given by User:Hiding and User:Phil Sandifer. Added to which, "reliable" is as open to debate as anything else, and rigorous enforcement of this guideline would allow inaccurate information to be used as a source for an inaccurate fact - so long as the information is in a "reliable" publication; while disallowing wholesale some sources which contain vital information and coverage but are sometimes arbitrarily declared to not be "reliable" - for example, interviews with long-dead-but-notable individuals which were carried out by interested individuals and self-published in minor publications. (N.B. There is an implicit implication in debates over sources generally that a self-published interview is taboo, but that if that same interview is used as the source for an article in a respectible publication, the information becomes valid on that logic alone. That's clearly a nonsense argument.) Plus also, Hiding's excellent and well-made point:
"Minimal coverage can be reflected in a small article. Our minimal coverage may inspire people to seek more facts and publish more material we can summarise."
Stubs and lists are not inherently bad, and - I thought - both stubs are redlinks are actively encouraged by Wikipedia, even if they are sometimes frowned upon by individual users. ntnon (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The wording of this proposal is far too strong. Under IAR, I keep my mind open to the possibility that an article or list has encyclopedic value without passing any notability criterion (but still being verifiable). Even if this has never actually been the case, the issue should never be approached in a completely inflexible manner. And although IAR renders all guidelines flexible, too many editors ignore it (ironically) for inflexible wording to be a good idea. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Hard fast rule that doesn't always apply. Some editor discretion is needed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and clarifying observation: As phrased, this goes too way far, and harms the ability of editors to follow WP:SUMMARY and keep articles readable. That said, it strikes me as almost blindingly obvious, if you read all of this and step back, that many of the opinions expressed here, both pro and con for both proposals, are not in fact in true conflict at all, but rather most of the debaters here are simply misinterpreting each other. I think it should be feasible to come up with a compromise solution. I also have to add that there isn't any reason that something split out into a subarticle could not be merged back into the main one by AFD (or otherwise), as a non-useful split. The final wording should explicitly account for this. I think what scares people about this second proposal here is it sounds like "If information is split out of a large article into a smaller subarticle, and doesn't have reliable independent sources as to its independent notability, AFD will just delete it, even if every fact in the subarticle is reliably sourced, and we don't give a damn if that results in loss of encyclopedic information." See my very qualified support of the first proposal, for specific caveats that run the opposite direction - no such proposal will be workable if it permits the willy-nilly creation of wanky articles, like one article for every character on 24 or one article for every 10-minute episode of Tom & Jerry. No one is seriously proposing that, just like no one is seriously proposing nuking sourced, useful information the instant it moves into a subarticle. I think we all need to quit focusing on the flaws in the exact wording of the two proposals and figure out what the principles are underlying both of them and how to merge those principles into a balanced and coherent consensus. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, I'm pretty sure you are wrong about one thing: Phil Sandifer certainly is proposing that there would be an article about each an every episode and character of 24. He hasn't explicitly addressed the topic of theatrical shorts, but I can't think of anything he has ever said that would make me think that he isn't in favor of an independent article for every Tom and Jerry short every made. BTW, there already is a separate article for every single Tom and Jerry cartoon ... that horse already escaped when you didn't even realize the barn door was open.Kww (talk) 02:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support concise but thorough summaries of major fictional works. I am largely unconcerned about the question of how many articles it takes to do it - or, rather, I don't think the answer to that question affects the main goal. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose also per common sense, i.e. needlessly restrictive for a paperless encyclopedia. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose while noting that WP:RS applies in full - all claims about albums must have verifiable sources, even if we admit common practice and say that we won't require proof that this album by a notable artist is notable. --Alvestrand (talk) 11:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Like Peregrine says, "hard fast rule that doesn't always apply" and for good reasons (also described by others above). -- Ned Scott 03:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Phil Sandifer and Hobit, too strict. We are not paper. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "It's time to trim not to split. I don't see how valid information on a topic should be left out because a page is too long and because a guideline says we can't split it up. Readers come to Wikipedia to gain knowledge on a vast range of topics. They expect even the most novel things to be found here and because incredibly diverse population of readers we can't delete valid information because it compliments other articles. Scotty dude _review 04:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the same reasons as I supported the previous option. Spinoffs should be treated as if they are a part of the parent aticle, and should only be allowed when the lenght of the parent article makes it necessary to do so. Otherwise the spinoff should be considered a separate article, in which case all notibility requirements should be applied.
Oppose. Appears to run counter to A.1 and A.1.2. Trimming is for paper. It's 2008 and time to embrace the computer age. Not saying this is a licence to "print" everything, but valid information should not be trimmed in an online environment. 23skidoo (talk) 05:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too restrictive. Notability is not a policy. As long as the content is verifiable, we can keep it. Zagalejo^^^ 05:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
oppose In my mind, the only test for inclusion to Wikipedia should be "Can a Reliable Source be found to back up the article." I therefore oppose this position, as it will only make it harder to include content. --Falcorian ^(talk) 05:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The concept of notability cannot override organization done for the sake of readability. Lengthy integrated lists disrupt the flow of pages, and are split out for that reason. This position argues that that the exact same content becomes unsuitable for inclusion if it is rearranged slightly, which is utterly nonsensical. --erachima talk 07:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. For completeness, since I supported A.1.2. --Itub (talk) 09:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A logical extension of this argument is that each section of each article has to prove its notability. And therefore so does each paragraph. And each sentence etc. If a topic is notable, and there's valuable information on an aspect of that topic, but formatting it is best as a separate article rather than a section, there's no reason at all to delete it. No-brainer. SP-KP (talk) 09:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I prefer comprehensiveness rather than conciseness when it comes to Wikipedia. We want to help people to find the information they're looking for; if we limit the amount of information Wikipedia contains then we are failing to do that. Waggers (talk) 09:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose So long as Verifiability & Reliable Sources are truly being met, it's notable enough. --Alecmconroy (talk) 11:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Other Wikipedia guidelines adequately cover the field. Provided the parent article is notable, spin-offs should qualify automatically.--Calabraxthis^(talk) 11:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- far too restrictive and unnecessarily so. older ≠ wiser 11:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sex lives of worms are in no way notable, yet any encyclopedia that desires to be comprehensive and the best in the world needs articles on the little things that aren't notable- yet also not advertisements.--EchetusXe (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - there are many reasons to create spin-off articles which are not necessarily notable on their own, but are clearly notable as part of the greater topic. There's no reason to trim articles on broad subjects to a minimum because of WP:SS, instead they can be split with various spin-off articles which compliment the main article. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This proposal confuses WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability. The notability bar for including some piece of information in an existing article is lower than the one for creating a separate article, but a lower bar for notability does not equal carte blanche for unverifiable material, as this proposal's rationale asserts. Sometimes there are good technical reasons to split an article, e.g. page length, which may cause the sub-article to still be verifiable but may have a harder time justifying notability. This hard and fast rule prevents that kind of judgment, i.e. sometimes articles have to be considered as sections of other articles for technical reasons. VG ☎ 13:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose As said by Vasile--Marhawkman (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with the general priciple here too, but these elements must be weighed using common sense and community standards, and handled on a case-by-case basis. Notability is sometimes not clearly apparent on first glance, and sometimes sources are only found halfway through a debate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Wiki is still not paper. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until someone can convincingly argue and illuminate a real difference between subarticles and subsections of a single article. Ford MF (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:SS and WP:NNC this isn't reasonable. Jclemens (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even the wording of this proposal is misguided; bloated with information? I constantly scratch my head at editors who declare, "there's too much information here! We must excise!" It is not the nature of an encyclopedia to be a sampler, and cases will arise where, in order to comprehensively address a subject, verifiable and relevant information about a topic exceeds 100kb of article space. The proper response to this is not to scuttle information to slim back down under 100kb. WP:NOTPAPER for a reason. Chubbles (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Hiding and Sandifer, we need to be able to expand on elements of articles per WP:SUMMARY. This is too limiting a proposal. Dreadstar † 16:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Notability considerations in these cases are a waste of Wikipedia contributors' time. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 16:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The whole concept of notability guidelines is hurting Wikipedia, not helping it. Hans Persson (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This proposal goes beyond WP:V and WP:RS in the name of upholding them. Also, forbidding exceptions to WP:N is not compatible with fallibility. Also, when an aspect of a larger topic does not have multiple reputable references independent of that topic, but is better off covered on a different page for reasons of size, layout and/or readability, this proposal would have us remove relevant information for the sake of organization. Not acceptable. --Kiz o r 18:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (I'm so glad to see this issue finally being discussed regarding general notability instead of just WP:FICT) I believe WP:SPINOUT occurs for reasons of WP:SIZE as it's primary motive. This is a technological restraint, and not one related to content. Therefore a spinout article should be protected by WP:NNC. Very often trimming is absolutely appropriate, but for entirely separate reasons. By supporting this statement, content may be lost when it instead should be edited according to other policies, and if after appropriate editing, the size has reduced enough, merge it back into the article. -Verdatum (talk) 19:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; this basically ends up being a call for merging brief, usefully organized articles into huge, less useful lists. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - needlessly restrictive as a "spin-out" N has already been proven once, why repeat ourselves? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per common sense and WP:NOTPAPER.Abyssal (talk) 04:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I could live with this, but given my views of SNGs I'm casting my support elsewhere. Generally speaking I think spin-out articles should qualify on their own for notability; I can imagine, however, that there are a few things for which an SNG might permit notability of a spin-out for the sake of the betterment of Wikipedia's articles. — X S G 18:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose it should not be a requirement to prove every article notable for it to be kept. There is not an issue with a lack of server space, or name space. Articles with little notability or relevance could easily be deleted without much attention or concern. Most spin-off articles take the namespace derived from its parent article and do not interfere with other articles. I believe that this proposal is aimed to control articles produced by agressive and enthusiastic fans (the ones who usually write in universe). I do not believe it is necessary to place such a barrier or cap on their enthusiasm. And in a matter of reasoning, the topic will eventually loose its popularity or the fans will mature to write better articles. Either way, we will eventually have to write an article on the popular culture item, and given that we do not want to read all the books in the series or watch all the shows in the series: the content produced by the aggresive or enthusiastic fans will ultimately provide us a better summury than for us to read the original. This allows us when it's time to look back on the topic to be able to produce a C or B class articles rather than a start of stub. ChyranandChloe (talk) 23:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fronsdorf (talk) 13:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Firstly this conflates two separate issues: the requirement to assert notability (articles which don't do this are grounds for speedy deletion), and the notability guideline. I think the former is reasonable to require in each article, but not the latter, so long as the article meets the Wikipedia fundamental policies, such as being supported by verifiable sources. The section about "trim, not to split" is particularly worrying - the decision on how to structure articles should not be constrained by a fear that splitting into articles will result in the articles getting deleted. I also remind editors that notability is a guideline not a requirement, so this is another reason why I oppose this proposal. The rationale about verifiability is irrelevant - I am fine with a proposal that says verifiability should apply to all articles, however, the proposal talks about notability, which is a far higher standard (often editors claim things are "not notable", despite being supported by reliable third party sources). So again, two different issues are conflated: verifiability and notability. Quoting the verifiability guideline is not support for this proposal - which means the rationale provides no argument for this proposal whatsoever. Mdwh (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. Articles will still need reliable sources when it comes to verifiability; the question is how much they need for notability. The response to a long article should not be to trim it: that is the whole advantage of this not being a paper encyclopedia. We shouldn't have articles on everything, but we also shouldn't omit material because we have too much knowledge that we can make freely available or limit the means by which we can present it in a digestible fashion. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 17:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This policy would have the undesired consequence of discouraging the splitting of large articles in any situation where one or more of the potential spin-offs are not clearly the subjects of substantial third-party coverage. (Spin-off articles need reliable sources, but each spin-off should not need to demonstrate notability independent of the parent.) --Orlady (talk) 02:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - If the guidelines were changed to allow 'notability' to be established by the fact that people actually read the article, actually a far less subjective/biased standard than 'coverage in third party sources', then this would be a reasonable position. However, under current process this is simply a way to limit the amount of coverage Wikipedia can provide on any topic which someone doesn't think should be here... regardless of how many of our users are actually interested in the material (i.e. how 'notable' it really is). --CBD 11:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - This is ridiculous and overzealous. It does not allow any leeway, and is therefore completely unworkable in the real world. --16:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Strong Oppose Essentially this is what we have now, and wastes a lot of time. Timmccloud (talk) 20:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Overbroad per above. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Oppose Notability hurts wikipedia. [[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]] (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose this proposal is aimed at the destruction of knowledge, and as such must not be allowed. Grue 17:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose If somebody thinks the subject is important enough to create an article about it, somebody else could think it is important to read the article. That's what Wikipedia is all about. --Lova Falk (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per my comments in the first section. AfD hero (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If verifiability is the problem, then get more serious on enforcing that policy. Or to phrase it differently, the proposal is phrased specifically to exclude material already excluded by a different policy. So why didn't I vote neutral? Because I think this proposal tries to regulate something based on something else, and thus I'm concerned about collateral damage. For example, I think this proposal would put unwelcome constraints on article structure. Shinobu (talk) 13:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral on A.2 edit

Comment. While I generally oppose this (see my comment #18 at #Support A.1), I think it might help to clarify whether this rule about notability applies to a spin-out's notability within the parent subject or its notability within the real world. For example, a list of characters in a game or work of fiction is unlikely to have any real-world notability, but may be very to the article about the game or work of fiction. Also, I think a spin-out's notability can be judged with regards to how much an editor can write before breaking a major Wikipedia guideline. For example, The Order of the Stick#Characters contains links to several extremely detailed spin-out articles, one for each major character in that work of fiction; but when you go and look at any of those character pages (for example, Roy Greenhilt or Vaarsuvius), you will see that those articles are comprised almost entirely of unnecessarily detailed plot summaries (violating the guideline on plot summaries) or speculation and original research (violating WP:OR). This is a clear case of where, notability guidelines aside, it should be obvious to editors that these spin-outs are unnecessary and should be integrated into the article.... so I guess what I'm trying to say is that sometimes notability of spin-outs can be judged better just by looking at whether or not there's anything valid to include in that article, rather than by relying on notability guidelines and looking for third-party sources. --Politizer (talk) 05:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. While it is a good idea to trim to avoid undue weight, I am not opposed to the idea of having many separate subarticles in order to cover a large topic. ~A H 1^(TCU) 01:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Proposal A.3: SNGs can define that some spin-outs are notable edit

Proposal: Specific notability guidelines such as WP:Notability (people) or WP:Notability (music) can define what subtopics inherit notability from a main topic. A specific topic can inherit notability from a larger topic under clearly defined conditions. That is, in clearly defined special cases, notability can be inherited in the absence of reliable third-party sources.

Rationale: This would clarify the existing relationship between the general notability guideline (GNG) and other subject specific notability guidelines (SNGs). Our current SNGs declare specific cases where an article without reliable third-party sources can inherit notability from another notable article. For example, WP:Notability (people) suggests that an entertainer may be notable if they have a significant role in multiple notable productions. Also, WP:Notability (music) suggests that an album may be notable if the artist who produced it is notable. Thus, SNGs should continue to define specific cases where a sub-article of a notable article can be considered notable.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Support A.3 edit

Support: As I said in B.2 I feel there has to be a more clearly defined way to determine what is notable in relation to the topic. An obvious example would be an article on the Academy Awards with a spin off article/list about actors who won the academy award in the 1980's. Clearly the "notability" factor comes from the main topic and the SNG comes from the subtopics name thusly if an actor won an academy award between 1980 - 1989 it would be notable because it had inherited notability from a larger topic under clearly defined conditions. But what would, I feel, have to be clear is what would go into a "larger" subtopic and, at what point, would the subtopic be limited. A perfect example of this is the Guitarist Wiki page. There is a "See also" section that links to List of guitarists and the only SNG listed for this is "This list of guitarists includes guitarists for whom there is an article in Wikipedia." So while this SNG certainly prevents the list from getting out of control it also brings up the question of "Does this subtopic/spin-off/list throw out all the guidelines in WP:NM?". In other words, in this case, the main article states: A guitarist is a musician who plays the guitar. Guitarists may perform solo pieces or play with ensembles and bands of a wide variety of genres which seems to be pretty clearly defined conditions so one could put "anything" as a subtopic with little or no limits or concern for anything "notable" other than being a "guitarist". Which is why I would be in favor of having specific notability guidelines in place for issues/topic such as that.Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is the thrust of our policies, guidance and practises. Article topics need to referenced in a reliable third party source, per WP:V, but the extension of this to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable" or however it reads this week is harmful and counter-productive. We may be able to find one short article on an Oscar winner; this should not prevent us having an article on this Oscar winner. Subject specific guidance allows us to better delineate this practise. The GNG does not. Hiding T 12:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is what I was just commenting on in A.2, above. This should presumably allow for splitting where appropriate. - jc37 12:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These conditions need to be defined, yes, but the basic concept is where were are going. Protonk (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Broadly think this is reasonable, so long as the subguidelines are agreed globally and not just by, for example a wikiproject. Davewild (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is the kind of balance that is needed. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 18:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems reasonable. Hobit (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this is a fair compromise. Rather than opening the floodgates to literally any article that can show some parent-child relationship, we expect specific exceptions. If a consensus of wikipedians agree that a city can inherit notability from a country, or that a list of episodes can inherit notability from a notable TV series, then we allow it. In all other cases, articles need appropriate sources. Randomran (talk) 02:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support; yes, specific and explicit exceptions are the way to go. — Coren ^(talk) 12:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support of course some spinout topics are notable; every article is in a sense a spinout and some articles' topics are notable. If a spinout topic is notable, judged according to the GNC or an SNC, then the article is notable, irrespective of whether it is a spinout. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support This makes control of notability hinge on the subject of note. In other words, this separates "TV show" notability from "City" notability from "Music" notability. To try and define a single criterion, or even a set of criteria, that everything will meet is foolhardy and impossible. And those that argue that notability can't be inherited has obviously never seen the child's toy section at your local Wal-Mart. The media and television use one form of notability to bolster the notability of other articles all the time. A specific example, Degree anti-persperant is counting on inheriting notability from the TV show Eureka. If notability isn't inherited than sponsors have been wasting their time and money for decades. Do you really think the X-Men movies were popular because they are good? NO! They have a huge fanbase, and that caused the movie to gross enormous profits, which made the movie notable. If that's not inheriting notability, I don't know what is. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those who argue that notability cannot be inherited (probably) mean that not enough notability can ever be automatically inherited to support a separate article while still failing the GNC. Or does Degree (deodorant) automatically deserve an article because it inherites notability from Eureka (TV series), or vice versa? – sgeureka ^t•c 13:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(I think my X-Men example is better)The point being the catch-all "Notability is not inheritable" is false. The entire PR industry hinges on notability being inheritable. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 15:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is a term of art on Wikipedia. Taking usages from other arenas and trying to directly apply them to Wikipedia's usage is a logical fallacy. Your ultimate point may or may not be correct, but your method of getting there is faulty.Kww (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then, by lack of definition notability can be inheritable, if I need it to be. And therein lay the biggest problem with this entire guideline - Notability, as used in Wikipedia, is a made-up term that means whatever the loudest, most persistent editor at the AfD says it means. Until we have an objective measure to qualify against this is silly. We can't put rules on a swiftly shifting morass of nothing. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 18:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Describes current practice regardign towns, athletes, politicians, and many more. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as notability is inherited. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support fr33kman (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support while noting that WP:RS still applies in full. --Alvestrand (talk) 11:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I particularly like what Hiding and Randomran say here, and think this is the most likely approach for Wikipedia in the future. -- Ned Scott 04:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak support To a limited extent. At the end of the day we still need to have enough reliably sourced material about the topic to be able to write an article about. So this sort of thing only makes sense in context where we might have primarily non-independent sources but there is some inherited notability. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think this is a good way of describing current practice. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is important for things like Music, where a future version of WP:Notability (music) may allow non-notable works by famous musicians but only notable works by merely notable musicians, with some specific criteria for famous. Imagine if there was a relatively forgotten work of The Beatles and someone created an article about it and it got tagged for notability and send to AfD. On the other hand, the vast majority of Wiki-notable music groups aren't famous by any stretch of the imagination. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support as I am still concerned about article length, but this may be a reasonable compromise. --R27182818 (talk) 02:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I think this is a reasonable compromise, but I'd like to also suggest that we consider giving more power to individual WikiProjects to define what kinds of articles and content can be considered notable within a particular context. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games could more specifically define whether lists of characters, locations, weapons and power-ups are appropriate spinoffs to main video game articles. Same with other projects and their contexts. (I dunno, does that seem too complicated?) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Sub-notability guidelines help interpret particular cases and suggest articles that would likely be shown to be notable if given time for sources to be added. The policies of V, NPOV, and NOR still over-rule but some extra time/flexibility can be granted for article types that are generally shown to be notable when given opportunity to expand. Tag for issues and expect improvement. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as long as the sub guidelines are linked to from within the parent guideline. It simply builds on the topic of this discussion of sub articles that expand into more detail than is allowed within the parent article. Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support some form of mapping out is definitely necessary. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Who's writing these questions? This one is so vaguely titled as to be meaningless. Again, the status quo covers this, and is working just fine in this particular regard. That said, some of the notability guidelines mentioned above are somewhat weak and should be tightened up. Issues arise with artists publishing dozens of mixtapes and the like. Personally, I'd like to see WP:MUSIC die a horrible painful death. MrZaius^talk 05:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support principle, but this won't solve the specific problem with WP:FICT pages until we actually get an SNG approved for that area. --erachima talk 07:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support The lead singer of two notable bands is probably notable - that much seems obvious. Waggers (talk) 10:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Common sense says sometimes you need this, there has been an focus on fiction articles, where as there exist spin-outs that are not about fiction such as Judo rules, most sources are primary, but it would distort the main Judo article include a comprehensive section on the rules. --Nate 14 81 10:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possible Support I would be fine with List of characters or Specific episode articles being allowed to waive the "third-party" part of sourcing, assuming there are strong non-independant sources. So franchises that produce guidebooks would pass this, or TV series that give lots of commentary on DVD's, while not necessarily passing the current rules. This seems to come under this proposal, but is currently too vaguely worded. In what other circumstances do the supporters see "absence of reliable third-party sources" being allowed? I would at least like to see this proposal go further to become more specific, hence possible support.Yobmod (talk) 10:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have a care not tpo edit other users opinions.--Nate 14 81 11:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Seems a little more prescriptive than I'd care for, but not entirely unreasonable. older ≠ wiser 11:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a great middle ground: it allows encyclopedic coverage of many topics, to include fictional universes of information, but also allows finely tailored controls that will keep things from getting full of cruft or origional research. Each individual Wikiproject can set thier own guidlines of how to tread the line between encyclopedic coverage and nonsense. bahamut0013 ♠♣
Support I agree with many of the previous supporters. This allows for specific cases and projects to work out their own needs without forcing a one-size-fits-all approach. Yet allows the community to remain in control of the policy that effects the individual cases. Specificity should trump Generality Charles Edward 12:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - on the basis that notability is asserted or demonstrated in some way; for example, Ashley Fernee has multiple references from independent third parties (i.e. they pass WP:RS), Gösta Törner makes a claim of competing at the Olympics (which passes the current WP:ATHLETE as competing at the highest level in amateur sports) - given the assertion here, I'd say it's fair to assume that it would've been reported in multiple third party sources (newspapers, official results, etc.) at the time, even though the sources are not yet present. -- ratarsed (talk) 12:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Support for the same reason as Ratarsed. Without it, notability for people from over 50 to 100 years ago is more difficult to prove because it is so difficult to obtain RS. Older sources are tucked away in libraries or whatever and are very difficult to access. Having a theoretical notability without actually providing sources is important in cases like this, assuming that the person did something unquestionably notable. I'm thinking specifically about 1910s drivers from the Indianapolis 500 or 1900s Olympians. These people where probably household names at the time, so we should not let time cause us to erase their articles. Royal broil 12:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is an encyclopedia, not a list of whats hot and whats not.--EchetusXe (talk) 12:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much, with the caveat that the community — and not WikiProjects or groups of involved editors — retain the power to determine what is and is not notable. Stifle (talk) 12:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support with Stifle's caveat.--Marhawkman (talk) 13:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. WP:NOTINHERITED is a good general principle, but it's clearly too ambiguous in some cases. For instance, if an author has single book that won and award, does the award "count" towards establishing the notability of the author? Can we really say that the award only "belongs" to the book? What about strong endorsements for the book from leading figures in the field? Do these bestow notability on the author or just the book? These kinds of arguments were raised in a recent AfD debate that ended in stalemate. I don't like "instruction creep" in general, but ambiguity is sometimes worse, which is why we have additional guidelines for specific areas, e.g. WP:BIO1E prevents biographies of people notable for only one event, while the "album from notable artist likely notable" rule in WP:MUSIC essentially allows for some transferable notability. Proposal A3 is essentially saying "let us debate each such concrete proposal on its own merits", so it seems the most reasonable way to go here, despite the potential for instruction creep. The alternative is repeated AfD's like the one I've linked to, which simple waste a lot of time and are unlikely to ever be conclusive under the current guidelines. VG ☎ 15:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Not my favorite, as there is as yet still no provisional list of exemptions for fictional subjects, or any understanding or suggestion of whose rubric that'd fall under, but it's still an okay compromise. Ford MF (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seems reasonable. Topic and article cannot always be synonymous, organization and readability can require exceptions. --Kiz o r 17:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. with Stifle's caveat.Phatom87 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Notability guidelines should be made flexible for individual themes as long as there is a clear guideline on who makes the cut. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I believe that all spin-outs should be able to demonstrate notable in their own right, and that notability can be discerned by the qualifications set in a SNG. — X S G 18:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - While in general notability isn't inherited, there are specific cases where it is. This seems to already be the situation, and no reason that it shouldn't be expandable per consensus. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I believe that SNGs can give an additional assertion of notability on top of the notability conferred by whatever sources have been found for that article. I'll give an example from an SNG I have discussed recently: WP:ATHLETE. Suppose we have an article on a soccer player that is, on the strength of the sources included, borderline for notability or even just below the threshold. Maybe we can find their career stats in a database and a few passing mentions in match reports, but not enough to clearly satisfy WP:BIO. WP:ATHLETE sets out an additional criterion where, if the player meets it, we presume that the article could in principle be properly sourced. Reyk _YO! 08:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, yes, provided that the material can still be reasonably verified. If an article meets an SNG, then it should be presumed notable and thus safe from deletion on notability grounds. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Support - The criteria we use to establish notability should seek to identify impartial standards for each type of topic. A scientist who is described as an innovator in their field in a handful of scientific journals read by a few hundred specialists is 'notable'... a musician written up only in publications with similarly small distribution is not. The standard of 'significant coverage in independent sources' is inherently subject to the systemic biases of those sources. For instance, there are no significant independent sources produced by children and coverage of childrens' interests in adult publications tends to be superficial or non-existent unless some sort of adult controversy is involved... therefor, the criteria for these topics HAS to be different or we wrongly exclude an entire class of clearly notable information from the encyclopedia. --CBD 11:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I just plain agree. Andrew Oakley (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, for clearly defined special cases that are common enough. There remains a problem of daisy chaining SNGs together, e.g. per WP:MUSIC#C6 and WP:MUSIC#C10, which needs to be adressed (but can be done so at the SNGs). --Amalthea^Talk 13:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Sounds reasonable without being too permissive or too restrictive. --Willscrlt (Talk) 16:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - This makes perfect sense, since certain types of articles are often more subject to sub-pages than others, and taking these exceptions into account makes tons of sense.Timmccloud (talk) 20:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A.3 edit

Oppose as the current consensus is that notability cannot be inherited/presumed/acknowledged. Although subject notability guidelines such as WP:BIO currently include criteria that support a reasonable presumption that reliable sources may exist, I think these criteria are flawed because there are no generally accepted criteria or rule set which support the idea that notability can be inherited/presumed/acknowledged across every subject area, and these unsubstantiated claims of notability are based on subjective "expert" opinion which can only be applied in unique circumstances. Therefore the view that some spin-outs are notable in the an absence of reliable secondary sources is not supported by objective evidence, and any assertion to the contrary is unsubstantiated opinion. For example, the stub Ashley Fernee is considered notable in accordance with WP:BIO#athletes, but the stub has virtually no content, which sugests to me that the a presumption of notability cannot be substantiated. Although many editors will assert that WP:BIO#athletes makes the subject notable, the reader of this article cannot see any objective verifiable evidence of notability, and it is the readers perception, not "expert" opinion that counts at the end of the day. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then that is a subject to broach within WP:BIO#athletes, not an anomaly to be used to win arguments.padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly - It is characteristic of others as well. Note how WP:BIO reflects generally accepted/not-bio-specific notion that an award can make a person notable, but that a single nomination for an award for a lower caste of actors instantly meets NOTE. Similar problems exist within the music guidelines and others. MrZaius^talk 09:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Gavin, and also I think WP:IAR is a good enough exception should the need arise to have an spinout without sources. Deamon138 (talk) 00:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But WP:IAR is always refuted with a hearty "That what all losers invoke when they can't think of a good argument". I have never seen IAR used and the opposing side accept that it has merit. When you are being opposed the other side doesn't like to be told "I win because I want to". As far as I've seen WP:IAR is worthless. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except nobody ever actually invokes IAR. They just have a good argument that happens to not be based solely in policy. Nifboy (talk) 17:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is too much process creep in the notability framework as it stands, inviting more is not the way forward. Taemyr (talk) 03:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose See WP:NOTINHERITED. Either a topic has valid and useful sources to support it or it does not. See the GNG. GRBerry 04:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC) Expanding, since I think the proposal has been tweaked - the entertainer example in WP:BIO is being misinterpreted. That example does not stand for the proposition that the entertainer is notable in the absence of reliable third-part sources simply because they were in the band, it stands for the proposition that it is probable that because they were in the band reliable third-party sources satisfying the GNG for the entertainer exist. In other words, it indicates that it is probable that they already meet the GNG. GRBerry 17:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Meaningless statement. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I believe this opens the door to a potential gutting of the notability guidelines. All it takes is a consensus among a few involved editors that their pet project needs more lax requirements for inclusion, and then another pet project does the same thing, and we eventually end up with a big mess. Karanacs (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Yes, spin-outs can be notable but only if they can be shown to be notable in their own right. I view WP:NOTINHERITED as a cornerstone principle of all notability guidelines. Nsk92 (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - at least for this wording. Agree with GRBerry and Nsk92 about WP:NOTINHERITED being an important principle of notability guidelines. PhilKnight (talk) 13:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Notability is, in general, not inherited. Pagra shtak 16:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This principle has been applied in the past, but I don't think it has lead us very far. For example, there's an often-cited rule in WP:MUSIC saying that all albums of a notable artist are automatically notable, with the argument that some independent reviews must exist, and it's only a matter of finding them. However, in practice, a large number of articles have been created without any sources being found, or at least without writing the actual article from these sources. Often, it seems to me the "assumption of existence of sources" is merely used as a kind of WP:COATRACK for having a track listing of the album; nobody is really interested in finding the sources, or using them for the article. We should not encourage this. --B. Wolterding (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you proposing to eliminate the policy of keeping articles for which sources could presumably be found? Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what I wanted to emphasize is that these "presumption of sources" has often been too generous. If in a specific case, there's concrete evidence that sources exist - fine. But just "defining" the existence of sources for entire classes of article has not lead to a reasonable encyclopedic standard. --B. Wolterding (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Oppose - basic notability rule should not be compromised, ever. Besides, the title (Some spin-outs may be notable) prompts that most of them are not - an attempt to forge opinion into policy. NVO (talk) 12:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as this compromises the guideline unnecessarily (see my other responses for full rationale.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, unnecessarily contradicts WP:N and too heavily abused to allowed a large subset of unnotable topics a free pass (re all the album articles that are nothing but a release date, non-free pic, and a track list). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As noted, some specific areas have lower notability thresholds for articles. If a topic-specific guideline with such a lower threshold is applicable to an article that happens to be a sub-article, so be it. Otherwise, why dilute further? Bongomatic (talk) 02:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Óppose per Gavin and other. Notability is not inherited. Themfromspace (talk) 03:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Other have said so well all that I would say. I'll stand aside and nod approvingly. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 03:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No independent third party sources = No notability = No article on Wikipedia. —An gr 06:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If a bum album by a noted musician receives no notice in the press, it is NOT notable and inherits nothing from the performer's fame. Every article and section must prove its own notability. Binksternet (talk) 08:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Confused proposal. Authors and books are separate linked topics. One isn't a subtopic of the other. Both should have to pass the notability test if they are to be given their own articles. SP-KP (talk) 09:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Oppose per Gavin. --Blowdart | ^talk 10:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It would be better for all non-notable spin-offs to be included in their parent articles instead of having unsourced pages en masse, there shouldn't be too much to clog up the parent pages. --:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 11:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "notability can be inherited in the absence of reliable third-party sources" Oh, no it can't. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As Angr said, no sources == no article, because sources are the only way to meet V/NOR/NPOV. Angus McLellan (Talk)
Oppose as an unnecessary restriction and WP:CREEP. Jclemens (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, if it is notable than there are sources. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is no different than the earlier proposals worded this way. If the information can't be found outside of Wikipedia in another reliable source, it should not be included in Wikipedia under any circumstances. If a subject has no reliable information to cite when writing, how can it support an article? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a misunderstanding of the subject specific guidelines. The subject specific guidelines are not intended to trump the main notability guideline or Wiki verifiability policy. The intention is to give assistance and guidance in grey areas which are not covered by the more general guidelines and policies. And - if needed - to further define the criteria so that wikipedia doesn't get swamped with non-notable topics. All the subject specific guidelines should stress that the main guidelines and policies need to be complied with first. However, what sometimes tends to happen in AfD discussions is that people point to a sub-clause of a subject specific guideline which says something like - "If X has a 12 inch penis then he's notable" - and think that somehow trumps the basic requirement of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". If we accept this proposal it will ratify such behaviour, and we will not have a main notability guideline, but a series of scattered and potentially conflicting guidelines. SilkTork *^YES! 17:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I share the same concerns as SMcCandlish regarding WikiProject ownership of SNGs. Also per Sgeureka and WP:NOTINHERITED Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Angus McLellan and Jclemens put it perfectly. No sources == no article, won't meet V/NOR/NPOV. We only need one guideline for notability. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wikiprojects dont decide whats notable the community does Gnan garra 01:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If at once you don't succeeed, try a second time.... My answer is still No. Iterator12n ^Talk 01:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The guidelines for establishing notability are confusing enough as it is. Wronkiew (talk) 02:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, we already have a fine nutshell for what topics inherit notability, that being: NONE. The sourcing requirements apply to every article in every case. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The "exceptions" listed in the SNGs are not really exceptions, but rules of thumb. An album by a notable entertainer can be assumed to be notable because it will almost certainly have enough reliable third-party sources to prove notability of the album in and of itself. This does not exempt it from WP:N or WP:V at all. The specific notability guidelines are simply the general notability guideline projected into specific circumstances. They should not ever be read to override WP:N. I would even recommend that they be demoted. Call them "semi-guidelines" or something, to emphasize that they are not on equal rank with WP:N. Either that or promote WP:N to policy.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 12:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Makes no sense. Notability is associated with a topic, not an article. How can it be "inherited" from a parent article? How is the concept of "parent article" defined anyway? This is simply not the right way to proceed. Instead SNGs should be clarifying what minimal requirements are needed for particular types of article to demonstrate their notability. One global minimal requirement is that there must be a reliable secondary source which refers to the topic. Anything less fails WP:V. Blanket exemptions not only make no sense – they are simply not needed. If an entertainer is notable because of appearances in notable productions, then an RSS about at least one of these productions is going to refer to the entertainer. And how can you write a verifiable article on an album if no reliable secondary sources refer to it? Geometry guy 15:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Every reader should be able to determine whether the article is reliably sourced without having to refer to a parent page. There is no reason to exempt some pages from the WP:RS requirement. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose special-research groups shouldn't be able to trump overall notability guidelines, only provide subject-specific guidance on how a central guideline should be considered. Will this still leave debate in gray areas like albums of barely-notable musical groups? Yes. Are those best worked through the AfD process instead of a blanket policy? Also yes. JRP (talk) 21:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A spinout is an article. In practice this is equivalent to B.5 with a fig leaf. ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have some sympathy with the proposal, because there are subjects on which WP:RS and WP:Notability as currently phrased create problems. Aspects of popular culture are generally not the subject of peer-reviewed academic articles, and that leads to arguments about which "popular" sources can be considered reliable. WP:Notability gives too much leverage to deletionists, and leads to arguments about what constitutes "significant coverage". However these problems shoudl be tackled at the root. This proposal's attempt to paper over the cracks is an invitation to fan-groups. -- Philcha (talk) 10:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose generally, because it's an end-run around notability. It might be acceptable in very narrow areas like road articles. It's totally inappropriate to popular culture subjects. --John Nagle (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose although a more specific notability guideline might clarify what constitutes a notable degree of coverage. This proposal, however, would mean that no one could criticize the wording of such a guideline for vitiating the general notability guideline. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 17:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because this essentially puts the cart before the horse. The SNGs are meant to be more subject-specific versions of the GNG, not to supercede it. I find that, by and large, they fulfill this task. In the two examples given in the proposal, both articles would have a high likelihood of having third-party sources available (since if an actor has been in several notable films, then there is likely to be some critical commentary of his acting from film critics, and since an album by a notable act is likely to have generated published reviews). Articles for which no third-party sources can be found are better served by being merged into a larger article (ie. an album which has received no reviews or has no other secondary sources available is better covered in a discography article, since only basic facts are presented). Of course, benefit of the doubt should be given and articles should be given time to develop due to the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, but when challenged (as in an AfD) such sources should be able to be provided. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is just moving the discussion elsewhere. HiDrNick! 12:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I am generally supportive of letting Wikiprojects interpret our rules and guidelines to suit their needs, but I see all sorts of problems here. Wikiprojects are easy to form, and people can get very creative... Don't like the way a discussion is going on whether your pet topic is notable or not?... go form a splinter Wikiproject of your own that will define it the way you want. How do we deal with topics that fall under two different wikiprojects with different criteria? Blueboar (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The key here is "an article without reliable third-party sources." If it has none of those, what are you going to talk about? Then we can have all sorts of crap pile up in Wikipedia, with no way to say when enough is enough. Imagine we had a Fringe theories portal, which allowed in every fringe theory some guy tripping on LSD or suffering from Schizophrenia every came up with, all grandfathered in by some article or another just because of inherited notability and "without reliable third-party sources". NJGW (talk) 05:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose All main space content should be able to stand on its own merits regarding notability and verfiability, no exceptions. A SNG allowing special cases does not change intrinsic notablity or verifiability, it just move's the argument from an article to a meta article. The issues do not change. SNGs should not modify the notability or verifiability guidelines. They should only help editors interpret subject matter from very different knowledge domains consistently and comparably. Peet Ern (talk) 07:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeNo an article has to stand on it's own merits an article without reliable third-party sources if it has not got that then what has it? BigDunc^Talk 10:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Allows for contradiction of other notability guidelines, including the general one. We shouldn't have SNGs that say, "ignore NOTE, if you can do this then its ok, even when NOTE says otherwise". It allows for SNGs (which are usually run by those editors too close to the actual projects) to decide what they want to do, when it should really reflect what Wikipedia as a whole is doing. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. I like the idea of providing additional notability guidance on specific fields for editors, in case we're wondering how the notibility guidelines should be interpreted in specialistic situations, but I think contracting the global notability guidelines is a no-no. If there is something wrong with those guidelines that would necessitate contradicting them, they need to be changed themselves, which is a different discussion altogether. Shinobu (talk) 13:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral on A.3 edit

Comment It needs to be clarified what "absence of reliable third-party sources" means - absense in the article, or absense as in "likely non-existence". The first may be fixable through time and effort, the latter has no guarantee to be ever fixable. Accordingly, I am fine with allowing a certain inheritance of notability for the former case (depends on the article type), but never for the latter. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that the phrase "Absence of reliable third-party sources" means that the reader of an article can't see them, and therefore has reason to doubt the notability of the subject of an article, even if "expert opinion" swears otherwise.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As noted above, I favor institutionalizing the "List of Characters" and "List of episodes" exclusions, and I can see how that may be viewed as an inheritance of notability. I truly dislike any claims of inherited or inherent notability, and don't want to get those concepts included in any policy or guideline.Kww (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with that as an exception. Hiding T 15:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I essentially agree with Kww, except I think we should exclude all lists from notability considerations. Lists are largely navigational devices, so notability guidelines for articles don't apply well to them. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that notability considerations (as what we're discussing here) should not apply to lists. They either serve as navigational aids per Black Falcon, combine perma-stubs in suitable ways, and (particularly in the fields of fiction) serve as a middle ground between inclusionists and deletionists. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I can see where lists would come into play here, I believe there's a not-easily-definable difference between a list of plot-critical characters and/or episodes and, for example, a list of stereotypical punching bags for the main character to beat up. Nifboy (talk) 02:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: See my "A1" qualified support and "A2" qualified oppose for a different way of looking at all of this. I agree in principle that the primary purpose of SNGs or whatever we are calling them should be what we are talking about here, but the bare fact is that many of them are virtually WP:OWNed by a handful of WikiProject people and often conflict with WP:N's plain wording, and are routinely applied as substitutes for WP:N at AFD simply because they're more specific. Very few of them seem to me to genuinely reflect WP-wide consensus, but only the consensus of some subset of people in the related WikiProjects who care to get involved in policy squabbles. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Why are you talking about lists if this is about inheritance? Anyway this could be a good idea to expand some otherwise notable subjects but it could produce too many not-really-notable spinouts. ~A H 1^(TCU) 01:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. It might work, but would require very careful wording to prevent misuse. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Proposal A.4: Lists may be exempted from the GNG edit

Proposal: A spin-out article in the form of a list can be considered exempt from the GNG, instead relying directly on primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, some of which might normally be considered of trivial nature. For example: a list of episodes; a cast list; a character list; or some other facet specifically suited to list-form presentation (e.g.) list of countries. If a parent article is supported by reliable third-party sources, then list-form sub-articles do not necessarily need reliable third-party sources to qualify for inclusion.

Rationale: Lists of characters and episodes are informative for readers, but often can grow too large for a parent article as they gain in comprehensiveness. It is not desirable to delete such list-form sub articles with a lack of appropriate sources. It makes more sense to treat these list-form articles as extended components of their parent articles. Splitting content from an article into list-form sub-articles is a practice recommended by the recommended length of articles and summary style approach. By allowing list-form articles to be considered a part of the main article with relevant information grouped in a more accessible manner, space is allowed for more detail to be covered in the parent article, and the readers needs are still met.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Support A.4 edit

Support I added this proposal based on a number of comments to earlier proposals, which indicate this may be a useful talking point. The idea is as follows: A list usually groups information which would be perfectly acceptable to present in a parent article, yet for both space considerations and presentation, they are usually better served presented on their own in list format. It therefore makes sense that list-form articles be allowed to source from trivial sources such as television listings and fan guides, as well as from the work itself. The list itself is merely another way of presenting information about a topic already deemed notable given an article exists. The topic of the list is typically the work itself, a work which will be demonstrably notable through reliable sources. Therefore this isn't really an exemption. Hiding T 16:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should it really come under 'support', then? Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? Hiding T 10:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it isn't an exemption, then the answer to "should lists be exempted from the GNC" is "no", surely? What you're proposing, as I understand it, would be that "List of Xs" would be acceptable if and only if "X" is acceptable; but it seems to be a fairly common interpretation of "topic" in the GNC that if "X" meets the GNC, then so does "List of Xs". So, as you say, you're not supporting an exemption, just a specific reading of the GNC. Unless you're actively in favour of allowing "List of Xs" when "X" doesn't meet the GNC, then you actually oppose your own proposal, as listed. Perhaps you didn't mean "Lists may be exempted from the GNG"? Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I still don't follow. Here's my thinking: a list of episodes in a television series wouldn't have notability issues if it was part of the article on the television show. Split it into a list and all of a sudden, how does the GNG apply? I'm arguing such a list should be exempt of the GNG. Whether it already is or not is what I am seeking to clarify with this proposal, isn't it? What I'm arguing isn't that list of "X" but list of "Y" in "X" or some such configuration. So X may be notable, and Y, for specific values of Y which you would expect, if not for space considerations to find in an article on X, is okay. The issue is this. The Olympics is a notable topic; but because of notability not being inherited, it would seem not every Olympic gold medallist is notable. Therefore, the situation is unclear as to whether lists of gold medallists can be compiled. Is that a correct assertion? This proposal is seeking to clarify such instances. Is that any better? Hiding T 12:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think I see where we differ. If I understand right, you'd like "List of Olympic gold medallists" to be included because "The Olympics" is notable; that is inherited notability, so I dislike it; but I see why you'd call that support for an exemption. I'd be happy for "List of Olympic gold medallists" to be included because there's sufficient coverage of "Olympic gold medallists" overall for me to believe that the GNG would include that article, whereas some people think that the coverage that the GNG requires would have to cover the list itself rather than its subject. I'd propose that we clarify what counts as coverage for lists, rather than exempting them from needing coverage, but there's enough complaining already about scope creep. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my point grows from the fact that opinion on how to interpret the GNG with regards list articles varies, and that we need to work out how it does, as you say below, in order to show people what good lists are and what bad lists are. The consensus at the pokemon poll all that time ago was to merge them all into lists. I accept consensus may change, but feel that was a strong consensus and we need to move more in that direction. I also feel that's where consensus likely lies. As I've tried to point out, bad lists are fairly easy to spot just by their name, and will be caught by WP:OR and WP:NPOV long before we have to worry about WP:N. Hiding T 18:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair enough; I just think you may have shot yourself in the foot by describing that as an 'exemption'. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That indicates an issue that may not be my own. The problem seems to be this; we all agree the GNG applies except in rare instances here, through community consensus, the application of ignore all rules is applied because keeping verifiable information improves the encyclopedia in its goal to be comprehensive. But we're not allowed to openly state that there are such exemptions, because that's the elephant in the room. Odd. I don't know how to delineate consensus then, because to me it is quite clear where the consensus lies. Hiding T 09:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you'll get very far selling this as an IAR issue - if you say "the rules should be weaker in order to include lists" then you'll get a lot of agreement; if you say "the rules should be discarded in order to include lists" then you'll get a lot of opposition. But consensus does seem to be on the side of including lists at a lower threshold, which is why I've tried to push the idea of 'aggregate notability' in the past. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a write up of 'aggregate notability'? One thing that is starting to bother me is the practicality of implementing the consensus determined here, whatever it is. I think it is fair to say that there's a fair group of editors who would oppose the GNG but who never seem to find their way to these forums. But I guess that's a worry for another day. Do you think we should move this thread to the talk page? Hiding T 12:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, see you there. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support due to encyclopedic and almanacic nature of lists to organize and clarify textual information. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support I think we need to hash out a little bit more explicit guidelines to prevent articles like Weapons carried by blonde cyborgs in the Ballpeen Hammer 70000 video game series, but the concept here is agreeable.Kww (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree. I was going to limit to characters, cast and episodes, but I thought there may be other needs as well, I could perhaps see location lists as something that could be of merit, but certainly we should not be listing trivial characteristics. I would think we should only have lists which sit as a supporting part of a main article, rather than seeking to group obscure elements. I think there's scope for consensus here, if we can get the right guidance we should even be able to address most of Gavin's concerns. Hiding T 19:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support with some strong qualifiers The guidelines "exempting" lists should be clear, concise and readily applicable. We should not write a guideline that allows us to spin out content (which isn't covered by WP:N) arbitrarily into lists (which under this proposal would still not be covered). WP:SYN should be primary in the writing of this guideline. HOWEVER, I agree with Kww that the general concept is agreeable. Protonk (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree. See response to Kww. Hiding T 19:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support fr33kman (talk) 22:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I support more than just lists, but I do support lists. Reminds me of WP:FICT where this all started. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support the idea behind it, oppose the wording (but my support !vote is stronger). For example, WP:VG have found lists of video game weapons to generally violate WP:GAMEGUIDE at the core, so this proposal should not counteract this consensus. On the other hand, lists of characters and episodes should IMO only be merged or deleted under rare conditions (e.g. redundance, crufty sublists of legitimate articles/lists, simple non-existance of any reliable sources). There is also the issue of bullet-point lists (e.g. lists of countries) versus section-based lists (e.g. list of characters with short summaries), where the GNC obviously applies differently (i.e. is an entry a legimimate part of the list versus has the summary due weight). – sgeureka ^t•c 16:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I just noticed that I am already (mis-)applying the GNC for entries within lists, but I take this as another sign that the GNC and lists do not go hand-in-hand as the GNC and articles IMO do. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Extra-Strong Support - This is related to what is probably my greatest concern with WP:N. It actually runs counter to the accepted use of primary sources as listed in WP:OR. Also, what's the point of merging all of these stand-alone stubs to lists, if once there, the list is deleted? Nice bait and switch there, folks. The whole point of merging stubs to lists is the idea/hope that if a section is sufficiently developed, then it can be split into its own article. Lists are our oyster beds, where we hope to eventually find pearls. - jc37 05:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support especially the comments made by Sgeureka and Hiding. Jc37 also makes a very good point in that lists can also serve as a nursery of sorts. -- Ned Scott 04:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - GNGs do not mesh well with lists in general which are really navigational tools first and articles second. When a list is comprised of entities that are WP articles (inherent notability), how can the Notability of the list be challenged. It is rare that you find sources on the "Title of the List", but most lists have sources related to the entities in the list. IMHO, the most importance aspect of a list, and the aspect that should be the focus of any deletion proposals or improvement proposal is the list lead-in. The lead-in should be strong, and clearly delineate the inclusion criteria, and the list in general provide a logical but annotated navigational source for the larger context.--Mike Cline (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support This proposal seems to make sense. Captain panda 02:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support with a caveat The list, be it in the parent article or a spinoff article, must be supported by either first-party or third-party sources, or obvious from inspection. A list of characters in a TV series may use the primary source of the TV show itself or the non-third-party source of the TV studio's promotional materials rather than a third-party source. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as long as lists may be exempt, not are exempt.Petero9 (talk) 03:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support; insofar as a list that would have been appropriate in the parent article can legitimately be spun off on its own page for presentation purposes. — Coren ^(talk) 03:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. I believe that some lists can be made from primary sources and still meet V, NPOV, and NOR. I don't like the wording that they are "exempt" from GNG, they might be allowed a weaker standard, however, on independent sources if it can still demonstrate a NPOV. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support but not for trivial lists. The list needs to be considered acceptable within the parent article and split off only for the reason of being to long to be embedded in the parent. Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support as per Kww, Protonk, Mike Cline; very nice idea, but the details need clarification. This would allow creation of useful lists as a default, but I'm sure trivial lists could still be deleted easily. Walkerma (talk) 04:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support yes. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Most lists can be sourced via the primary source or via secondary sources in the parent article. And many lists should consist of bluelinks to articles, which in turn establish notability. 23skidoo (talk) 05:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though we certainly need some clearer guidelines for lists, the GNG is designed to evaluate topics, not ways of presenting information. Zagalejo^^^ 05:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my (currently ongoing) analysis of the AfD discussions on lists. Essentially, precedent is that lists are deleted for being unmaintainable, not connecting related subjects, covering an invented classification (original research), or for being (for lack of a better word) generally stupid. Not for notability problems, at least not in the same sense as articles. Therefore, per the descriptive nature of policy, WP:N should reflect this. --erachima talk 08:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Lists are often a supplement to articles, that ideally would be included as a box or section in the article but are split out for reasons of space. --Itub (talk) 09:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Purely a formatting issue. No-brainer. SP-KP (talk) 09:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Often for things like this, primary sources are more reliable than secondary or tertiary ones anyway. Waggers (talk) 10:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possible Support I would be fine with List of characters or Specific episode articles being allowed to waive the "third-party" part of sourcing, assuming there are strong non-independant sources. So franchises that produce guidebooks would pass this, or TV series that give lots of commentary on DVD's, while not necessarily passing the current rules. But a list must still have some sourcing, or how will any editor know which entries are true, or vandalism or wishful thinking? It should still be possible to challenge entries in a list to force sources (even if not third party sources) I would at least like to see this proposal go further to become more specific, hence possible support. Many current lists wouldn't pass the current rules, even when clearly encylpedic (eg, List of works by massively famous authors: Author is notable, but "Lists of works" may not exist independantly).Yobmod (talk) 11:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Sounds like common sense to me. Abyssal (talk) 11:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support for lists which don't pass the threshold of originality. A list of episode titles of a TV series which could have been copy&pasted (and reformatted) from a primary source needn't cite secondary sources; but if it included other commentary, such as a summary (even if three-lines long) of each episode, then it would still need to comply with WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NOR. -- A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ! !  12:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support While lists have a tendancy to be more encyclopedic in nature than prose, there still exists the possibility that a list consisting entirely of cruft will be created and kept under this rationale. I think we could reword this to be a bit more like proposal A.3 and we will be good here: as long as the list adds to the depth of coverage of a notable topic, then the list is notable. A list about a non-notable topic is of no use to anyone. bahamut0013 ♠♣ 12:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, provided the lists do not contain non-obvious commentary. Warofdreams talk 12:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why is this even up for discussion?--EchetusXe (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support But this is already my understanding of the way things currently work. Jclemens (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A weaker standard in these cases is sensible. Ford MF (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Again on balance. Davewild (talk) 16:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support The whole concept of notability guidelines is hurting Wikipedia, not helping it. Hans Persson (talk) 17:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think lists are a reasonable exception to WP:NOTINHERITED. They're more for organization than actual content; we don't need sources for the text added to Categories either. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support; the purpose of lists is usually as much related to organization as content and shouldn't usually be judged by the same content standards. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. You can't prove notability for lists, you can only prove that they and the general topic covered is verifiable and that the items are verifiable and the general subject is notable. ~A H 1^(TCU) 01:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Lists are a methog of grouping written Articles, If the Article is NN, it will remain a redlink, but it can still exist in a List to show relationships. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lists exist to organize information about a topic. This is a case where people need to remember that information in lists still needs to meet verifiability and trivia guidelines. Those exist to prevent abuse of this type of system.--Marhawkman (talk) 03:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lists provide useful, encyclopedic info. FieldMarine (talk) 03:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Lists can be useful resources for people creating notable articles without needing to demonstrate their own intrinsic notability. Let us not destroy potentially useful information. Maias (talk) 03:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Again, geography should not change our inclusion policies. Lists of characters and the like are suggested for inclusion in articles. There should be no reason that these are a good thing to have only on topics which have only a few characters, but forbidden on topics with lots of characters because the list (properly) gets split out to a sub-article. --CBD 11:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - sensible, as these lists will be comprised of uncontroversial and easily verifiable information. Chubbles (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - Sounds very reasonable. Lists based on the general topic are automatically as notable as the general topic and much more difficult to establish notability separately. Trying to prove notability on a list would be arduous and counter-productive. --Willscrlt (Talk) 16:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - Open any printed encyclopedia and you find lists - they most certainly have a place in Wikipedia, and this makes sense. Timmccloud (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Again, reasonable, and is current practice anyway. Bearian (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I've always generally supported exempting lists from the same rigors of individual articles, as it provides a compromise and at the same time the lists has to still keep up with the general quality standards of any article. My philosophy has always been, it's better to have 1 article that isn't perfect, than to have 50 articles (that could have been contained in that 1 article) that are even less perfect. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely Lists are extremely useful and there should be more of them. Grue 17:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support – current practice more or less. A list that is not suitable for Wikipedia would be one that fails WP:NOT#INFO, WP:NOR, WP:WEIGHT, and to some cases, WP:NOT#PLOT (in the case of tertiary lists on minor characters in a series for instance), not necessarily failing notability requirements. —sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A few days ago I was somewhat neutral on this topic however over the last 24 hours I have been convinced there is a strong need for the obvious. A spin-out article/list from a topic about an obvious subject should be "extended components" of the main article. But while I support this I still feel that a list will need it's own subject specific guidelines to limit its scope. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support in some cases. I'm rather torn on this one:
1. I absolutely very very strongly support this with navigational lists: lists where the contents are blue-links, and the name of the list is a defining or prominent characteristic of the list's members. List of dogs, for example does and should derive its notability from Dog. There should be no need to find reliable secondary sourcing for "list of dogs".
2. I oppose the idea, however, where the list is itself interpretive: an encyclopedia article which happens to be better formatted as a list. If Differences between the director's cut of I Was A Teenage Heffalump and the director's cut (2008 re-release) of I Was A Teenage Heffalump is not encyclopedic, then it cannot become so by renaming it List of differences between the director's cut of I Was A Teenage Heffalump and the director's cut (2008 re-release) of I Was A Teenage Heffalump and claim that it derives its notability from I Was A Teenage Heffalump, however notable that film may be. AndyJones (talk) 11:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A.4 edit

Oppose This proposal is virtually the same in effect as Proposal A.1: Every spin-out is notable, as GNG would no longer apply to lists, which in the case of episodes lists with plot summaries, is more or less a type of spin-out. There are no agreed rules or mechanism that exempts lists from WP:N at present, but WP:LISTS states that they not exempt from any other Wikipedia content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others. Since the rationale for a list must originate from a particular source, ideally a reliable secondary source, then lists are for all intents and purposes governed by WP:N. Those lists that are based on a synthesis of primary sources are of doubtful provenance, since there is no way of knowing they are either comprehensive or correct. Lists that are not based on criteria that are widely agreed upon (i.e. they are not notable), or are based on invented criteria that cannot be verified tend to become deletion candidates e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of nations finishing at the top of the medals tables at the Summer Olympic Games. I cannot agree to this proposal as it would open the flood gates to list cruft.--Gavin Collins (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I believe that the criteria should be somewhat looser for lists, in that items in a list can be added based on trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources. For example, I think we should allow lists of episodes in season 1 of XXX show IF those episodes each had coverage in independent, reliable sources. However, I do not believe that using primary sources to create a list should be allowed. That fails WP:V and potentially WP:OR. Karanacs (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't actually breach WP:V or WP:OR. WP:OR allows primary source material to be used for sourcing in this manner, so there is no issue there. It wouldn't breach WP:V either; the topic is the work itself; if we have no sources on the work, we have no article; therefore no list. Hiding T 19:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very, very important point. Primary sources for plot summary are not a problem for any policy other than WP:N. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A few key points: there is no way that we will be able to encode exceptions to the list notability ONLY for fiction (and the proposal doesn't appear to try to do so). And, while a list may contain a plot summary, it is not a plot summary itself, or should not be. Therefore, we should be able to have independent, reliable sources that mention the items in the list (at least trivially). We could then use primary sources to supplement particular list items, but we should not rely solely on the primary source to establish whether an item belongs in the list. Otherwise, this proposal allows the List of episodes in which Homer Simpson said "D'oh! - after all, that's a plot point that we could easily cull from the primary source, and, after all, The Simpsons has proved notability and the List of Simpsons episodes has as well. Karanacs (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, any article which relies on primary sources violates WP:V as well, as it states Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Any article which is a list of plot summaries can't be said to be in accordance with that statement. I think that having an exemption is necessary to keep the peace, but it isn't isolated to WP:N.Kww (talk) 20:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that any claim that a plot summary is unverifiable has fallen so far into a rabbit hole of terms of art that it is no longer meaningfully discussing reality. At best that sentence in WP:V can be read as a restatement of WP:N and of WP:NPOV, which demands that we address all perspectives on a topic (which by necessity involves going beyond the primary sources). But given the degree to which, throughout our policies, a carefully worked through (if, to my mind, often flawed) policy on primary sources exists, that line of WP:V becomes incongruous if treated, as you seem to be treating it, as an even stronger version of WP:N. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just read the words, Phil. That's a pretty straightforward statement, and not one that is subject to a lot of interpretation.Kww (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That you just read the words of policy pages without considering their implications for the project, their logic, or how they interact with other policy pages explains, I think, why your view of policy is so characterized by a destructive dogmatism that treats the actual end goal of serving our readers as, at best, an afterthought.

Quite the contrary, the statement is not at all straightforward, and is subject to a great deal of interpretation. First of all, "should rely" is a strangely vague formulation. What normative force is it intended to carry? It was, presumably, chosen over stronger formulations - must rely, for instance, or "Articles should not rely on" the opposite. Furthermore, the formulation "reliable, third-party published sources" is a strange awkwardness - why not just use the more familiar phrasing "secondary sources?" The phrasing makes it more an attack on self-publishing than on primary sources. By no standards is a television show self-published. Furthermore, the idea that it doesn't require a lot of interpretation is ludicrous. For one thing, it requires the basic interpretation of figuring out what its practical weight is. What follows from that statement? The "should" clearly implies that many do not. What is the appropriate course of action there? What does "rely" mean, exactly? Other policies set up very careful discussions of how various types of sources should be used. Does "rely" simply mean "follows our other guidelines in this area," or does it impose some numerical percentage? Is this sentence a restatement of other policies? Or does it carry new weight separate from similar policies? In what way does it differ from WP:N or WP:NOR? None of this is answered clearly by the sentence. All of it comes from a careful process of interpretation. So do not try to tell me that the sentence is clear, interprets itself, and presents an unambiguous duty. No amount of policy magically makes writing articles, organizing content, and selecting the depth of coverage for a topic easy, clear, or doable by simple and reflexive reference to a user's manual. Writing an encyclopedia is hard, and requires careful, nuanced thought. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly do consider the meanings of policies, and consider their implications. It is a very good thing that every article be based on material derived from third-party sources. It is a very good thing that articles are not derived from primary sources, and, just to be clear, it is a very good thing that we don't have articles about TV episodes derived from watching those TV episodes. Don't accuse me of not thinking it through. There are gray cases where deciding whether or not an article relies on third-party sources is a judgment call, but a list of plot summaries derived from watching the episodes is not one of them. To follow WP:V, each and every article must contain material from third-party sources, and must do so in a way that it can be said to rely on it. An article derived solely from primary sources fails WP:V, plain and simple.Kww (talk) 22:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it may be fair to state WP:V is open to interpretation on this matter, because I certainly interpret the following to mean something a little different: Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources. I take this to mean that articles should rely on third party sources, and this is especially important when claims are of an extra-ordinary or exceptional nature. Where the claims are mundane, the need for exacting standards to be applied to sourcing is not so burdensome; where something is listing episodes in a series, the bones of contention are going to be over episode names; the best source in this instance is going to be official releases, or primary source. I'm not getting into the issue of plot summary here, I don't really think there should be much more than a paragraph of plot per episode, in all honesty. But my reading of WP:V, when taken as a whole, is that if you're proposing a theory of everything you need citations on every word. If you're claiming the sky is blue, ignore the trolls. I know this is an old debate and a cite for the sky being blue was found, but I hope you get my drift. It's the exceptionalness which determines the sources required. I think a grouping of blonde gun-wielding characters in Western fiction needs at least a reference to an academic study on the topic to show the notability of such a grouping, but I think a grouping of episodes per series/season is not a definition of exceptionable content; TV listings, dvd releases and fan guides are enough to cover on this basis. That's my take on it. Hiding T 23:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing that an exemption shouldn't be granted for lists, I'm simply arguing that modifying WP:N alone isn't sufficient to permit them.Kww (talk) 00:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In what sense is it a "very good thing" that we don't have those articles? What good does it serve? I continue to think that the intent of that sentence is far from clear, particularly in the context of other pages. Most significantly, the location of the statement - at the head of the section on reliable sources - to me introduces a great deal of ambiguity. One thing that you often find if you go through the history of policy pages is that meanings get introduced accidentally. What's the history of this statement? It is telling that the phrase "third party" is never defined or expanded on in WP:V. How separate does it need to be? Is an interview with a writer for a show third party to the show? An interview published in a newspaper? For that matter, is a television show, edited, commented on, approved by, and aired by different people than its creators, already a third-party source? Who is the first party for Star Trek? What does party even mean when you are dealing with something that is not clearly possessing an agenda?

Furthermore, it is in no way clear to me what it means that an article "fails WP:V" in this context. What follows from that? The article's deletion? The article's being tagged for improvement? Two for one burger day at McDonalds? What is the normative force of the "should" in this case? What do we do with the fact that a massive amount of television and periodical publication from the lifespan of television exists - almost certainly non-trivial commentary and reviews can be found for the vast majority of shows with fandoms devoted enough to write episode articles of. So what do we do with an article that currently "fails WP:V" but presumably or possibly could be expanded? None of this is obvious. None of this is straightforward. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're trying to write guidance which will stop List of episodes in which Homer Simpson said "D'oh! but allow List of Simpsons episodes, why not state that the list should not be seeking to group trivial characteristics. We could pretty much draw up a decent set of lists which would be useful in scope, and allow AFD to take care of the slippage, with IAR when and if needed for plausible exemptions we can't seek to catch. Guidance isn't supposed to be a locked barn door; it's meant to be a net. If it was a locked barn door we wouldn't have AFD; we'd just have CSD. Lists of episodes by series: Good Lists of episodes in which: bad. Lists of characters in: Good. Lists of characters with blonde hair in: Bad. Let's face it, lists are probably the area we can afford to relax somewhat; it's pretty straightforward to spot any funny business in them. Hiding T 21:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose per WP:LISTS, which says that "lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies". Lists of notable articles are notable, but then they'll also be appropriately sourcable. Lists of non-notable material would not be notable. A bunch of trivial mentions might support a list where a notable article would not be possible (e.g.: "road X exists, road Y exists, road Z exists"), but I worry this would open the flood gates to significant coverage of topics without reliable third-party sources. Randomran (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've missed the flaw in your argument, unless you are suggesting WP:N applies to paragraphs. As to worrying about flood gates, I would suggest that is actually a myth. We're not actually that flooded at present, and there is not a lot preventing people creating such articles as we speak. WP:N is not a bar to article creation; bad articles get created regardless of policies and guidance. Ever since the pokemon poll this has been the very spirit of consensus; to remove this plank from Wikipedia is to effectively strand the project in the sea. Hiding T 23:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Writing an actual article is definitely a separate concern. I'm all for making exceptions to notability for certain classes of articles, especially lists. But they have to be somewhat specific. The way I read this, virtually any list would be exempt from the notability requirement. I'm definitely sensitive to instruction creep and being overly prescriptive, but I'm just as sensitive to making blanket exceptions that open up a lot of unexpected results. I think a far better compromise is to make exceptions for certain kinds of lists on a case by case basis in the SNGs, rather than creating a general exception for lists. Randomran (talk) 00:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And here we are again. We obviously support exactly the same thing, and yet we can't agree on the wording.; This is my fear for Wikipedia; that we will refuse to find consensus because we are so closed on our own separate goal of defining the solution word perfect to match our own specific concerns. At no point was the proposal written to be a general exception for lists; I quite specifically used the term "specifically" to guard against trivial groupings, but obviously I have failed. I don't know what the magic phrasing is, but I'm astonished people are opposing an idea they seem to support. Hiding T 10:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the proposals in this RFC were vetted by a smaller group and had a chance to refine themselves. I'm not surprised that the proposals that were added after the RFC started are having a lot of trouble. I see the term "specifically", but I'm not sure what is "specifically suited" to list form. You should find some comfort in the fact that there is a good chance this RFC won't be the final word. If the opposition to this proposal is truly based on some misinterpretation or technical flaw, then it should be reasonable to propose a V2 of this same proposal. That's exactly the kind of success this RFC should be able to produce -- weeding out the truly wrong proposals, and finding which proposals are close to gaining a consensus of support (if not actually gaining a consensus of support, but I'm not holding my breath). Let the RFC play itself out, I suppose. Randomran (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - although I'd accept a weaker interpretation for lists; a list article should be able to show notability for its topic (the bit after 'list of') by showing that the list is notable on aggregate: that there is either a non-trivial amount of coverage of elements of the list, or non-trivial coverage of the overall topic of the list, or both. That seems to me to be the way to keep the good lists without opening the door to the bad ones. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I have my head in my hands because this is exactly what I thought I was proposing. I'm not sure how to modify this proposal within this RFC, but would it be fair to state you'd accept there is some form of consensus for some sorts of lists being interpreted more weakly than strict adherence to the GNG? Hiding T 10:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may have invited opposition by using the word "exempted". While I wouldn't favour an exemption, I'd be very much in favour of clarifying what coverage means for list articles, in such a way that we get to keep the good lists. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Percy: any proposal which seeks an exemption won't fly. What is needed is a set of inclusion criteria that will either supercede or supplement WP:N for lists in order to clarify what coverage is allowable and what is not. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with the thrust of the proposal but I think it is too broad, a list of characters from a tv show is normally acceptable, a list of the places Steve Coogan has been on holiday would probably not be. Even though the parent topic (Steve Coogan) clearly is notable. Guest9999 (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is it about this proposal that makes it appear as though a list of the places Steve Coogan has been on holiday would be acceptable? And how would such a list comply with WP:NOR and WP:NOT? Hiding T 14:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've often seen the celebrity's holidays appear in what is usually regarded as the mainstream press, so no original research would be required, I assume the applicable sections of WP:NOT would possibly be WP:NOTDIR and possibly WP:IINFO but frankly a lot of the time sections of WP:NOT almost seems to be ignored on what are effectively notability grounds, we have articles which are directories of places, list of statistics and television schedules when the information within those articles can be verified and the particular statistics,directory or schedule is considered to be worthy of note by enough people. Guest9999 (talk) 00:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As currently written, it's to broad, as the previous poster said. I don't deny that supporting "non-article" material, say in list or tabular format, is warranted in some cases, and that it needs space. However, if it's not an article on an independent topic, we should not treat it like one - in all organizational, procedural, technical aspects. Some time ago, I wrote up some thoughts regarding that; see User:B. Wolterding/New subarticle concept. (It doesn't seem that this approach meets general consensus, but perhaps it's good input to the discussion.) --B. Wolterding (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your proposal looks similar to the thought underlying A1.2. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as written. No different from "every spin-out is notable" and far too broad and open to excessive abuse. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The topic of the list must be notable, but the contents do not. That is; it must be established that the relationship between the subjects of the list is notable, but the individual points of the list should be regulated less strictly, but still with common sense. Themfromspace (talk) 03:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Proposal is too open to abuse as written. Every list should be notable on its own and no list should be given carte blanche to bypass normal oversight. Binksternet (talk) 08:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This seems to legitimise "Every piece of content Bart wrote on the blackboard at the start of every episode" type lists. --Blowdart | ^talk 10:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Same as my argument in A.3. --:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 11:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Wikipedia already has a tendency towards listmania, yearmania, and monthmania. This proposal will only accentuate the tendency. Correlating articles by trivial characteristics is unecyclopedic, and decreases the signal to noise ratio. There are non-autistic people reading Wikipedia. VG ☎ 11:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose While I might tend to agree that list articles spun-out from notable topics don't independently need to demonstrate notability, I can't support the phrasing that appears to explicitly exempt the list from verifiability requirements. But then again, perhaps it is just confusingly phrased -- if it were clarified that the content of the list must be verifiabl (independent of notability) then I support this. older ≠ wiser 12:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would rather see something like this added into the topic related notability guidelines. Otherwise you have the potential for many lists to be created that are not legitimate for articles, like List of clothes in Jennifer Aniston's Closet. (Interesting though that may be) It seems to me if that was published in People, then by this policy it would be a legitimate list... Charles Edward 12:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blows a hole in the wall wide enough for a listcruft truck to drive through. Stifle (talk) 12:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose List should be (and are) treated differently than articles, but to exempt them entirely is just plain foolish. Lists of episodes and characters are almost always okay, but we certainly don't need something like "List of student council members at East Podunk Junior High" and the like. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per previous comment. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Well intentioned, but mistaken. No mainspace page should be exempt from policy and consensus. It may even be the case that lists require even greater scrutiny and stiff criteria because they can be amongst the most trivial and geeky of all the mainspace pages that are produced. SilkTork *^YES! 17:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That we might need even greater scrutiny for lists is bourne out by the observation that people are supporting this proposal under the misunderstanding that lists are already exempt from Wikipedia policy. SilkTork *^YES! 17:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you not see that it is possible to have a list article that is V, NPOV, and NOR and yet use primary sources? DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any proposal which suggests we avoid the common sense consensus we have already built up is not going to get my support. Primary sources are great for supplying information, but not for judging notability, as there is nothing about a primary source which reveals its importance. I am a primary source for my own life. A bus timetable is a primary source. These things by themselves are quite obviously not evidence of importance. We have guidelines against using primary sources as evidence of notability for very good reasons. Meanwhile there are various other ways of grouping information. We have a very flexible and effective category system, and we have navigation boxes. If the type of standalone list being considered does not meet the criteria, the other options can be considered - but making a special rule to include non-notable lists because some editors (for example) would like a list of porn stars with a penis length over 12 inches, is not the way to go. If there is a reliable source for a list (rather than just the items within the list), then create it, if there is not, then use a nav box or create a category so people can find the information. But be aware that nav boxes and cats are also scrutinised for appropriate use. SilkTork *^YES! 12:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A reasonable stance for opposition; though I disagree since the notability of the subject has already been shown by the parent article. Importance, of course, is not a Wikipedia policy. The Core content policies are V, NPOV, and NOR. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. What makes a list any different from an article, apart from the way it presents information? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest oppose My telephone directory is "useful" but that doesn't make it encyclopedic material. If one category needs standards for notability, it's lists. (Note to self: Find out if there is a group of editors opposed to lists. Join.) Iterator12n ^Talk 01:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I cannot support this without the addition of a list-specific notability guideline. Wronkiew (talk) 02:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If it can't be supported, it shouldn't be included. Period.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 12:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sympathetic oppose. I'm sympathetic to the spirit of this proposal, but believe strongly that blanket exemptions to notability guidelines are the wrong way to proceed, and don't make much sense anyway. If, say, a TV show is notable, then surely some reliable secondary sources might happen to mention that the show has episodes, or even that characters appear in the show – indeed, the RSS might even go so far as to name some of the characters (shocking!), or review some of the episodes! Hey presto, we have a source which demonstrates notability for both a list of characters and a list of episodes. If there is no such source, then where is a bloated article on the show getting its verifiability from? The right way to proceed is instead to use SNGs to amplify and clarify what the notability requirements mean for particular types of articles. Geometry guy 16:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Some lists should be permissible, but only lists that are clarified by a SNG. Just blanketly saying that all lists should be permissible as a spin-out opens the doors to a bunch of lists that aren't terribly useful. — X S G 18:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Lists should have the same notability criteria as any other article. If the list of characters in a semi-notable TV show isn't notable then we shouldn't have an article about it, even if the TV show is barely notable. JRP (talk) 21:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per many of the above comments. There's no demonstrable need to compromise our notability standards by giving lists some kind of special status. Eusebeus (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A list is just a collection of links to articles - if it's more than that, it's an article in its own right and needs to show notability in its own right. The linked artciles should be able to show notability in their own right. If only a handful pass that test, a lis tartcile is unnecessary since the spin-offs should be linked by "further information" entries in the parent article.
Oppose per many excellent arguments made above. Too easily abused and manipulated to allow vast collections of indiscriminate information on non-notable topics to accumulate. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose per Charles Edward and Silktork. Lists don't have a magical exemption from ~~policies~~ guidelines, and this opens the door to many bad lists. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From which policies does this proposal exempt lists? DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:N, as it says that you can skip the GNG when deciding if you make the list or not. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N is not policy; it is a guideline to aid interpreting WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point there, I changed my comment. Still opposing, thought, as skipping WP:N still leaves the door open to bad lists even it's "just" a guideline :) --Enric Naval (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Open to listcruft abuse. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This would make Wikipedia into a collection of random facts, which it is not. We should not have a List of People Thomas Jefferson Corresponded With just because Thomas Jefferson is notable. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 17:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Lists make bad encyclopedia articles as they become monotonous catalogs which violate WP:NOT#DIR. The content should be in the articles and the lists should be mainly navigational, like contents pages and indices. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: This implies that lists do not need to have reliable sources. I very much disagree. In the case of character lists, that source is the work of fiction (book, comic, TV show, movie, etc.) itself, but the source has to be there. I agree that the bar for notability in lists should be lower that of a full article, and will depend somewhat on the notability of the main article's topic, but this proposal is the wrong way to define it. Blueboar (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal explicitly states that the list must have sources; just not the significant coverage in reliable third-party sources that is needed to show WP:Notability. Using the work of fiction itself to make a list of characters would be an example of using primary sources. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose All main space content should be able to stand on its own merits for notability and verifiablity. Many lists as they currently stand are crap. Many do not explain what they are and how they relate to any tangible work knowledge. Many have erroneous content. Keeping them inside their real article would solve a lot of these problems. If they must be subed out for what ever reason then they need to be notable and veriafiable on their own. If article size is a problem, then just make them collapsible. Peet Ern (talk) 07:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. At first it sounded reasonable, but then I thought of the implications. As it stands, it would allow for inclusion of pretty much all lists, something which I oppose. Shinobu (talk) 13:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral A.4 edit

Neutral I find stuff like List of mayors of Hamilton, Ontario enormously helpful when trying to cross-verify that an article referring to a Hamilton mayor spells his name correctly, or to find an article about him if it exists, so I'd like to encourage more such lists, but cannot support the proposal as written; we can't have a blanket exception for lists. And lists have to have WP:RS sources, too. --Alvestrand (talk) 12:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After sleeping on this for a few days, I think I'd change to "support" if the proposal read "can be considered to inherit notability from the concept that they are a "list of". If the office of Mayor of Hamilton, or the TV series "902010", is considered notable in their own right, I'm happy to see the list be considered keep-worthy. But the words "excempt from the GNG" just make it impossible for me to go in support of this one. --Alvestrand (talk) 14:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral as redundant. This is entirely redundant. How is the information compiled for the list? It either a) exists somewhere outside of Wikipedia, and can thus be referenced or b) Someone just made it up. If a) is true, its not a problem if b) is true then why is it an article? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. The best of an undistinguished crop of ideas. Lists have both a navigational and a reference function. Lists with short annotations and references can contribute in various ways to the encyclopedia. If a surname page like Smith (surname) is a surrogate for List of people with surname Smith, then we already have something like this all over the place. Lists good in case the topic has a certain coherence, pseudo-lists bad. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, I think lists should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Lists of episodes from TV series are an appropriate way to contain and organize the content from the work without letting it fester into hundreds of permastubs, but would be unwieldy in the main article. On the other hand, many lists are unnecessary, redundant, or an attempt to sneak non-notable content in by clumping it together. I don't think overarching guidance is possible here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I'm sympathetic with the motivation for this proposal, as it is frequently desirable to split a list from an article. I have been dismayed to see many split-off lists targeted for deletion that never would have been considered for removal if they had remained in the parent article. However, I believe that lists split off from articles can and should be judged on the same basis as any other split-offs -- that is, by the test proposed in A.1.2. --Orlady (talk) 17:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: I find lists to be a confusing species of article. On the one hand they serve a useful purpose: they can accurately and succinctly provide factual information in a manner that categories cannot (since some items in a list will not have their own articles and therefore would not be present in a category). For example I find discography articles, which are a type of list, to be quite helpful, as well as episode lists in most cases. However, lists have a tendency to be viewed as a dumping ground for trivial info and excessive plot summary (List of characters in the Alien series, for example). I find the Featured List criteria quite helpful, and I'm glad there is a review and criteria process for improving lists, but I'd like to see some basic issues solved such as the ones we are discussing here. I do agree that the subject of the list should be notable, and that the article should show some evidence of that notability. In some cases this is obvious, as without episodes a TV series would not exist, and without albums a musical act would hardly be notable, but in other cases the issue of notability is fuzzier. I also find the wording in this proposal confusing: if a list article relies on primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, then hasn't the notability threshold been met? Don't we define notability as coverage in secondary sources? I would argue, then that a list article that has secondary sources passes the test for notability, since if secondary sources exist then the subject must be notable. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Additional comments on issue A edit

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I am sad to see that my fears regarding this RFC were, in fact, wholly justified. The poor phrasing of A.1, which doesn't even come close to the proposal I advanced on WT:N that gained significant support, has, indeed, alienated people by virtue of its phrasing.

I repeat my request that this portion of the RFC be shut down and that an actual developed and careful policy proposal in this direction be considered, as opposed to a poorly phrased sentence that seems almost designed to generate opposition. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In fairness I don't seem to remember that Phil's proposal for sub-articles included any inclusion criteria that could be used as a replacement for WP:N per se. In the absence of alternatives, I thinkw we would have to assume that either WP:N would still apply, or it would not. If you have thought of alternative criteria, make them known at WT:N. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree ... I went around and around with him on that point, and he never provided an inclusion criteria beyond his view of what constituted proper encyclopedic coverage.Kww (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - My proposal suggested that instead of thinking about it as an inclusion issue vis-a-vis notability, for sub-coverage of notable topics we would think about it as an inclusion issue vis-a-vis NPOV, which demands a level of thoroughness and rigor. The central question, in my proposal, is "If we did not cap article length for readability and browser functionality purposes, how much detail would we go into on this area?" And then, once we've answered that question, deal with the question of how to split the information up into individual pages. Which is to say, content decisions before organizational decisions. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - You say your proposal was "instead of an inclusion issue", but what you didn't say is what constitutes a notable topic for inclusion as a sub-article. Is is WP:N or no? Is it so called "expert opinion" or expert opinion dressed up as consensus of like-minded editors? Your proposal did not spell this out, and that is what we are trying to work out here.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Bear with me - I really am answering the question. What is the criteria for inclusion for, picking a random article, the "Rudder era" section of History of Texas A&M University? Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I actually wrote much of History of Texas A&M University. The information included in that article reflects what is found in reliable sources. There are actually a number of reliable, independent sources that specifically discuss the effect that James Earl Rudder had on Texas A&M University during his tenure as president (I'm talking whole newspaper articles and chapters of books on this topic). There are other presidents of Texas A&M that are not mentioned in the article at all - and that is because the reliable, independent sources glossed over them at best, so it would be undue weight to include more information in this WP article. Yes, I could find a source to say that "so-and-so" was the university president for these five years. But if the sources don't mention what the person did as president or how that impacted the history of the university (the article's topic), then that information does not belong in the article. Karanacs (talk) 16:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, but that approach, if extrapolated, in conflict with WP:RS and WP:NOR, which spell out areas where primary sources are fine to use. Also, I suspect you're committing an error of scale. I'm sure the Rudder information is easier to find than some Presidents, but if Texas A&M has a school newspaper, its library surely has archives of that newspaper that could be browsed to add secondary information on any era of the school's history. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I know Randoman asked for input several times before this was finalized, but also know we planned for the addition of other suggestions. Please feel free in the section above this to add any other proposals that fit along this line to get input on. --MASEM 15:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I expressed my displeasure with the wording of A1, and was shot down. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Phil, don't you think it is possible that we are hearing from a spectrum of editors who disagree with a statement like "The logical extension of this is that the depth of coverage we can provide on a given area of a topic is constrained by the notability guideline. This is not an acceptable outcome." (your comment in opposition to A2) I think that you should be able to make whatever proposal you want about notability, but we can't keep calling do-overs if the consensus is that the GNG basically applies and should apply to articles. Protonk (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am unwilling to make any conclusions about what editors think about a proposal that has not actually been put before them. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will go so far as to say "The logical extension of this is that the depth of coverage we can provide on a given area of a topic is constrained by the notability guideline. This is as it should be." I certainly was exposed to the full range of Phil's proposal. I found it unacceptable then, and it didn't win a lot of support when he first put it forward. It isn't surprising at all to me that he failed to convince other editors to put it forth verbatim, and I hope that we don't get stuck in a loop of do-overs because that didn't happen.Kww (talk) 03:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The end point of that line of thought is the replacing of WP:V with WP:N. I am wholly unable to believe that view has any grounding in consensus or in policy as normally interpreted. It is more of a fringe view than the most radically inclusionist views. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V is a content policy. WP:N is an article guideline. Requiring that articles have secondary sourcing does not in any way lead to the demand that all claims must be sourced from secondary sources. Protonk (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that "article" on Wikipedia is based in part on an arbitrary technical standard that caps an article somewhere in the 60-100k range. Whereas an article on EB can hit 1.1 megs in pure text. A page in the mainspace is not equivalent to an article in practice - technical guidelines cause us to split what any other encyclopedia would consider an article over multiple pages. Which is the problem that leads to the WP:N dispute - because demanding that WP:N expand to cover the question of how to organize coverage of a topic that cannot be covered in 60k is functionality creep - WP:N was designed to kill articles on garage bands, not handle the delicate splitting of complex and detailed topics into multiple pages. We absolutely need a policy to handle the task of figuring out what areas of a topic to cover, in what depth, and how to organize those areas. But WP:N was never designed to be that policy, and it does a shit job of being that policy. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would argue that 100k of text is a sensible restriction not in technical terms but in terms of what the brain may handle in chunks. further, if the largest discrete chunks are 100k in size, notability shouldn't be an issue. We honestly shouldn't be writing ~100k about something that doesn't have a single secondary source on the subject. Protonk (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, but that's a web function more than anything - an artifact of our medium. We do smaller chunks of info than EB because screen reading is a different experience than paper reading. The question is, how does that affect our organization. And here's where the Britannica comparison becomes tricky - they use a peer review and credentialism system instead of a secondary sourcing system. They are also limited by page count and by a concept of notability that is more... culturally based than ours. So it's difficult to take our cues on this issue directly from them. Further aggravating the situation is the fact that, pre-Internet, publishing a secondary source is a financial decision. The reason that there isn't a published episode guide for every TV series ever is not that they're insignificant, but that the mechanics of publishing are such that it's not always profitable. The degree to which that translates to unworthy of coverage is... tenuous at best.

My point here is simply that organization of these subjects is actually a tricky task. It's not obvious how they should be organized, and it's not obvious that page and topic are equivalent in this case. We have no problem, with a short story, using two paragraphs of space to summarize the plot. But expand to an extended serial work - a 100+ hour television series - and providing the same thoroughness takes up a huge amount of space. That fact is unrelated in principle to the fact of our 60k limit on article size. They're just not related matters. That's not to say there aren't issues to deal with in terms of depth of plot summary and sourcing and coverage. It's just to say that WP:N was not written to handle that task, did not evolve from processes designed to handle that task, and is ill suited to handling that task.

Which is why I'm so frustrated at this RFC - because that point - that WP:N is not even the correct guideline to be using here, and that we need to actually look at the issue of organization of large topics for what it is instead of shoehorning it into a guideline that was designed to kill garage bands, not organize complex topics - has somehow been collapsed in this RFC to "notability is inherited." Which isn't what I've said at all, and it certainly isn't what most of the people on this RFC have been discussing.

Nobody has gone to greater lengths to try to formulate good policy in approaching plot summaries than I have. Nobody has been a stronger supporter of pulling out fan speculation and reducing bloat in fictional articles. I am not your enemy on this topic. I oppose a policy that will get abused to lead to massive amounts of in-universe spam that cannot be contained. But I also oppose handling the organization of complex topics with a blunt instrument that was designed for other purposes. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't compare to other encyclopedias when it's convenient, and reject them when it's not. EB doesn't have the problem of editors that believe that the plot, casting, and production credits of every episode of every TV show ever made needs to be included. That is really the problem being fought here: there isn't a reasonable inclusion criterion that would permit that to happen, yet that is your goal. As a result, you struggle against inclusion criteria.Kww (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to compare consistently to other encyclopedias. I have no desire to reject them in any context. Britannica's coverage is limited by financial concerns and paper - Wikipedia is not, and we cover more subjects and in more depth. However, because screen-reading and paper-reading are different experiences, we also chunk our information in smaller bits than EB. What I see no explanation for is why a page-sized chunk - a unit that exists for technical reasons, and is an artifact of a desire to have Wikipedia be editable on browsers that couldn't handle more than 32kb at a time - is being equated with a topic. They are completely separate concepts. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- People aren't opposing the wording. They're opposing the spirit of a proposal which would lead to virtually endless coverage of minutiae for a single topic, with no verification in reliable secondary sources. I doubt that a re-wording would change the fundamental problem. Randomran (talk) 13:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In answer to Phil, I don't think you realise the effect of having sub-articles without inclusion criteria. You say that WP:N was designed to kill articles on garage bands, but your proposal would resurrect them as sub-articles! Even if they were exempted from GNG, you would still have to devise inclusion criteria as a way of avoiding duplication and content forks. If you cannot propose alternative inclusion criteria that would apply to spinouts, then this RFC outlines the existing choices in A1,2 & 3.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I didn't want this proposal on the RFC in the first place, and asked Randomran to take it off! Because it's not a finished proposal. But unfortunately people are too hung up on either seeing me as the enemy despite my long-standing support for reigning in coverage of fictional topics, or on fighting over how best to apply WP:N to a task it was never designed for that there's been an alarming lack of willingness to step back and actually think about the question of how to organize complex topics and what policies do or do not govern the organization of complex topics. Now if somebody wants to start an open RFC on the question of article structure and organization and where the overall shape of our coverage comes from, that's an RFC I'd love to have. Because it would be a hell of a lot more applicable to the problem than this one, and it wouldn't be full of bastardizations of serious proposals that serve to kill discussions in the cradle instead of having them. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody here owns a proposal, and there was support for a proposal like this outside of your preferred modifications. Enough to put it to the wider community.

Calling this RFC unproductive and calling for a completely different RFC is akin to walking into a gay bar and complaining that it's too gay, and demanding it become a straight bar. In other words, you might yourself be in the wrong place, rather than the problem being the rest of us.

You might want to keep track of the opposition to this proposal. If it continues to be this strong, it's safe to say that people aren't opposed to it on some technical basis. They're outright opposed to an indefinite number of pages on a single topic without appropriate sources. That's my advice to you, which you can ignore at the risk of wasting your time. But maybe I'm wrong. Randomran (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Phil, I think you are a bit cheeky by objecting to this RFC on the basis that your proposal for sub-articles is not finished. Assuming good faith, I would say that to finish it, you will still need to come up with inclusion criteria to regulate sub-articles in order to address some of the issues raised in this RFC, such as how you deal with content forks and and article duplication. However, in the absence of alternative inclusion criteria, we still have to consider how sub-articles could work within the context of existing policies and guidelines. The reason is that every structure or system of organization for sub-articles must be regulated by some sort inclusion criteria that are consistent and explicit. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am going by the spirit of the proposal and not the wording, and I object to the concept of guidelines and mainspace pages not conforming to policy and consensus. I object to the notion of setting up notability guidelines in opposition to each other and providing conflicting advice. I support the notion of guidelines assisting people with advice gained from experience and consensus - where alternative options are discussed in context within the same guideline. I support the gathering of arguments in one place with a summary of what we have learned so people can benefit from that. I don't quite understand the thinking behind this proposal of scattered and conflicting advice. I don't understand the thinking behind this proposal of breaking the Wikipedian principle of Verifiability. Every mainspace page needs to be verifiable. No exceptions. SilkTork *^YES! 18:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find his whole issue somewhat of a concern for the future of Wikipedia generally. This whole thing seems to be going the way of arguing about how many angels can sit on a pin head. Surely we should stick the basic principles of notability and verifiability, and this applies equally to main articles, sub articles, spin out articles, sections, etc. Any content must be suitably notable or supporting notability, and appropriately verifiable. A sub article, a list, or whatever, should be able to stand on its own merits. Exceptions, sub exceptions, variations, ad infinitum, will be (is already) just a growing nightmare. Peet Ern (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Issue B: Relationship between GNG and SNGss edit

Issue: Wikipedians dispute the relationship between the general notability guideline and the specific notability guidelines such as WP:Notability (music) and WP:Notability (people). This depends on the flexibility of the GNG, and whether SNGs can extend notability to a wider range of articles.

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

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

Rationale: This proposal would clarify that every article must pass the general notability guideline. It would also prevent individual projects from writing guidelines that favor inclusion of their material.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Support B.1 edit

Support No guideline can be less strict than the general notability guideline, which represents the broad consensus of Wikipedia aeditors, not the consensus between a lesser number of topic-oriented editors. A number of very specofoc guidelines in the past have tried to reason that X has inherent notability, which probably represented the opinion of those editors specifically interested in X, but not the general consensus (which has usually been that anything but geographic names / locations are not inherently notable). Specific guidelines explaining what kind of sources are considered reliable and notable enough and so on for specific subject types can be very useful as an addition to the general notability guideline, but never to replace it. Fram (talk) 12:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is the crux of the problem. People have come to view the specific guidelines as a Get out of jail free card. Can't find sources? Declare your topic inherently notable. I've seen such absolutely ludicrous arguments as If someone bothered to name a bridge, that bridge must be notable. The GNG should be policy, and enforced: if multiple, independent, reliable sources that treat the topic directly and in detail cannot be found, the article needs to be merged somewhere. The purpose of the subordinate guidelines is to document exclusions. Nearly every local band can be sourced: they all wind up with listings and little reviews in their local papers. WP:MUSIC says that we can't include them because they simply aren't important enough to list. Every released single in the course of history has a few sources about it, but WP:MUSIC says that most singles should never have an independent article. In practical fact, if someone could find an article that asserted that it met WP:MUSIC but did not meet WP:N, that article would probably be deleted as a hoax. How could it be verified to meet WP:MUSIC without multiple, independent, third-party sources?
Another purpose of sub-notability guidelines is to provide guidance on the treatment of sources. There was a lot of debate on the geographic locations guideline as to the treatment of censuses and atlases. That was a valuable discussion, and its results deserve to be summarized in a guideline. Nonsense like named locations are inherently notable does not, and, if some special interest group all gets together to attempt to make inclusion criterion that violate the GNG, those inclusion criterion need to be recognized as invalid on their face.Kww (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MUSIC does not say that most singles should not have an independent article. WP:MUSIC#Songs says most songs should not have independent articles, which is quite true, as very few songs ever get released as singles, much less become notable charting singles -- Foetusized (talk) 16:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support The subject specific guidelines can delineate article topics that normally have sufficient sourcing to meet the GNG - but if challenged, the authors of the article need to either demonstrate that they are using such sources or admit that they are violating WP:NOR and/or WP:V by excessive use of primary sources or by including unsourcable material. No local consensus anywhere can abrogate WP:NOR and/or WP:V. GRBerry 04:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. WP:N is essentially a distillation of core policies verifiabilitiy, [[WP::OR|no original research]] and neutral point of view. This policies should always be met, and WP:N should provide the minimum standards that a topic must meet to have an article. Subject-specific guidelines should build on those minimum guidelines to meet subject-specific issues. Otherwise, if every group can create specific guidelines for their own pet project that ignore any minimum guidelines, then why have a central notabilit guideline at all? Karanacs (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support In my view, WP:N exists as an inclusion criteria because, where there are sufficient independent sources on a particular topic to satisfy the content principles of Wikipedia, then that is best criteria by which it can be judged whether or not to have an article on a particular topic. For example, the stub Ashley Fernee has virtually no content, which sugests to me that the a presumption of notability under WP:BIO#athletes cannot be substantiated. In my view, the stub will be deleted or merged as without reliable secondary sources it fails WP:NOT#DIR. Such stubs should not be created unless they meet both GNG and SNGs; it is far better to include topics that are not covered by reliable secondary sources under more notable subjects. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support fr33kman (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - in the sense that SNGs can limit the type of coverage that is considered "substantial". See below. --B. Wolterding (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support The general notability guideline is much more uniform than others, there cannot be different standards for notability for books than music, for example. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support the SNGs should never be weaker than WP:N and should not give exceptions to the GNG basic tenets. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - GNG must have its authority restored. SNGs are disrespecting and distorting the notability criteria in order to satisfy the interests of private groups. For example, the SNG WP:Athlete is currently being used to protect over 30,000 low quality non-notable soccer player articles, those SNGs are so lenient that over 100,000 retired athletes are entitled to their own Wikipedia article. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 05:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support per Collectonian above - The notion that some fancruft is relevant and others aren't because $albums=!tvshows$ seems spurious at best. Per my comments above WP:MUSIC warrants a complete rewrite. WP:BIO could also be tightened up - there are radically lower bars for some categories of award recipients than for others in the current document, and the text for professional athletes is so vague and broad as to be all-inclusive. The latter might even warrant export to a new wikia, to get rid of sports-fancruft. I've seen and supported deletion of several TV character's NN bios that were about far more popular topics than many a minor league cricketer that currently gets covered. MrZaius^talk 09:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. I would rather see everything covered with a single guideline. However, I can see the strength of having topic-specific guidelines that spell out common misconceptions such as "my band is notable because me and my friends blog about it." Binksternet (talk) 09:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support -- I'd see the subject specific guidelines as being useful sources for defining probable notability in their field to reuse my example of an Olympic Gold medallist, I'd say it's fair to say that that athlete would be in multiple sources even if it's not demonstrated in an article; As such the SNG can give that as criteria of probable notability, until general notability is demonstrated. -- ratarsed (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible support. The SNGs are merely clarifications of the GNG as applied to specific subjects, not blanket exceptions. The GNG is so broad (it only requires that there is enough reliable information to actually write an article about the subject) that the SNGs can only expand this by allowing articles to exist where there is no reliable, independent information on the subject. Why would Wikipedia want to start including articles that contain information that cannot be independently verified?!? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This sums up the function of the subject specific guidelines. They support and add extra clarity, rather than over ride or trump the main guideline. SilkTork *^YES! 18:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support SNGs are generally controlled by WikiProjects for their own benefits. The GNG should always trump SNGs. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, even the best written GNG around cannot suit all possible kinds of articles and related subjects. SNGs are necessary, and should be encouraged when in possess of a broad consensus to do so, and made as a mandatory constraint to be passed in order to establish notability. --Angelo (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, sourcing is not optional. As below, we need substantial amounts of secondary reliable source material to ensure verifiability, neutrality, and that the article does not contain its authors' original thoughts or ideas. Without substantial amounts of independent material, it is impossible to maintain these core values. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as long as it is clear that WP:N always controls. The specific guidelines can only restrict inclusion, not expand it.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 14:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, we can't have individual projects defining their own inclusive notabilities. That said, it may be that WP:N should be eventually refined to be broader. (But not to violate WP:V) JRP (talk) 21:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Otherwise we open the floodgates. The concessions on notability requirements proposed elsewhere in this RfC are palliatives that carry similar risks but do not address the real problems - over-academic definition of WP:RS and over-deletionist phrasing of WP:N. -- Philcha (talk) 10:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The specialist notability guidelines should assist, not supercede, the main guideline. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support specific guidelines can guide on which sources are not acceptable for showing notability on certain fields --Enric Naval (talk) 14:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is what we have now for WP:BAND, which raises the floor on notability for musical groups. It lets us resolve the endless flood of incoming garage-band articles without much trouble. --John Nagle (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. WikiProjects, which generally establish the SNGs, cannot supercede the policies/guidelines of the community as a whole. Doing so is putting the cart before the horse. I honestly don't see this as a big issue, as nearly all of the SNGs I've read clearly state that their guidelines are to be considered a subset of the GNG anyway. They may be more specific, but they don't supercede or contradict the GNG most of the time. Any that do can probably be easily fixed. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As SNGs should reflect the current philosophy of the GNG. They should not contradict each other. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose B.1 edit

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

Neutral on B.1 edit

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Proposal B.2: SNGs can outline sources that assert notability edit

Proposal: Specific notability guidelines such as WP:Notability (music) and WP:Notability (people) should be allowed to clarify the kinds of sources that can assert notability for specific areas of interest.

Rationale: This reflects and cements the current practice. The general notability guideline requires that any topic have significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. When we think of sources, we think of journals, books, academic articles, and so on. But we also have WP:Notability (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 provide an alternative objectively verifiable standard to show notability, other than research from reliable third-party sources. This would clarify the relationship between the general notability guideline and specific notability guidelines, which is not explicitly stated as of yet.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Support B.2 edit

Support. I have been asking for "the powers that be" to redefine the "Notable" requirement for music as it relates to certain lists (Although it could be redefined for any Wiki page). For example the list of List of All Female Bands says that the list is incomplete and says that for a band to be listed they need to be an all female band who plays all their own instruments or notable. Other than the obvious non-bands that are added and deleted one of the criteria for deletion seems to be only "I have never heard of them, they don't have a Wiki page" while others need only have a Wiki page to be included. The concept being if someone does not have a wiki page they are not notable. So I would love to see an explicit definition of notable in regards to music and other areas such as film. For example is simply having a page on Wiki enough for an artist to be included on a list? Or lack of one reason to not be included? (As an example - say there was a list of Academy Award winning Special Effects artists and it listed Gene Warren, Jr. Currently, based on what I have been seeing, his name would be taken off the list because there is no Wiki article on him yet the simple fact he won an Oscar makes him rather notable) What if a member of a band that was a 'cult' band or an unsigned band went on to be a part of something more "notable", would that band be notable enough to include on a separate list even if the act were not notable enough for their own Wiki page? How about coverage on Tv? Songs in films? Books? Articles? and so on. Even though on the WP:N page it clearly says Notability is distinct from "fame," "importance," or "popularity," although these may positively correlate with it that seems to be the only basis in several cases for appearing on a list, or even getting (and keeping) a Wiki page. Also many older acts were in existence before the internet and thusly many of the "third party sources" would not be available online and it seems many people do not understand that, so I feel it is something that needs to be laid out in no uncertain terms. (To be clear - just because an article or "source" is not available online does not make it an invalid source.) And going beyond the lists - one other item I would love to see (re)defined and explained is: reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject(sub defined as: excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.) I can understand the need to go beyond a record labels press hype however looking at an artists bio or a press release certainly can aid is gathering information and it is more than likely other (Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability) articles that cover the same topic are worded or reworded from that bio. Likewise a one on one interview does not seem to be fully allowed because it is not a "reliable secondary source" or a source that is "independent of the subject". I find that to be insane reasoning really. Now to (re)define that issue I would suggest saying that the obvious hype (ie -I am the greatest singer ever) not allowed but the credible information (ie - I joined the band when I was 18 / I was influenced by KISS) be acceptable as being notable as the information came direct from the subject you are gathering the information about. Doing a quick Google search can turn up numerous comments that all clearly came from the same source, and many time now that source is Wiki.= and that is clearly the power of the internet. However I don't feel several sources that all have the same wording on a topic makes those source more notable just because they are "independent of the subject". Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Goes without saying and reflects the current practice, so that it is largely a moot point. SNGs need to (and they do), on occasion specify what kind of weight to assign to what kind of sources and possibly to exclude certain kinds of sources. For politicians coverage only in local newspapers in usually not enough; for academics self-published and non-refereed publications are usually discounted, as are local, university level and graduate.postdoctoral level awards; for notability of criminal acts the standards are still being developed, but in practice some coverage beyond local coverage is required; etc. Nsk92 (talk) 05:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but... when these guidelines and the general notability guideline give different results, the general notability guideline should have precedence. An article on charted record should usually be kept, because in general, records that hit the charts also receive enough attention from reliable sources. If however an article meets a specific guideline but fails the notability guideline (not only "fails in its current state", but "gives the impression of not being able to meet the notability guideline"), then the article should be deleted (after due discussion and so on). If such exceptions happen regularly, the specific guideline should be changed to address this. Fram (talk) 12:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Nsk92 and own comments above. Hiding T 12:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - common practice. And it would seem to make sense, as each WikiProject would likely have a better, or at least a decent, idea about how reliable references are, and what would constitute GNG for articles under their purview. - jc37 12:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I didn't know this was current practice, but it's a good idea, presuming that it is policed tightly. Protonk (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although some Wikipedians would disagree that this is the current practice, I think this is a fair compromise. The wording needs a LOT of work. But I think this would let people write a more relaxed SNG that still hits some measurable, semi-precise standard. Randomran (talk) 03:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support However, meeting such conditions does not open the floodgates to allow original research; articles should be written primarily from secondary sources independent of the subject. For the offered example, if no other decent sources can be found, we may not be able to write more than Song X by artist/band Y charted at Z on the ABC chart. GRBerry 04:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adjusted/expanded following Vassayana's oppose comment below. Indeed, the criteria in the music and other SSGs like the examples used above are not sources. Sources are needed to demonstrate that the criteria are met! What they are rules of thumb that function as quick tests for whether or not more useful sources are likely to exist. If the rule of thumb is met, then it probably is not worth spending time on discussing such an article, unless an editor has put significant effort into trying to improve the article and come up dry. But this function only works if the SSGs are written based on actual experience of finding such sources when looking for them.

The other thing an SSG can do is say that a particular source, such as say the Dictionary of National Biography is both a valid and useful source and a viable indicator that there are also other valid and useful sources. GRBerry 18:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Such dictionaries are tertiary sources, and notability can't be presumed from a mention in one in the absence of reliable secondary sources.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which just goes to show why notability and its bastard offspring will never be more than guidelinecruft: "When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia." Policy beats guidelines as handily as a Smith & Wesson beats four aces. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seems reasonable enough, as long as the individual guidelines are themselves subject to consensus and scrutiny. ntnon (talk) 21:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - in either sense; they should be able to specify which sorts of source are appropriate for the GNC, or specify sources that establish notability outside the GNC. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SupportAlthough I think the reference to "sources" be rephrased as "indicators". SNGs can determine what indicates notability, apart from the rest of existence. Not everything in the world is going to have the same indicators for notability. By using a single, restrictive view of notability you are calling for the exclusion of everything that hasn't been noted to everyone. There are millions of facts, figures, dates names and places that are significant but have not achieved "notability". padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As a side note, I think "indicators" would be much better phrasing, and would be a better description of the spirit of this proposal. Randomran (talk) 13:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Not all subjects are the same. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support: Agree with most of the !votes here, but within the constraints of my "strong oppose" to B1 (which covers a bit more ground that B1 exclusively), and with the further caveat that it be clarified that SNGs cannot countermand WP:RS on what constitutes as reliable source to begin with, only what kinds of RS-defined sources can help establish notability. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support "...should be allowed to clarify the kinds of sources..." should be the literal, narrow, and rigid definition of an SSG. However, as written each of the SSGs attempt to: (A) paraphrase or tweak the GNC, (B) give specific "objective" criteria for inclusion or exclusion, and (C) typically ramble-on about justification for the guideline etc. I could support this concept if there was a mechanism to keep these on-point and succinct, and clearly stating their purpose as clarification rather than stand-alone. --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Makes perfect sense fr33kman (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, this seems reasonable. SNGs can define what constitutes substantial coverage. (E.g., every local police department, fire brigade, kindergarten certainly has generated coverage in the local press, which is reliable and secondary - yet most of us would agree that these institutions typically don't warrant an article.) Yet one should add the caveat that SNGs should make only a selection of sources. Care should be taken when they define some criterion as a replacement for an actual source. --B. Wolterding (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support As Vassyana and others point out, badly worded, but the idea is good and reflects practice. The basic function of the SNGs, as the comment above says, is to " define what constitutes substantial coverage".John Z (talk) 01:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as quite an obvious statement of fact. Yes, they are here to clarify WP:N. No, they are not supposed to narrow it. NVO (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as good guidance to new editors about where to find WP:RS sources. I was, for instance, astonished to learn that IMDB is considered a WP:RS on whether an US film exists, while it's not a WP:RS on the birth dates of the actors. SNGs are a good place to put such information. --Alvestrand (talk) 12:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support At the very least SNGs can and should do this. -- Ned Scott 04:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Frankly, this is what makes the most sense to me. --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 02:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support so long as said sources are still WP:RS. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Certain indicators can show that an article is likely on a notable subject. Tag the article for issues and expect improvement. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Definitely yes, though some of the Neutral comments raise some important details. Walkerma (talk) 04:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Although I don't like the idea of anyone dictating acceptable sources, at least it would allow article creators to know where they stand when they attempt to create an article, as to whether it stands a hope of surviving or if it's destined for Deletionpedia. 23skidoo (talk) 05:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak suport More important to disallow specific sources than to automatically bless everything from a given domain name, but it's nice to have examples of specific sources on, say, NYTimes that meet the criterion for WP:RS. MrZaius^talk 05:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Without a doubt, of course. We need these guidelines to consolidate what we have already. Utan Vax (talk) 07:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, while I would have prefered P4, this is the best alternative with any substantial amount of support. More strict proposals are a vehicle for rampant deletionism. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 07:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as most plausible of the suggestions. SNGs should supplement the GNG leaning towards expanding it; this consideration is primarily to avoid/counter bias by ensuring that when many similar topics get articles, the few exceptions do as well. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 08:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. SNG are just rules of thumb that may help predicting if something is likely to be notable, but they are not guarantees and should not override the GNG. --Itub (talk) 09:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Additional clarity is always a good thing. Waggers (talk) 10:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Different fields have different notability consensus. --:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 11:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. SNGs are supposed to specify more precisely the way the GNG applies to articles about a particular subject. They are not supposed to disagree with the spirit of the GNG, only to supplement its letter. And they shouldn't degenerate into instruction creep. -- A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ! !  12:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - an excellent use of SNGs. It is always useful for editors to have more information on whether an article is likely to be considered notable before putting in lots of time and effort on it. Warofdreams talk 12:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- seems reasonable. older ≠ wiser 12:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good rationale and well formulated. VG ☎ 12:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Goes without saying.--EchetusXe (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vacuously true. Stifle (talk) 12:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - We need more and better SNG's created with consensus to provide editors with clear notability requirements.--Captain-tucker (talk) 13:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support It ain't broken, so don't try to fix it. There's a place for some specific notability guidelines. Royal broil 14:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is already current practice anyway, although as noted above not all SNGs are of equal quality/weight at present. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as the raison d'etre for the SNG's. Jclemens (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good idea and well thought out. -Djsasso (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is where the SNGs are most useful, not in creating blanket exceptions, but in indicateing what kinds of subject-specific sources are helpful in establishing notability. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support What Jayron32 just wrote. --GRuban (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Subject specific advice is the main facet of the subject specific guidelines. The general guideline cannot direct people to subject specific sources and debate the usefulness of them, but subject specific guidelines can and the best ones do. SilkTork *^YES! 18:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems pretty reasonable to me. It still allows a set of objective guidelines, while remaining flexible and acknowledging the different sorts of evidence that may exist within different fields.Anaxial (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support GNG need to be clarified or some subject areas. Phatom87 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support When I'm dealing with subjects I'm not an expert on, having those clarifications is immensely helpful. I may not have any idea which music websites are reliable, but a gold record I can understand.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this most accurately reflects current practice. Also is it nice and succinct. Kaldari (talk) 23:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support In many cases the GNG is not clear on what is considered reliable sources for fictional works. This makes it easier to clarify that.--Marhawkman (talk) 05:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as long as the specific guidelines do not become overly inclusive. They should only serve to clarify what WP:N means in certain situations, not override it.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 14:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This would help to clarify the SNG guidelines. ~A H 1^(TCU) 14:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. At last a proposal which approaches the notability issue in a way which makes sense. Geometry guy 16:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - SNGs have been and can be written to avoid historical bias against notability by outlining special criteria for subjects that were notable at some point in the past. — X S G 18:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is a case where a subject-specific guideline clarifies and confirms what documentation is relevant to notability, but that doesn't make a source notable that isn't. So, the wikiproject serves in an advisory role, which is correct. JRP (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support for reasons of basic common sense.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Yes, this is exactly what the specialist guidelines should do. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, this could be abused, but it's already happening de facto without much problems, and it helps prevent the how-many-hits-on-google bias. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support This reflect current practice. It doesn't permit an override of the GNG, but gives it some details. Debates in AfD benefit from specificity regarding how notability will most likely be demonstrated in a particular area. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 17:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Reflects current practice, and although it has the potential to be abused I find that it usually isn't. It doesn't supercede the GNG and yet allows individual Wikiprojects to further define the notability and scope of article subjects. This is extremely helpful and should generally be encouraged, as it is the goal of Wikiprojects to improve article coverage in their fields. There's no sense in disallowing SNGs from saying what types of sources may be used to establish notability, unless their lists are unnecessarily restrictive to the point where an article that might otherwise pass the GNG is being excluded by the SNG. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Obviously 'significant coverage' of particle physicists would take place in completely different venues than 'significant coverage' of rock musicians. --CBD 11:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - Sounds reasonable without being too permissive or too restrictive. This is exactly what I would expect SNGs to be used for. --Willscrlt (Talk) 16:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - Rationale: This reflects and cements the current practice. I think that says it all. Timmccloud (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support - on the grounds that those sources reflect the stand on reliable sources. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This helps the editors by making the criteria less abstract - WP:MUSIC is a good example. One-size-fits-all WP:BIO would be problematic. GregorB (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. But ‘clarify’, not ‘redefine’. It can be practical to have subject specific guidance on which sources can assert notability. For example, then you can establish once and for all if a publication in X establishes notability as described by the global notability guidelines. However, subject specific notability guidelines shouldn't be allowed to contradict the global guidelines. Shinobu (talk) 13:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose B.2 edit

Oppose Language here is very bad, and logic is strained. Of course an SNG is used to clarify the nature of sources, but clarifying the nature of a source doesn't lead to it being allowed to claim that sources are unnecessary.Kww (talk) 15:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. To be very blunt, asserting that a gold record award, Nobel Prize, etc are sources in and of themselves strains belief. Such a position would also run counter to the common understanding of "sources" and run contradictory to the meaning of "sources" in our content rules. They're certainly an indication that the real world considers the topic noteworthy, but they are not sources. Vassyana (talk) 16:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not trying to canvass... but if we replaced the word "sources" with "indicators", would you support it? I think that's the spirit of this proposal. Randomran (talk) 18:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Always feel free to comment on my statements and ask questions! That said, no, I absolutely would not. Despite the comments made to the contrary by editors that I deeply respect, I do not see this proposal as any kind of middle ground. Even with the change you propose, this proposal would be little more than a concise B.5, allowing SNG criteria to act as a complete replacement (or "override" in the words of B.5) the GNG and the need for sufficient sources. That's no compromise in any reasonable sense of the term. Vassyana (talk) 04:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vassyana, I see your point. The actual proposal doesn't specifically say that, but the rational section does. I only support a clarification SNG (at most) but not an override of GNC in either direction. However, I find your B6 a bit too ambiguous. Can you comment on my conditional support of B2? I'd be interested in your perpsective. Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 06:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to think if all the SNGs did was "clarify the kinds of sources" that they wouldn't serve much purpose outside of WikiProject notes or explanatory essays in relation to notability. (Indeed, they would be better served in those contexts, allowing for lists of main publishers and authors useful for reliably establishing notability, etc.) Unless we're talking about redefining sources as noted in my objection, there's little to no point in having subject-specific criteria under such a construction. It could all be boiled down to general criteria (good sources vs. not-so-good sources) that would be better expressed in the reliable sources guideline. Regarding B.6, take a look over my notes for improvement. Please drop a line to my talk page (to avoid too much clutter here) and explain what you find ambiguous, letting me know if the notes help address your concerns or fail to do so. Vassyana (talk) 07:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that a nobel prize would definitely indicate notability, but fails verfiability without a source. I thought this proposal meant "SNG can say magazine xxx is a good source but website yyy is not" So magazine X used as a source for the Nobel prize win would be fine. Nobel prizes are not sources, they are indicators of notability. SNG also try to define what indicators are sufficient, but that is a different issue, no? The rationale here seems to simply be wrongly worded - sourced chart position pass notability.Yobmod (talk) 11:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed Again, this is obvious. SNG's can make their own distinctions between the inclusion criteria of an article subject (in the "Hall of Fame", earnings greater than $10 million, employs over 10,000 employees, etc.) and the sources which record these criteria without help from WP:N. patsw (talk) 02:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see that this is really needed. In addition to concerns about straining the concept of a source, there is the mere fact that the SNGs are what they are. Deciding on the philisophical meaning of an SNG can be bypassed merely by finding a consensus, yes or no, on proposal B3 Someguy1221 (talk) 10:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. SNGs should not be able to define what is a source - that is the job of the verifiability policy and the reliable sources guideline. We could end up allowing everything that can be sourced to a primary source because that is what a particular group wants. Very OR. Karanacs (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as we should delete all notability guidelines. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as there is no alternative to GNG that can objectively verify notability that does not rely on so called "expert" opinion, which is is self-referencing and is reliant on reliable secondary sources be cited to support assertions that a subject's notability is inhertited/presumed/acknowledged in absence of reliable secondary sources. An example of where SNG's do not work is the stub Ashley Fernee which is considered notable in accordance with WP:BIO#athletes, but since the stub has virtually no content, this sugests to me that the a presumption of notability cannot be substantiated. In my view, SNGs need to be cleansed of inclusion criteria which are based on expert opinion.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - "Clarify"? The WP:N has never needed clarification, notability is "a celebrity who is an inspiration to others"(princeton). Very simple. The way the SNG WP:Athlete "clarified" the WP:N was by grating notability status to every brazilian soccer player that has ever played a single professional match in Brazil. Some "clarification" that was. This "clarification" excuse is allowing interest groups to create SNGs that satisfy every demand that they have, turning Wikipedia into a fan site in the process. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 06:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - granted I only consider myself an expert on BIO, CORP and N, I've never thought these sub-guidelines dictate any sort of source use. BIO basically only allows for the inclusion of say a state's governor that fails to meet the general N criteria if the fact that the person was a governor (the exception) can be sourced to a RS. So, it allows for say trivial coverage of a topic or coverage from a RS that is not independent to produce notability. It does not allow for a blog to be used or other unreliable sources. Now, this is not in these guidelines, but it does not need to be because RS is its own guideline. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Separate guidelines for pop culture topics are destined to become pathways for lazy editing styles which don't bother to cite sources. The accretion of fancruft will too easily overbalance serious content. Every section needs its own cites. Don't let laziness win! Binksternet (talk) 09:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Guest9999, because SNGs are set up to benefit the Project they are attached to. Vassyana makes a good point that receiving an award is not a source. SNGs should work alongside WP:RS. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm against SNGs in general, and think that the wording on WP:N is clear enough as to what sources are acceptable. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As said before, I think SNGs are an abomination. Iterator12n ^Talk 01:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose SNGs should be able to assert reliability for additional sources, but they should only apply to the SNG, not to the GNG. Wronkiew (talk) 02:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, SNGs cannot override sourcing requirements. Nor can they override verifiability, which also requires third-party sourcing. We write from reliable independent sources, not from our own experiences or interpretations of primary work, so how can we write a correct and neutral article without a substantial amount of such sourcing? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This goes too far. Sources do not merely "assert notability." A source demonstrating notability must provide more than a fig leaf for original research or firsthand observation, it must be suitable as a source of substantial, encyclopedic information . ~ Ningauble (talk) 00:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This opens the door for allowing just about any source to establish notability. Wikiprojects are easy to create. I forsee the creation of a "Fringe Theories" Wikiproject that will make the existance of self-published books and websites enough to establish notability. Blueboar (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral on B.2 edit

Changed my mind on this one (from support) and become less sure as I completely disagree with Nsk's view that local sources are insufficient to establish notability. Significant coverage in reliable sources should almost always establish notability and merit an article (unless it fails a policy such as WP:NOT). I agree with the example in the rationale section however so am not opposing but am leaning that way. Davewild (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer "SNGs can outline sources", full stop. See, for example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources, which is not an SNG at all, but rather a lot of "Is this a reliable source?" conversations we've had in the past. Focusing on notability misses the point by a wide margin. Nifboy (talk) 05:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd probably support this in principle but have found that in practise the way that specific notability guidelines can define sources as reliable can be questionable. Guest9999 (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on B.2 edit

A lot of the support comments have little to nothing in common with what this proposal states or how the SNGs are formulated. For example, many support comments state that SNGs should clarify the meaning of "substantial coverage" on a case by case basis, yet this proposal says nothing of the sort. This proposal instead classifies indicators (in the words of many supporters) of notability as sources in and of themselves. It appears people are voting based on their interpretation of what the title of the proposal means, rather than the proposal itself (particularly considering that many support votes blatantly contradict the proposal). Vassyana (talk) 04:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is worded poorly. "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" needs to be changed. A gold record or a chart hit is not a source; it is an indicator of a subject's importance. The source is the RIAA website or billboard/ARIA/UK Singles Chart/etc. chart listing, from a magazine, database, or website. The hit or record is not a source itself, but rather definitive evidence of an artist's popularity. In a way, this undermines the entire structure of the proposal, in a way that makes me wonder how it became so well supported. Having a hit single is not an independent, third party source; it is an accomplishment, which is usually verifiable through a source. The SNGs are here because some editors saw fit to judge subjects according to their accomplishments, rather than the number of Google News hits they get. But the wind is blowing in the opposite direction on that one. Chubbles (talk) 15:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Proposal B.3: SNGs can define when sources probably exist edit

Proposal: Specific notability guidelines such as WP:Notability (music) and WP:Notability (people) can define objective evidence that would show that sufficient reliable third-party sources probably exist. However, every article still requires appropriate sources, and the specific guidelines cannot mandate inclusion in the absence of sources.

Rationale: This reflects and cements the current practice. Many of the subguidelines for notability offer alternative criteria for articles that might not otherwise meet the general notability guideline. For example, WP:Notability (music) that says that any artist with a certified gold record may be notable. This simplifies the burden of finding reliable third-party sources to verify an article, while still requiring that all articles are properly verified.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Support B.3 edit

Support but weakly. I don't like the phrasing, but this is really how things work. As above, if an article meets WP:MUSIC, it's going to meet the GNG as well. If someone could actually find an album that charted on multiple national charts that no one else had ever written about, there could be a problem, but that is a very unusual situation that approaches time for WP:IAR. If a sub-notability guideline is documenting reasonable criteria, then the GNG will be satisfied. It's only when people start making claims like All asteroids are inherently notable that there's a problem, and the lack of secondary sources should be enough to allow for deletion of the article.Kww (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as what is closest to my personal opinion: In my mind WP:MUSIC and WP:PEOPLE exist primarily as a sanity check when looking to see if an article meets WP:CSD#A7 or not. That shouldn't prevent them from being brought to AfD as an exception, and if we have a bunch of exceptions we should look at changing the rules to reflect that. Nifboy (talk) 01:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support but needs different wording. As it stands it requires proving a negative. Taemyr (talk) 03:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is how the SNGs were written long ago. By experienced AFD editors reviewing their institutional memory and coming up with rules of thumb about when an article would be viable. GRBerry 04:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support inasmuch as I am aware of what this is trying to say. Oppose inasmuch as every proposal on this RFC is badly phrased and the whole thing is a debacle. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. I really don't like the wording used here. I preferred a different wording and feel that this wording misses a significant part of the point. That said, I agree with GRBerry that this basically reflects the original formation and intent of the SNGs. Regarding some opposition, it seems more than a bit counterproductive to have a guideline setting the bar below sources sufficient to meet basic policy. Vassyana (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support An important function of policy/guidelines in my view is the substantial limitation of subjective arguments in dispute resolution and deletion discussions. Allowing editors to form arbitrary concenses on inclusion criteria sets the precedent that the threshold for inclusion is merely finding enough editors who like the topic, and without a requisite subordination to the general criterion, disagreements on sub-criteria have no logical end. Contrasting at least one comment somewhere in this RFC, even under this proposal, notability does not equal verifiability. Verifiability describes itself; notability, rather, requires that the verifiability of the concept be in some manner substantial. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Most editors are not experts on compliance with WP:NN. As such, guidelines must be offered. It should be noted, however, that they are guidelines and not hard/fast rules. Consensus can still override fr33kman (talk) 22:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is how I see the guidelines as currently operating, if a topic meets the guideline but there is no means of verifying any information about it due to a lack of reliable sources how can we write an article without any original research. Guest9999 (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. I agree that "Specific notability guidelines such as WP:Notability (music) and WP:Notability (people) can define objective evidence that would show that sufficient reliable third-party sources probably exist." but the rest is outside the realm of a notability guideline. The content policies of V, NPOV, and NOR already over-rule notability guidelines. The guidelines only help suggest that articles will be able to meet them. Article showing evidence of likely notability should be tagged for issues and we should expect improvement. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. All articles must be verifiable. I changed to Oppose after realizing that it would be impossible to prove no sources existed. Binksternet (talk) 09:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. SNG are just rules of thumb that may help predicting if something is likely to be notable, but they are not guarantees and should not override the GNG. --Itub (talk) 09:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Helps editors find sources to write new articles / to determine notability. --:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 11:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the gist of this, but would more enthusiastically support a version reworded for clarity. Warofdreams talk 12:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like the idea, especially when used for things like Olympic medallists (sources are almost guaranteed to exist); perhaps the wording could be tweaked, as I don't think this removes the need for sources to prove notability to be added at a later date (so notability is assumed given a strong assertion; article quality would then cover whether it's demonstrated). False assertions of notability should be removed, leaving an article up for AfD still, of course. -- ratarsed (talk) 12:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support This is what I have been arguing for in all of my arguements in earlier sections. Royal broil 14:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I prefer SNGs to be made mandatory, but actually that's what SNGs are all about, to say when a subject is likely to be covered by reliable sources. --Angelo (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is not only reasonable, but helpful to wikipedia as a whole.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, in the form I've reworded it. There is no way to prove absence of sources.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 14:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Notability can't always be defined by the presesnce of third-party sources, so as long it is generally verifiable and also notable, then this is a good idea. ~A H 1^(TCU) 14:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As I mentioned in my comments on B1, newspaper coverage of sports from pre-online days exists. It's not always easy acquire that coverage to demonstrate with specific citations, but they are out there if someone has access to them, which indicate the subject's notability. matt91486 (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, sensible, and more or less codifies existing practice. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Support: Seems sensible, and seems to reflect the way SNGs currently work. The caveat, of course, is that article should be given a chance to develop due to the nature of the collaborative community editing process. An article need not include its sources "at birth", but sources should be sought out and added as the article develops and if the article is challenged such as by the addition of maintenance tags or in an AfD. In this respect SNGs are certainly helpful in defining when reliable third-party sources likely exist. and articles that meet such SNGs should be allowed, although they may be deleted or merged if sources fail to be presented after some time or when challenged. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - If something can be proven or strongly indicated to be notable then we shouldn't be deleting it because it does not meet one particular means of establishing possible notability. For instance, the 882,281 page views of Naruto last month, making it the 35th most viewed page on Wikipedia, prove beyond all doubt that this is a notable topic. Even if the handful of 'third party' sources in the article were removed / could not be found it would not suddenly and magically become 'non notable'... those sources do not make it notable. They are only one means of recognizing that it is notable. There are very few independent sources on that article, and even most of those aren't really providing 'significant' coverage... but the topic is absolutely unquestionably notable and would be even if there were no independent sources at all. --CBD 11:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - SNG should trump GNG. Andrew Oakley (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - I agree - SNG should trump GNG - the gold record analogy used in the description is a perfect example. Timmccloud (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, that's not what it says at all. It doesn't say "SNGs should trump the GNG". It merely says that SNGs can provide criteria by which article subjects might be presumed to be notable. The GNG states that third-party sources are required to show evidence notability, but its guidelines on what constitute reliable third-party sources are not subject-specific. The SNG for musicians, in this example, provides examples of that specificity by saying that if an act has had an album go gold, then it's highly likely that third-party sources exist covering that act. Therefore an article on that act is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, because it's highly likely that sources exist which could be added to the article. The sources of course must be added as the article develops, but the presumption that they exist is enough to justify the article's creation. In this case the SNG doesn't trump the GNG, it merely provides more subject-specific guidance. Both require the same thing: reliable third-party sources. The SNG is just better-suited to describe, for specific subjects, the likelihood that such sources exist. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose B.3 edit

Oppose Maybe I misunderstand this, but if I read this correctly, this certainly goes against the current practices and consensus. SNGs should be and are allowed to set sufficient conditions for notability, period (not because they indicate that some other sources may exist but because satisfying these conditions is, in and of itself, proof of notability). For example, winning an olympic medal is sufficient for proving notability even if you cannot find an article discussing the athlete's favorite toothpaste. Being an elected fellow of the Royal Society is sufficient proof of academic notability even if you can't find a biographical article about a scholar in question. Being a permanent settlement is sufficient proof of notability even if nobody has bothered to include the place in a guidebook. And so on. Nsk92 (talk) 05:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: I don't understand how what you have written is an "oppose" since you appear to be saying the same thing as B3, just less confusedly. Are you opposing the wording of B3, or the meaning it is trying to express? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I misunderstand what B3 is saying since the text is fairly confusing. If it says that SNGs cannot define sufficient conditions for proving notability (such as, say, having won an olympic medal) that do not require evidence of additional in-depth coverage (beyond WP:V verification that these conditions are met) for establishing notability, then I do oppose it, for reasons stated above. Nsk92 (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You say that passing an SNG should remove the need to find sources, and I was under the impression that this is what B3 was saying. In my first read, I thought it was saying that wherever an SNG is met, we can assume the GNG is met, removing the need to prove notability, but is still subject to simple verification (although if you can prove it meets an SNG, then it is necessarily verifiable). It should clarify the philosophical meaning of an SNG, and should also guide creation and deletion of SNGs themselves. And reading this again, it appears that your interpretation is actually the most accurate; this is disappointingly poorly worded Someguy1221 (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Nsk92 and own comments above. Hiding T 12:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. the lord works in mysterious ways, as it were. We can't define beforehand where sources are likely to be. Protonk (talk) 13:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose wording change (which I as aware of) causes me to have nothing here I actually agree with. SNG should override GNG because they should, not because SNG indicate the potential for notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit (talk • contribs)
Comment: This !vote is unsigned. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Although it is current practise for SNGs to define when sources probably exist (e.g. if a movie wins an Oscar), this argument is fatally flawed, as it is reliant on the opinion of so called "experts" (sometimes misleadling labeled as "consensus"). Such definitions are self-referencing, since they only be applied where reliable secondary sources can be cited to support the expert opinion. Presumptions of notability breakdown in the absence of reliable secondary sources, as such presumption may be based on spurious claims that cannot be substantiated (e.g. where an award is of dubious merit). SNGs currently contain inclusion criteria that are not supported by verifiable evidence and cannot be applied universally, and should there be dropped althogether, as reliance on "expert opinion" robs editors of their autonomy. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - this doesn't make sense to me. Sources are not a matter of probability - we need the actual sources to write a reasonable article. Sources are an indicator of notability - but an "indicator that sources exist" is an awkward construction, or maybe an attempt to bypass the primary notability criterion. An SNG could give advice where sources can typically be found; or indicate in which case they have been found in the past. But it should not replace sources by some other criteria. Also, what would be "evidence that sources do not exist"? --B. Wolterding (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as currently written, because it seems to allow to opt out of WP:V. Articles that say "I'm sure he's notable because of X but I'm too lazy to find sources that show X is true" should be deleted on sight. I've found film articles that claim a film won a notable prize, but the prize website doesn't list the film at all - sometimes people are mistaken, or just flat out wrong. WP:V rules. If rephrased as "if reliable sources are shown that show X, a SNG can state that the source lets you assume notability", I could support. (See WP:MILMOS#NOTE for an example - there exist 3500 or so recipients of the US Medal of Honor, and it seems more reasonable to assume that they're all notable than to try to cherry-pick away the ones that aren't) --Alvestrand (talk) 12:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this has lead to far too much abuse, and by passes WP:V. Sources do not "likely" exist, they either do or they don't. SNGs can suggest where to find sources, but not claim that if the item is X then it probably has sources and is exempt from WP:V. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The difference between a "probable" source and a source is typically (a) laziness; or (b) non-existence. Neither is a rationale to ignore WP:V. For those rare circumstances that don't fall under (a) or (b), WP:IAR may apply, presumably to widespread plaudits. Bongomatic (talk) 03:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - What? Since when can we just assume that sources exist? And how can one prove that sources DON'T exist? This is so contradictory to Wikipedia's sourcing policies (from WP:V: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."). Wickethewok (talk) 05:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose SNG can't determine when sources probably exist, either there are sources or not. If the editor failed to find sources then we must assume that there none. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 06:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - good luck proving something doesn't exist. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - this confuses notability with reliable sources. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 08:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. How can an editor prove that no support exists? Impossible. Binksternet (talk) 09:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. Any proposal that asserts "notable by default unless proven otherwise" should be shot down in flames. VG ☎ 12:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- opens the door to pandora's box. older ≠ wiser 12:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sources are out there, they can and should be found.--EchetusXe (talk) 12:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sources, not the probability that sources exist, are required. Stifle (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose MIRS should not be necessary if the importance of a subject can be demonstrated verifiably. A single reliable source which verifies the importance of a subject (as defined by SNGs) and provides enough information for a basic article should be sufficient to demonstrate a subject's encyclopedic nature. Chubbles (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is another one that sounds logical and rational at first glance, but actually opens the door to a world of hurt. The key word here is "probably". If an SNG tells us where to find sources and we find them, great, if we don't, the content needs to go. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Nsk92 and Aboutmovies. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The guidelines should not have clauses about notability that circumvent policy - though we know from experience that they do, and that people bypass policy and pick out their favourite clauses in order to justify an article on an otherwise non-notable topic. That someone has a gold record does not in and by itself make them notable. It should ensure they appear on some list of artists with gold records, but not a full stand alone article. This proposal is trying to codify the bad practise that is occurring. We should not be considering proposals that encourage people to circumvent the Verifiability policy. SilkTork *^YES! 18:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - "...evidence that sources do not exist." Notability is not falsifiable. The burden should be on the one who adds or restores material. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As said before, I think SNGs are an abomination. Iterator12n ^Talk 02:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While SNGs should be able to assert reliability for additional sources, sources must be provided to prove notability. Wronkiew (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Explodicle on where the burden of proof lies and with Iterator12n on the matter of "special guidelines" in general. What's so hard about "don't write an article unless you *know* there are sources" and even "only write articles when you have the sources in front of you"? On the other hand, I've no objection to very short articles, so long as they're sourced, so I wouldn't agree with, for example, SilkTork. It might be enough that they won a gold medal. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose/Don't understand. Several editors have queried the meaning of this one. It seems to me to add nothing useful. How can a reliable secondary source mention that an artist has a gold record without mentioning the artist? All the SNG needs to do is clarify that this is the kind of source material that demonstrates notability per proposal B2. Talking about whether sources "probably exist" or not, or "presumptions of notability" in the absence of sources only clouds a straightforward issue. Geometry guy 16:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The GNG has a bias toward newer subjects by virtue of having sources readily available for newer ones and not for older ones. There are many notable people from the past who don't meet the GNG but are worthy of being included in Wikipedia because they were notable at the time of their existence. — X S G 18:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the needless rule-bloat.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There must be sources on the article, not potential sources somewhere out in cyberspace. Reywas92 ^Talk 00:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I don't think anyone should assume that there are sources that establish notability "out there somewhere", no matter what the topic. To establish notability you need to actually find them and cite them. Blueboar (talk) 19:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is a non-proposal, or at least not a notability policy. ‘Specific notability guidelines ... can define objective evidence that would show that sufficient reliable third-party sources probably exist. However, every article still requires appropriate sources ...’ Now read it again please, I did a double take on this as well. So basically, all articles need proper sourcing; but they already do. So what are the probability-of-finding-sources guidelines for? If an article isn't sourced, it fails verifiability, and if it is, it wouldn't be excluded because the most the proposal is going to say is ‘well, according to this guideline it was unlikely that you found a proper source, but it looks like you did just the same’ without even assigning any ‘go ahead’ or ‘stop it’ to it that isn't already mandated by the verifiability policy. So what is this? A little help for editors to tell them when it is worth their time to bother looking for sources and when it isn't? Well, whatever it is, it isn't a notability guideline. Shinobu (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral on B.3 edit

I think that this one is too vague. Every time I read it, I interpret it differently : ) - jc37 12:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure on this one as I am not sure what it means in practice. I agree all articles must be verifiable and if this is just saying that the subguidelines define cases where verifiability exists then it seems unnecessary, but harmless, as of course we should delete articles that cannot be verified at all. However if this is saying that SNGs define cases where the GNG will probably be met at some point, then I oppose this as per my comments on B.1 Davewild (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure if this is too harsh, or too loose. One part of me feels like it would make the GNG the center of the universe. The other part feels like it would essentially eradicate the GNG, since any sub-guideline could say that sources exist... and then how do you prove that they don't? You'd be able to always says "the sources are out there, the SNG says so, so keep looking". It's pretty imprecise. Randomran (talk) 03:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks to me as if it clumsily, but broadly agrees with what User:Nsk92 wrote. That certain criteria (gold medals and discs, etc.) denote notability even without explicit sources. ntnon (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Upon further reflection, I simply cannot support this proposal with the current wording. The indication that this applies when "articles ... might not otherwise meet the general notability guideline" and bringing it down to verifiability are examples of the deep flaws in the rationale. As much as I support SNG = criteria indicating sufficient sources probably exist, I cannot endorse a proposal that appears to present SNGs as an exception or appears to state the position that notability equals verifiability. Vassyana (talk) 05:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: I agree with the principles of most of the "support" !voters, but have to also agree with the criticisms of the "oppose"rs that this is poorly written and confusing (while also sharply disagreeing with the "oppose" sentiment that SNGs should override the GNG; that way leads inexorably to utter chaos). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't understand what this means. I think I might actually support it, given SMcCandlish's statements, but can't tell. So it's very poorly framed. May need re-proposing, since it seems as if this proposal may have legs somewhere in there. Hiding T 15:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've switched from support to neutral after reading Nsk92's comments in the oppose. I think the idea is right, but the last sentence should be removed. Completely agreeing with Nsk92, actually, verification that an SNG is satisfied should produce the assumption the GNG is satisfied, and "I can't find a source" should never be a valid reason to delete such an article unless someone is actually claiming it's a hoax. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Whatever the SNG proposes, it does not relieve the burden of proof. Does it help users? probably, but it's not an argument in notability wars. NVO (talk) 12:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I support the idea of using "reasonable potential" to give things more time, or as a first pass criteria when looking over articles (for a lack of better words), but assumptions can only go so far. -- Ned Scott 04:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Too vague. Unable to come to a decision based upon the way it's worded. 23skidoo (talk) 05:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm not entirely sure what this is asserting. Any essay can tell us where to find sources. This would essentially demote SNG's to mere policies. Jclemens (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Wording is weird. If objective evidence exists that prove the sources exist, then the sources exist. If there are no sources, there will be no evidence. I am confused by the wording... This could be taken to mean that "I don't have the sources in front of me right now, but this google journals search shows that there are multiple journal articles on the subject, and thus its reliable" or it could mean "Come on, I am sure someone has written about this somewhere, so there is no need for me to find any sources or do any research. I only have to assert that it is likely they exist." The first is probably sufficient. The second is not... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Nsk92. Not sure if that means I support or oppose. :-) (Which is probably a sign the proposal is poorly written!) --GRuban (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, don't understand. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would need clarification, I support the general idea that SNGs should be a pointer to when it is likely sources exist and should never excuse an article from the requirement for substantial multiple secondary sources. I would, however, like to see it made explicit that such sourcing is still required in all cases, and if it in fact cannot be found after reasonable efforts are made to locate it, the article is unacceptable even if it does pass an SNG. It should also be made explicit that the best practice is to have such sourcing at hand before creating an article, and that SNGs are simply an indicator when such a search is more likely to meet with success, not an excuse for not actually doing it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Too vague I can't figure out what this proposal is trying to do. It's not clear whether the proposal requires sources or tries to allow articles without them. --John Nagle (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I don't see how a guideline would show that sources probably exist. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vague. The proposal's content seems to admit the utility of SNGs, but the tone seems hostile to them. This proposal says "this much, but no more!", with the "no more" in some tension with the "this much;" other proposals seem to say the same thing regarding the "this much." I agree with GRuben: since we agree with Nsk92, but can't figure out whether that means we support or oppose the proposal, it's probably badly written. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 17:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on B.3 edit

I think I can't get the spirit of this proposal from its wording. What the hell is supposed to be "objective evidence that would show that sufficient reliable third-party sources probably exist" other than a secondary/tertiary source? -- A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ! !  12:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very good point. I read this and thought "this sounds good." then I thought some more and thought "WTF?". On the surface it seems like a good idea as it allows for keeping articles that are probably notable but which lack concrete sources to attest that. But the wording is one of those thing that'd get lawyered to death. A strict application would only allow for things that just barely fail the notability test. In situations like that it only amounts to the sort of reasonable flexibilty that a proper application of the GNG should have. The other possibility is to have things that have barely been mentioned and use that as an excuse to have them without any real rason to beleive they are or will ever be notable. In conclusion, nice idea, but it needs work.--Marhawkman (talk) 05:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Proposal B.4: SNGs are not needed edit

Proposal: Specific notability guidelines such as WP:Notability (music) and WP:Notability (people) really serve no purpose beyond WP:N. One consistent and universal guideline will be sufficient.

Rationale: These subject specific guidelines generally evolved prior to the adoption of WP:N and are now obsolete. Most of these came to "consensus" when few people were paying attention. The problems are: (1) the methodology is inconsistent among the subject specific guidelines which leads to confusion, (2) topics overlap subject specific guidelines which creates further confusion, and (3) special interest groups can gain control over subject specific guidelines by dominating the discussion and claiming a local consensus. In all cases the benefit does not justify the harm to the project.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Support B.4 edit

Moral Support We should be trying to eliminate instruction creep. So the GNG really is the primary, most important, and overriding notabiltiy criteria. If an article topic can't meet it, it really doesn't matter what the SNGs say. But the SNGs are useful for guiding newer editors or explaining to them why their garage band/grandmother/local church's secretary to the associate pastor really won't be able to have an article. GRBerry 04:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Underlying principle has merit. See my previous comments. I do not want to use the word "support" here, as I don't agree that that SNGs are worthless, only that they are too inconsistent and too often conflict with the GNG or try to override WP:N. Agree with GRBerry on what the purpose of SNGs really is (or as I phrased it elsewhere, they must limit themselves to being interpretations of how the GNG and WP:N apply to their topic, not vehicles for introducing additional restrictions no recognized by consensus as part of WP:N). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. That is, established and proven tools (sports, music) are here to stay. But look at the graveyard of notability proposals. What a pity. They just won't take off. Waste of time. NVO (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support but understand While I do think this is the better solution, I can live with B2 if the redundancy and creep is controlled. --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support This proposal represents the essence, the spirit of Wikipedia. Notability means "a celebrity who is an inspiration to others"(princeton) and only what has notability has the right for an article. Simple and elegant. There will be no end for SNG creation, as they they will get ever more specific. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 05:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Aside from the primary notability criterion (which is itself a corollary of WP:V), I don't see the need for any additional guidelines. The guidelines such as those found in WP:MUSIC seem redundant at best and contradictory to WP:V at worst. If a subject doesn't have multiple published works on it, then how can it possibly meet the verifiability policy? If a band won some "major" award, but there aren't multiple reliable sources on it, then how is it actually major? It seems to me like people want hard-and-fast rules so as to remove thought and careful consideration from the editorial process. These notability pages cause more work than they save, in that they need maintenance/creation and editors end up spending AFDs debating the validity of the guidelines, rather than the subject at hand. Wickethewok (talk) 05:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. One general guideline to rule them all. Binksternet (talk) 09:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support: A handful of the points made in WP:BIO and WP:ORG could be made general enough to move to WP:NOTE, but I'd be fine with seeing them and the rest get axed. They seem to excuse the existance of articles that, were they related to other topics (such as TV shows and similar topics that frequently get broken out into their own Wikia sites) would be deleted quickly as fancruft. MrZaius^talk 05:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. The specific guidelines are useful insofar as they are just that — guidelines, rules of thumb. They should only clarify how the GNG applies to specific subjects. The only 'normative' guideline (for lack of a better word; WP:IAR should always apply whenever there is a good reason why it should apply) should be the GNG; SNGs should follow its spirit, and shouldn't be instruction creep. -- A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ! !  12:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - actually I don't fully support this, but it seems better than all other solutions/alternatives outlined in Issue B. From my experience on Wikipedia, SNGs have done more harm than good and while I support them in principle, in practice they have created a lot of animosity and deletion of articles which would otherwise be kept. Until it is made very clear that SNGs are non-binding, I believe they should not exist at all. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support SNG's are an attempt to equate notability with importance. All that notability really is, is a measure of how much people are interested subject and the best way to determine that is whether or not sources that make money by writing about content that interests people are writing about the topic. - Icewedge (talk) 18:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - Couldn't have said it better myself. The specific guidelines are at best redundant, and at worst contradict WP:N. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - SNGs are not just un-needed, they should be discouraged or even be ruled out-of-bounds. Instead of SNGs we need a universal, straight-forward, easy-to-communicate rule (oops, guideline) for notability. Iterator12n ^Talk 02:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - heck, as per Iterator12n directly above me! The GNG is so easy, so perfect. SNGs exist, from what I've seen, to allow people writing on generally non-notable topics to bootstrap their content into Wikipedia by diluting the SNG. I've seen this at Notability:music. The GNG is beautifully easy and simple; it doesn't keep you from adding material on NOTABLE topics. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose B.4 edit

Oppose. It is exactly the other way around: as Wikipedia develops, WP:N is becoming more obsolete and the SNGs are becoming more relevant. Having one notability guideline might sound good in theory but will not work in practice. There are too many genuine differences between how different topics and subject are covered, too many subject-specific perennial AfD questions and issues that need stable solutions, and that are not served well by a single "one size fits all" notability guideline. Nsk92 (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for exactly opposite reasons of Nsk92. WP:N is far too inclusive of a guideline, and will permit inclusion of trivia once multiple trivia guides on the same topic are published. SNGs as lists of things which cannot be included, and lists of sources which cannot be treated as conveying notability have a purpose.Kww (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I actually agree with your reasoning too and I think it reflects a part of my concern about WP:N being too general and too vague to be practically useful. I too think that in many cases it is far too easy to use WP:N for overly inclusionist conclusions (and not just with trivia, but also with people, films, organizations, etc). There are other situations where applying WP:N can have the opposite effect (such as with permanent settlements). Nsk92 (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "permanent settlements" thing is one that really gets to me. I see no reason to create articles on things that we can only document as a speck on a map with a population. If no one has ever written about a location, I don't see why we would have an article on it. I think that WP:N fits perfectly.Kww (talk) 16:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
stong oppose Daughter guidelines offer clear, bright line standards for specific subjects where the GNG would cause us to get into repetitive debate. WP:ATHLETE solves far more problems than it creates (for one example). Protonk (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly disagree with you on the specific example you offer. Its end result is that the wiki has a Wikia worth of otherwise non-notable professional athletes covered here instead of elsewhere. The Wikipedia is not ESPN. I would say that professional athletes warrant inclusion only after media coverage that extends beyond the usual sorts of mass lists that currently gets used. I'd strongly urge that those articles be transwiki'd out of here, and WP:ATHLETE be stricken. The same is true of many of the other areas where specific guidelines greatly lower the bar for notability. MrZaius^talk 09:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose strongly but for the opposite reason as Kww above, subguidelines should be able to establish areas where the GNG can be met for a large majority of the articles the subguideline covers, it is better to have an article on all the cases, including the few that would not meet the GNG, to maintain consistency even if they can only ever be quite short, so long as what content is there is verifiable. However if an article meets the GNG and does not fail any other policy we should have an article regardless of what the subguideline says. An example would be where a footballer has not played in a fully professional league (thus failing the subguideline - WP:BIO) but has received strong coverage in reliable sources (easily meeting the GNG) we should have an article on that footballer. Davewild (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, and note that the GNG is no stranger to local consensus issues either. Hiding T 22:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; as Wikipedia grows, those guidelines are increasingly important. — Coren ^(talk) 23:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - they serve a dual purpose: to help to interpret the GNC in a subject-specific way, and to show areas of notability within a subject that aren't covered by the GNC. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There's no hope this will pass, but still to say, SNGs incredibly simplify the job of determining the notability of a topic. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Although I am of the view that the GNG is the only inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article, I feel that the SNG are warranted on the grounds that they provide additional guidance that is useful to editors in the application of GNG to a specific subject area.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You can't seriously think you can create a guideline that encompasses everything. That's not practical. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 13:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's a straw man argument; no one proposed any such guideline. Rather, the proposal is that WP:N adequately addresses the particular concept of "notability" as it applies to Wikipedia articles — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
How is this Straw Man? The suggestion is that a single GNG can define the criteria for acceptable notability in everything it comes across. That's not a rephrase, that's what the proposal is. I'm not trying to rephrase it, I'm taking it to it's logical conclusion. One GNG means that single GNG will have to define "notability" for everything that goes into Wikipedia. "One consistent and universal guideline..." read the proposal again (or re-read straw man and use it correctly next time). padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 15:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - One size doesn't fit all. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Complete oppose - No, no, no no no! fr33kman (talk) 22:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - While WP:N is the guiding principle, we certainly need more specific advice to judge 2.500.000 articles. SNGs should be compliant with WP:N, but completely abandoning them is not practical. --B. Wolterding (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It would be nice to get rid of or consolidate a few of the SNGs, but it is impractical to eliminate all of them. WP:N lays out the overarching principle of notability, but the SNGs are needed to provide more specific guidance, especially when it comes to topics of borderline notability. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This option doesn't seem to have any function except as a strawman. Incorporating all the information from SNGs into the GNG would bloat it out of all readability. --Alvestrand (talk) 12:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While it is wise to reduce instruction creep when we can, one size won't fit all, no matter how hard we try to define the "size". -- Ned Scott 04:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I have stated several times my skepticism to the GNG. If we were to have any general notability guideline which doesn't overestimate or underestimate the notability of broad topics (as it is GNG overestimates the notability of news stories and underestimates the notability of settlements in developing countries), it would be very vague, along the lines of "A subject is notable if it is the kind of subject readers would expect to, and want to, find in an encyclopedia". Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. As mentioned above, one size obviously doesn't fit all. Once again I play the card of "No duh." --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 02:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose, while SNGs should not contradict the GNG, they are helpful and necessary for tightening and strengthening the overall notability guidelines.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. I share the dream of a clear, concise, one true answer and I think sub-guidelines should be trimmed but I can see where specific guidance on more specific areas may be useful and would unnecessarily clutter a clear and concise WP:N. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the same reasons as my comments on B.1. Walkerma (talk) 04:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Violates the entire spirit of Wikipedia. No one can be an expert on everything, and no overriding policy can cover every specific topic. 23skidoo (talk) 05:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I agree with 23skidoo. We need more than just WP:N to be able to survive. Utan Vax (talk) 07:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - though some may need to be deleted (I've never been able to decipher what the difference in criteria is between N and CORP) or refined, these criteria help overcome specific biases inherent with the GNG. I've outlined this above in my comments. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose such a general guideline would end up either absorbing the specific guidelines (no longer a general guideline) or being impermissibly vague. Most likely we'd simply end up with a system like at WP:RfA where the guidelines are often ignored during the individual discussions. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 08:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A specific test is often needed to determine notability; a general guideline would not be sufficient. Waggers (talk) 10:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Different fields need different notability needs arising from different consensus. --:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 11:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - further guidance on what is or is not likely to be considered notable is extremely useful. Warofdreams talk 12:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- additional guidance in specialized areas can be helpful. older ≠ wiser 12:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Local militias be damned, the alternative of one over-arching guideline is non-specific and insufficient.--EchetusXe (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - SNGs are very important to provide specific guidelines in individual areas, we need more and better SNGs as wikipedia continues to grow. --Captain-tucker (talk) 13:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously not. Stifle (talk) 13:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are certain topics where notability needs to be wordier than a general guideline, so they need to be allowed to exist. Royal broil 14:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Jclemens (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While "needed" might be a bit strong, SNGs are definitely useful and serve an imprortant function in clarifying how to interpret WP:N within specific areas. WP:MUSIC for example is a longstanding and respected guideline which is often used at AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is pretty much backwards, WP:N is far to broad to work in every situation. SNGs are much more usefull in alot of cases. -Djsasso (talk) 16:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The subject specific guidelines are helpful and subject to consensus like all other guidelines --Trödel 17:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as everyone writes, SNGs are excellent for focus specific subjects. --GRuban (talk) 17:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - we need subject specific advice. However, the status of the 8 listed inclusion guidelines should be examined. There are other subject specific guidelines that are equally useful but which do not have the same status as the main 8. I feel the current main eight (Academics, Books, Films, Music, Numbers, Orgs, Bio and Web) could be looked at more closely. Should they be classed as essays? Should we have Arts, Biography, Geography, History, Mathematics, Science, Society, and Technology guidelines instead? And those then broken down into subject related topics - so Music comes out of Arts. SilkTork *^YES! 19:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. We definitely benefit from subject-specific advice. The argument for this proposal could be used to thwart anything on wikipedia, because on any subject of discussion, including this one, only a small fraction of all editors are paying attention.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. SNGs such as WP:POLITICIAN help reduce the instance of Wikipedia being used as an electioneering platform. Most political candidates have sufficient press to pass the GNG, so it is important that we have an additional rule that unelected candidates are not notable unless they are notable for other reasons. E.g. the forthcoming New Zealand General election is relatively small, but there are well over 1000 candidates. Instead of having to police 1000 extra articles, we only have keep an eye on (in terms of OE/Neutrality being violated) the 100-odd articles of incumbents and a few articles for already notable people. dramatic (talk) 01:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose SNGs are useful in cases where the GNG does not apply. However, we do need a process by which unassociated editors can participate in reviews of SNGs. Wronkiew (talk) 02:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose SNGs should exist to clarify how the GNG is applied to a certain situation.--Marhawkman (talk) 05:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The specific notability guidelines are a way to avoid having the same subject-specific Afd debates over and over and over...and over again. The general notability guideline is just that: general. When it comes down to specific situations, it is extremely helpful to have a consensus on how to apply the general guideline.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 14:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. No, this would just complicate everything. I'm a supporter of the use of SNGs to justify more articles for notability. SNGs help to make the notability guidelines more specific and everyone should read every single word in the GNGs and SNGs before deciding whether an article is notable. ~A H 1^(TCU) 14:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Shows absolutely no sense of realism or pragmatism. WP:N would become a nightmare guideline without the support of SNGs to clarify and interpret it in the wide range of articles on Wikipedia. Its talk page would be even more of a nightmare. Geometry guy 16:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Historical bias to the present is the reason I support the existence of SNGs. — X S G 18:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because specific guidelines for specific situations are a much smarter idea than blanket guidelines that are supposed to be universal. SNGs create flexibility where it's badly needed.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. In specific areas, SNGs are invaluable. Per dramatic at 41, WP:POLITICIAN is essential in keeping Wikipedia an encyclopaedia rather than an electioneering tool. — Lincolnite (talk) 10:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Subject specific guidelines that are formed via discussion and debate amongst "subject experts" and adopted through consensus are the ideal. We need to improve/replace some of the weak SNGs we are stuck with such as WP:ATHLETE (which was just invented one day). It is currently held up as gospel in sports AfDs because it is written on the WP:BIO page. It was not developed through debate, discussion and consensus forming amongst experts on the subject, as sport specific guidelines would be. It's weaknesses leave us with the same tiresome and circular arguments that have driven me away from AfD and it's pathetically low inclusion criteria leave us with thousands of nothing articles like Jacobo Mansilla to maintain. It is better to find solutions to these problems than just delete everything. E P 14:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Obscure and disputed topics need specific guidelines to guide editors. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The specialist guidelines are helpful in directing application of the general guideline. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unexpressably Strong Oppose. Every AfD I have participated in has benefited greatly by having a more specific guideline: we could look for conformity to the standards set by it and not have to rehash notability each and every time. We could discuss what makes an academic notable once and be done with it. This opens the door to people who want to flout consensus by revisiting core questions with every new debate. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 18:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose: SNGS serve a good-faith purpose and in general promote positive development of Wikipedia, as well as encouraging editors to collaborate which is the very nature of Wikipedia. Where they do not, then can easily be fixed. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Even if the GNG included all reasonable methods of establishing that a topic is notable (which it currently does not) we would still need SNGs to help identify the particular channels for applying those methods in different fields. --CBD 11:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - just plain disagree. Andrew Oakley (talk) 12:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as impractical. I am in agreement with User:RJC on this: absence of specific guidelines leads to repetitious argument. Mangoe (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose With 2,565,876 articles at the time of posting, the general notability guideline is simply to general. The SNG's provide, as Axl states so well "specialist guidelines that are helpful in directing application of the general guideline" Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 15:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - I was not aware of SNGs before, but after reading the arguments herein, I am clearly convinced that they are very important and useful. This proposal would be a huge step in the wrong direction. --16:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose: SNGs definitely have their place. The GNG sets the standard, but SNGs are often needed to interpret how that standard should be applied to articles dealing in a specific topic area. SNGs are not substitutes for the GNG, they are adjuncts to it. Blueboar (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose General Guidelines are exactly that - general, there is no way "one size fits all" and a SNG resolves that issue. Timmccloud (talk) 20:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. By being abstract, general guidelines may cause problems. Imagine Wikipedia without WP:MUSIC and you get the picture. GregorB (talk) 19:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I can see where you're coming from if you're trying to say the global guidelines should be authorative. However, the assertion that therefore subject specific notability guidelines are not needed or useful is a fallacious one. They could provide helpful guidance to editors and a centralised place where the results of discussions on major sources or kinds of sources and things like that pertaining to a specific subject matter are kept, which could save a lot of time and provide some clarity for editors. In summary, I think specific guidelines are useful. Shinobu (talk) 14:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral on B.4 edit

Comment Not sure why someone felt it necessary to add their own proposal that was obviously not going to generate much good will. Every other proposal was put forward to achieve some kind of balance and reach out to different viewpoints, and that's why they made it to this RFC. This is no better than the person who wanted to abolish WP:N, and will be no more successful than that one. Randomran (talk) 03:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I am equally apt to second GRBerry's moral support or to oppose this extreme proposal. GRBerry and Randomran express both sides of my mixed feelings sufficiently. I would clearly fall to the side of support if abolishing the SNGs were married with some preservation of their purpose, such as with this proposal that failed to make it into the RfC. Vassyana (talk) 17:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Amen! "Consolidate as many of the notability subguidelines as possible, into a single checklist to determine whether an article is notable or not. WP:Notability should be the only notability guideline, without the confusion of other sub-guidelines." --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That might be the way to go in the future, but until you draft that checklist, it was not a good idea to add this proposal, which is effectively an arguement to throw the baby out with the bathwater.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin, please don't equate proposing an alternate proposal with being a good or bad idea, as that is your subjective opinion -- to which you are entitled. This equally applies to Random's comment elsewhere' inplying some degree of bad faith. However, there was significant discussion of this concept among others about 18 months ago here at WP:N. Sadly there is greater energy and enthusiasm in the collective ranks from the subject specific crowd and enthusiasm for condensing to fewer or a single page has waned. If the concept of a list was interesting to enough people then we could quickly draft a proposal -- which comes first the chicken or the omelet? --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Kevin, though Gavin's underlying observation that the proposal wouldn't mean a whole lot without some idea what this checklist would look like also has teeth. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per Vassyana. I've already said above I feel the few really successful sub-guidelines are complements to CSDA7 (non-notable people/groups). I'd like to see more subject-specific resources for editors at all levels, not just AfD. Nifboy (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think SNG can be useful but should be regarded more like a helpful essay and less like a law. --Itub (talk) 09:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I support the underlying principle; that the SNGs should not generate exceptions to the GNG, and that any article that meets the GNG will be a worthwhile article. However, SNGs do have a limited utility, in being able to clarify and expand how to find sources, and what sorts or sources can be helpful or not helpful in meeting the GNG. So yes and no. SNGs should not supplant the GNG, but they have their purpose... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no Specialized notability guidelines that can override the lunacy of general notability guidelines could be a good thing (as long as they have the possibility to override), but more importantly the whole concept of notability guidelines is hurting Wikipedia, not helping it. Hans Persson (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Proposal B.5: SNGs override GNG edit

Proposal: Specific notability guidelines such as WP:MUSIC and WP:Notability (people) override the general notability guideline, WP:N in areas where specific notability guidelines are applicable. That is, if an article on a topic covered by a specific notability guideline passes WP:N but does not pass the specific notability guideline in question, the topic is deemed not notable. Similarly, if an article on a topic covered by a specific notability guideline passes that specific notability guideline in question but does not pass WP:N, the topic is deemed notable.

Rationale: As Wikipedia expands and matures and as more topics are covered, specific standards are needed to deal with specific situations that vary widely over different subjects, that appear and are constantly debated in AfDs and that need stable solutions for the project to function smoothly. It is no longer possible to use "one size fits all" approach to notability. The practical utility and importance of WP:N is decreasing and the practical utility and relative importance of SNGs is increasing. Many subject-specific issues of relative weight of various types of sources and also of what kind of coverage/evidence is required to demonstrate notability need to be addressed by SNGs. In some cases, e.g. with local politicians and local public officials, it is necessary for the relevant SNGs (such as WP:BIO) to have a more restrictive standard than the plain reading of WP:N provides. In other cases, such as with athletes, books and academics, SNGs may and do specify criteria that are, in certain situations less restrictive than the plain reading of WP:N provides. A local city councilman in a town of 20,000 people should not be considered notable if the only coverage he received is in the local town newspaper. An athlete who won an olympic medal in a fairly obscure sport is notable even if one cannot find substantial newscoverage about that athlete. An academic who is a fellow of the Royal Society is notable even if a biographical newsarticle about him/her is not available. An academic should not be considered notable if the only significant coverage he received is in the local college newspaper and there is no other substantial evidence of his research having made substantial impact in his field. And so on. WP:N is still quite important, since lots of topics are not covered by SNGs for the moment.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Support B.5 edit

Support, as the author of B.5. Nsk92 (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with some qualifications. As I understand it, this is essentially lex specialis derogat legi generali see [1] for a better explanation, a standard and natural legal principle, and accords with actual practice, which is why I support it. The problem here is how we are construing WP:N, broadly, when it becomes the same as WP:V, - i.e. don't just make up stuff - or more narrowly, requiring real "substantiality" as is usual. E.g. if an academic is a university president, or wrote many works cited thousands of times, or won a major prize, that verifiable fact is taken to indicate notability, even if the actual size of coverage is only a few sentences that usually otherwise wouldn't pass WP:BIO or WP:N. The problem with Nsk's wording is that it is clearly too restrictive, not the reverse - it can contradict WP:PROF, or WP:BIO as Davewild points out. In practice, the SNG's are used to include more articles, to define in special cases what should be considered as "substantial coverage" for notability. Using them to exclude usually makes less sense. If a notable person gets a university job, or a professor becomes notable for some other reason (cf Morrie Schwartz) but would say, fail WP:PROF, should we delete the bio?John Z (talk) 07:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - there's no point in them otherwise. An SNG should be able to describe ways to identify notable topics within their speciality, whether those are based on non-trivial third-party coverage or not. Whatever they do specify should be verifiable, but it might not have to be strictly third-party or strictly non-trivial as the current interpretation of the GNG requires. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is what I honestly thought the status quo is. WP:PROF gives a pretty good example. There are full professors from major universities who might not have anything written about them that we can easily access. However, WP:PROF says they are notable and that we can use something like their university bio to make an article about them. WP:ATHLETE gives us a similar situation. The silver medalist for the pentathlon in 2008. Did he have significant coverage in independent sources? Maybe, but the SNG says he is notable without them. This shouldn't be SNG versus GNG. They are ALL WP:N. We have the GNG which will cover 90% of all articles (really it covers about 99% right now without a functioning fiction SNG) and the SNG for both quick checks and coverage at the margin. "Override" is the wrong word. The right way to look at this is the REVERSE of the WP:NFCC. If something doesn't meet one of the NFCC, it is out. In this case, all we have to do is meet one (either the GNG or a SNG) and it is in. Protonk (talk) 13:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If as you say this proposal meant you have to meet one quideline (either GNG or SNG) then I would be inclined to support but it does not say that. As written it says that regardless of how easily a topic passes the GNG, if it fails a SNG it is not notable. So even if we had loads of coverage in reliable sources to easily write a full article it still would not be notable. This seems silly to me and against what I always thought the notability guidelines were meant to achieve - the ability to write a verifiable, npov, ok size article without original research. Davewild (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... Protonk (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The concern Davewild raises is reasonable but I do not believe that it does or will represent a problem in practice. Surely, the kind of cases you are talking about, with loads of coverage by reliable sources etc, would easily pass any relevant SNG anyway and there would not be a problem. However, for more marginal and problematic cases it is important that SNGs be able to set up more restrictive notability criteria (which take into account relative weight of various types of sources etc) than does WP:N. By its very nature, WP:N is very general and cannot deal with various exceptions and special cases. But it is in fact necessary to deal with them somewhere and the applicable SNGs are the right places for doing that. Otherwise it is far too easy to interpret WP:N in a way that is too inclusive and goes against the consensus on how particular types of subjects are treated. For example, imaging a person who was a local businessman/public official/teacher/etc in a small town with a small town newspaper. Say there were 10-15 articles about that person in that newspaper over his lifetime and then an obituary there as well. A plain reading of WP:N would suggest that that person is notable, while WP:BIO would most likely say that he is not. Similarly, with musicians WP:MUSIC says that a member of a music band is notable if there is sufficient coverage of him/her independent from the band and that otherwise there should be an article about the band rather than a separate article about the person. As far as I know, this is pretty much the consensus position. Yet in this situation it is rather easy to imagine a situation where a member of a notable band would pass WP:N but not WP:MUSIC. Similarly, with academics there are lots of situations where a particular academic receives coverage only in their own institution's college/campus newspapers/newsletters, with no wider coverage, no significant citability of that academic's work. In this situation (and they do come up all the time) the person could arguably pass WP:N but not WP:PROF. Another situation of this kind is with notability of criminal acts. There are no SNGs dealing with this yet but the de facto developing consensus appears to be that a crime that only received local coverage without wide state/national coverage is usually not considered notable. Etc. It is the proper role of SNGs to set up more restrictive criteria for these kinds of cases and I think that in practice in AfD discussions SNGs' requirements take precedence over WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But as written currently the SNGs generally say that if topics meet the GNG they can still be notable. For instance on WP:BIO it says that "Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability". This seems to be the status quo as of now. To address some of your specific points, any attempt to write into the guidelines or policies that local coverage is not ok for establishing notability has not been successful. While we might be a bit stricter in requiring more coverage than on other sources if, in the example above, the person has significant coverage in 10 to 15 articles then I think we definitely can have an article on them regardless of if the coverage is local or not (Unless it is a BLP:1E or NOT#NEWS issue of course). For the academic the institutions own newsletter would not be the independent coverage required by the GNG and WP:PROF again refers to the GNG as providing a way to establish notability. Crimes would generally fall under BLP:1E or WP:NOT#NEWS again unless the coverage was more extensive (either long period of time or more widespread). As members of bands generally the coverage is in relation to the band thus not significant for the individual and if the coverage is just about the individual we would almost certainly have an article about them. I have not noticed many (if any) cases where articles which clearly meet the GNG but fail a SNG have been deleted (except where other policies such as WP:NOT or WP:BLP come into play and they take precedence over the notability guidelines) Davewild (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. SNGs are not in practice and should not be used for exclusion, it would illogically allow local consensus to delete to override global consensus to keep. The problem that Nsk92 suggests, that "it is far too easy to interpret WP:N in a way that is too inclusive", simply does not occur in practice as guidelines are currently interpreted, while the problem Davewild points out - "that regardless of how easily a topic passes the GNG, if it fails a SNG it is not notable" certainly would - I gave some examples. If something only fits into the GNG and no SNG is applicable, the tendency is to require more substantial coverage, to be much tougher. I think the better way to think of things is that passing an SNG implies passing the GNG, that what the SNGs are about is weighing certain kinds of coverage, certain kinds of verified statements - e.g. that an academic or academic journal is highly cited higher than more ordinary statements, like "he is fat and has a great sense of humor", or "it is printed on yellow paper". If on the other hand, we have a book written about him or it filled with such ordinary statements, it doesn't matter, he or it would clearly pass the GNG, so who cares whether it passes the SNG?John Z (talk) 01:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree; the only way a topic can fail to be included if it meets the GNG is via failing policy, likely WP:NOT; a case in point is Glitch City, an artefact of messng about with a Pokemon game. Glitch City is notable via the GNG, but the content that can be written about it fails WP:NOT#GUIDE (game guide specifically). In such a case, it is usually appropriate to put that content in the context of a larger topic (as was done here) which helps to keep the amount of discouraged material to a minimum. --MASEM 01:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support in concept, but I disagree with the wording. The GNG should be a fallback position for when there are no other guidelines that apply to a topic. We should be using "General" in the sense of being non-specific, not in the sense that it is overriding anything. I treat the GNG as "other" when looking for subject notability. As noted above, this leads to the problem of the GNG actually being less strict than some of the specific guidelines. I agree that if a topic meets the GNG, that would be sufficient for inclusion regardless of what the specific guidelines say. We have specific guidelines to establish notability of specific topics. We have the GNG for whatever else is left. As long as the specific guidelines do not undermine WP:5P, there is no reason to try to use the GNG to override them. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 14:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The general notability guideline is very broad, but it misses the mark on several topics since it tries to treat every type of subject equally when different topics need differentiated treatment. As a consequence, a strict reliance on GNG will tend to overestimate the notability of news stories (which are covered in newspapers primarily because they are newsworthy, not encyclopedic), and underestimate the notability of villages in developing countries (which often have less than perfect sourcing due to lack authors of these secondary sources.) The specific notability criteria may also suffer the problems of the GNG, but in a somewhat mitigated form. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC) [I will add the qualification that I sympathize with the concern Phil Sandifer made in the "oppose" section; when I say SNG > GNG, I am referring to SNGs which have broad community support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)][reply]
Support. I'm in the same boat an earlier poster was- I thought this was already the case. As for justification, the other posters have handled that well, and I will not bore you with a rehash of what's already been posted. Abyssal (talk) 11:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is the most flexible option; the GNG should govern articles not falling into categories governed by the SNGs only. --:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 11:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Let those in the know about a subject decide its notability and relevance to the area of interest. However, there must be controls to prevent cruft-authorizations: the parent project can overrride or modify the child's guidlines with consensus. There must also be well established guidlines for topics that overlap into more than one project, and thus could fall under more than one guideline. bahamut0013 ♠♣ 12:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Moving the decision of what is notable or not closer to the subject being discussed is a good thing, given the non-true assumption that notability guidelines is a good thing in the first place. However, the whole concept of notability guidelines is hurting Wikipedia, not helping it. Hans Persson (talk) 17:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support because this is the approach that allows the most flexibility, which means common sense might prevail over rules more often.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support wholeheartedly. The example about the city councilman is spot on. — Lincolnite (talk) 10:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Technopat (talk) 11:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - just plain agree. Andrew Oakley (talk) 12:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - --Axel (talk) 12:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Support - This makes total sense, when you take the time to review something in specific, you will always find ways of improving general rules. Timmccloud (talk) 20:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose B.5 edit

Oppose. WP:N sets the absolute minimum for a topic to be suitable for an article. What would an encyclopedia write about a topic that has not been covered in independent sources? --B. Wolterding (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me comment a bit more here on this aspect of B.5. It is true that in most cases applying B.5 will result in more restrictive interpretation of notability than WP:N provides. That is probably true, and appropriately so, for most biographies. However, there also are situations, coming from the fact that different subjects are covered by reliable sources in very different ways, where SNGs do need to define a different standard of notability that may in some cases be lower than what WP:N requires. The most stark example of this sort that I know of (and where applicable SNG does not exist yet) is the issue of notability of academic journals. This problem was discussed about a year ago at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals# Deletion subpage. That debate clearly shows that WP:N is inadequate in evaluating notability of academic journals. On one hand, academic journals are considered to be the gold standard of a reliable source as defined in WP:V and WP:RS. It is clearly in the interests of WP as a project to have some basic factual info about decent academic journals, such as who publishes them, when they were founded, what subjects they cover, what the impact factor is, if they are indexed by Science citation Index or other appropriate academic index/review publications (such as MathSciNet), if there are notable/famous scholars on the editorial board, etc. having such info is very useful when validity and relative weight of various sources cited in other WP articles are evaluated. Yet the reality is that virtually all WP articles about academic journals do not pass WP:N. The reason is that in academia there is absolutely no tradition of writing about an academic journal. There are no industry awards, like Pulitzers (in fact, unlike ordinary periodicals, academic journals do not have a staff of journalists producing new content; instead they publish papers submitted to them by other scholars), no industry publications, and the scholars themselves essentially never ever write about a journal. They publish their papers in academic journals, they cite papers of others published in academic journals, but they basically never write about the journals themselves. It is simply not done. I looked at the situation in my own field, Mathematics, and found that even for the most prestigious journals, like Annals of Mathematics, Inventiones Mathematicae, Journal of the American Mathematical Society, Acta Mathematica, coverage of these journals as such is essentially nonexistent (although there are thousands of citations), so a literal reading of WP:N would indicate that they do not pass. Most mathematicians would probably be willing to give up a year's salary to have a paper published in one of these journals, but they do not put such thoughts in writing. Clearly, this situation is counter-productive and in such a case an SNG defining a different notability standard is needed so that one does not have to use WP:IAR each time the matter comes up in an AfD. There is no SNG dealing with this issue yet but it does need resolution (probably by adding relevant provisions to one of the existing SNGs such as WP:BK). In a situation like this it is reasonable to base notability decisions on some other objective and verifiable data such as the impact factor of the journal, its ranking in Science citation Index, whether or not it is widely carried by academic libraries, whether or not it is fully indexed by the relevant academic index/review publications (such as MathSciNet and Zentralblatt MATH), etc. E.g. the journal Inventiones Mathematicae is consistently ranked among the top 10 by the impact factor among the several hundred math journals indexed in Journal Citation Reports. Surely, that should be sufficient proof of notability. This example shows that the differences between conventions in coverage of different subjects are quite substantial and they need to be taken into account appropriately, by the relevant SNGs. Both common sense and the interests of Wikipedia as a project require this. Nsk92 (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If a topic meets the GNG we should be able to have an article on it (unless it fails a policy such as WP:NOT). Except for where policies are failed there is no reason why if there is significant coverage in reliable sources of a topic why we cannot have an article on that topic. I thought the purpose of notability guidelines was to identify where there is sufficient material for us to write a neutral, verifiable article. SNGs should not be written to prevent this. The example used in the rationale demonstrates my point as WP:BIO says local politicians are generally notable if they meet the GNG. Davewild (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Any SNG which attempts to permit material which does not meet the GNG is invalid on it's face. SNGs should serve only as lists of exclusions, and should never attempt to include material that has not been covered by multiple reliable third-party sources.Kww (talk) 21:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Too many SNGs that are simply stupid have come through the ranks over time to allow this. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While I agree that the SNGs should be allowed to be more restrictive than the GNG, I do not believe that they should be less restrictive. I believe WP:N should provide the bare minimum for a topic. Karanacs (talk) 21:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see the primary purpose of the general notability criteria as to ensure that the long standing inclusion policies of verifiability, reliable sourcing and original research are kept, I don't think any more specific guideline should be able to "outrank" these. Guest9999 (talk) 09:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on the grounds that this a plea for special treatment of specific topics by so called '"expert" opinion (sometimes dressed up as the "consensus" view. There have been many attempts to relieve editors of the burden of citing reliable secondary sources as evidence that a subject is notable on the gounds that notability can be inherited/presumed/acknowledge if an expert says it can (which it can't). However, so called "expert" opinion on the notability of a topic is self-referencing, and can only be proven to be correct where reliable secondary sources are cited in support of this opinion. I think we should have a general cleanup of SNGs so that the presumption that objective evidence of relaible secodnary sources is inferior to "expert" opinion may be led to rest. Afterall, was it not expert opinion that thought the world was flat? In my view, it is far better to stand on the shoulders of giants, rather than on the opinions of quacks and charlatans. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not being said to be inherited, and since you linked to it, I'd like to draw your attnetion to WP:INHERITED:
Often, a separate article is created for formatting and display purposes; however, this does not imply an "inherited notability" per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation, such as with books and albums.
-ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 14:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I... given that, how has this debate continued for months? Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Zappernapper, if an SNG came up with a set of rules that provide objective evidience that a subject is notable, or inherits it from a more notable subject, then I would agree with this proposition. However, as SNGs rely on expert opinion in support of the assumption that the notability of their subject matter is inherited/presumed/acknowledged, either we come up with a set of rules to support treatment, or we all agree that actually only GNG is the only objective inclusion criteria. It seems to me that this proposal is a radical departure from the Status Quo. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Switched from support. I didn't read it closely enough. Protonk (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If a topic meets an applicable SNG, there is a reasonable expectation that the topic is notable and that sources do exist. However, that does not mean we can state as fact that the topic is notable. Similarly, if a topic passess the GNG but not the SNGs, then the validity of the SNGs should be reconsidered, as it becomes apparent that we've imposed arbitrary guidelines that are no longer reflective of the real world. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as overly restrictive on some parts, overly inclusive on others, and broadly non-sensical. I can think of a variety of situations where this guideline would lead to rediculous results. Sometimes, a subject belongs to one category (sports players, for instance) but is notable for something completely coincidental. His failure to advance in his career should never be a reason to delete his article if he still passes the GNG. Further, allowing an SNG to override a failure to meet the GNG allows editors to create and edit SNGs at a whim, and the threshold for inclusion becomes "having enough editors who like the topic." At all times there must be a subordination to the GNG, or some sensible overriding principle in crafting SNGs. The very examples given in the rationale for this proposal demonstrate that it is meant to pander to individual's personal opinions on what specific subjects should be allowed an article. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Subordinate rules may not override the main policy. If necessary, there's IAR. NVO (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose when SNG and GNG conflict, GNG should take precedence. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose would theoretically make it possible to completely override and negate the need for reliable third party sources on a topic. I definitely think we need SNGs, but this offers zero guidance about how far they can stretch and demolish our basic requirements for sources. As a precisionist, I feel strongly that this goes too far over the "avoid bureaucracy" line to "pursue chaos and confusion". Randomran (talk) 21:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No. Just No. --Alvestrand (talk) 12:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To one who has considered the issues extensively, "Just No" does feel like adequate explanation. To one who hasn't, it won't be comprehensible. The GNG and SNGs exist to provide guidance (hence they are guidelines) on when it is possible to meet the policies WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS. Those three policies are non-negotiable and can't be violated no matter what level of local consensus exists. The GNG is the general guidance on the articles for which it is possible to meet those policies. No SNG can open the door to violating these policies, so SNGs can not be more permissive than the GNG. GRBerry 17:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Fuchs. --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 02:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as on earlier similarly worded item. SNGs do not supercede WP:N. WP:N is the base, SNGs can add all walls but not become the foundation. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The WP:N standard of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject are intended to demonstrate meeting V, NPOV, and NOR. I can easily see instances where sub-guidelines don't lead one to presume notability but the subject still meets WP:N and the content policies. I cannot foresee an instance where an article meets WP:N but a sub-guideline demonstrates that it actually does not meet content policies but if that occurs, then the argument can be made at AfD that despite meeting WP:N, it violates policy and the rationale of the sub-guideline can be used as evidence. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
oppose This proposal is madness, this proposal allows for a SNG that fully contradicts the GNG to exist. This proposal represents the end of the WP:N. Great comment by Phil Sandifer, too many SNGs have permited such a proposal to ever seeing the light of day. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 05:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per what the sub-guidelines and N say, which is the opposite. The SNG are designed to allow in more articles, not less. The SNG allow for the overcoming of biases inherent in the GNG, but if an article passes GNG then you never need to go any farther as it is presumed notable. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per just about all of the opposes. It's nonsensical to consider the SNGs as restrictions on the GNG - especially since it is so clearly not their original purpose. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 08:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The GNG should cover it all. Binksternet (talk) 09:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If something meets WP:N then it should be included, regardless of what the SNGs say. Waggers (talk) 10:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- While I might support the part about a subject meeting SNG criteria overriding GNG, the notion that a subject which meets GNG criteria could be rejected based on failure to meet SNG criteria is nonsense. older ≠ wiser 12:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - if the general notability guideline is not working for a particular field, the debate needs to be had there. A distributed approach attempting to expand it will only lead to confusion and inconsistency. Warofdreams talk 12:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. What the purpose of the GNG would be? To cover articles that aren't covered by any of the SNGs? And what if the scopes of two SNGs overlap? If an article is in the scope of both, which one will it have to conform to? Also, what if some SNGs became significantly stricter than others? Would that mean that different topics will have vastly different levels of coverage, more than is justificable? -- A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ! !  12:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If something meets WP:N then it should be included, regardless of what the SNGs say.--EchetusXe (talk) 13:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose WP:NOT should be the only negative inclusion criteria; SNGs should simply supplement the GNGs positive inclusion criteria. Jclemens (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose SNGs specify how WP:N should be applied within specific areas, but cannot override it or contradict it. To use an analogy, WP:N is like the Constitution and the SNGs are like local lawmakers. If a SNG is in conflict with WP:N, it should be fixed or, failing that, removed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh HECK no... This is the inherent problem with the SNGs. The GNG is so ludicrously broad that if the SNG can define instances where a subject would not meet it, but still merit inclusion, well that just opens the door to creating articles where 100% of the information contained therein is either trivial, or unverifiable or both. No guideline should ever allow the creation of an article that contains no content that is neither substantial nor verifiable. If A subject can't meet both of those concerns, it shouldn't have an article! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As I've said above, SNGs are there to further specific Wikiprojects's interests. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For all the reasons I have outlined already. SilkTork *^YES! 19:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I support SNGs, but I am also aware they cannot actually override the GNG. --Angelo (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Army1987 also makes an excellent point where he points out SNGs can overlap. Besides, as I've stated, I don't support SNGs. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While I'm strongly in favor of SNGs, if a topic passes WP:N, it's notable. End of discussion.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. One more time: I oppose the idea of SNGs altogether. We need a strong, universal, easy-to-communicate GNG. Iterator12n ^Talk 02:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose GNG should apply if is applicable. If an article passes the GNG but not the applicable SNG, then the SNG is flawed. Wronkiew (talk) 02:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The specific guidelines should interpret WP:N, not override it.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 14:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I would say that if a subject passes either one of the GNG or the SNG, it is deemed notable. ~A H 1^(TCU) 14:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The role of SNGs should be to clarify and interpret WP:N for particular types of articles, not to override it. Guidelines do not exist to overrule each other. They are there to reflect consensus, not determine it. That includes reflecting the consensus interpretation of other guidelines. Geometry guy 16:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This seems silly to me. SNGs should provide clarification and additional possible qualifications for specific types of notable subjects. They shouldn't replace the GNG in entirety. — X S G 18:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Previous opposer got it dead right. -- Philcha (talk)
Oppose. General notability guidelines should take precedence. As XSG states above, specific notability guidelines should be to provide clarification on issues and additional 'possible qualifications for specific types of notable subjects'. Cau lde 10:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose SGNs are or refining WP:N, not to make it moot. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is an attempt to allow defining notability downward. --John Nagle (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. SNGs should complement, not overrule. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose SNGs should give guidance in interpreting the GNG, but a failure to meet the criteria of an SNG while satisfying the GNG reveals a flaw in the way the SNG is worded, not an absence of notability. We can have specific rules (without the drawbacks of specificity) precisely because of our more general one. I'm also not comfortable allowing SNGs to override the GNG, making things notable that otherwise wouldn't be. I can understand saying that major awards count as evidence of notability when it comes to actors, something we might not want to allow self-promoting businessmen to take advantage of, but I don't see this as an expansion of the GNG and so not an instance of one trumping the other. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 18:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose: If I read this properly, it basically says "any topic which passes either the GNG or a SNG is notable". I see this as promoting conflict between SNGs and the GNG, when really there ought to be harmony. The GNG sets a baseline minimum; SNGs get more specific. SNGs are largely established by Wikiprojects, and though well-intentioned their will cannot supercede the consensus of the community as a whole (as embodied in the GNG). Doing so is providing opportunities to put the cart before the horse, and promotes points of argument between project members and non-members. We need to be striving to make the GNG and SNGs harmonious, not providing loopholes for them to supercede and contradict one another. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Balkanized standards aren't standards at all; GNG offers consistency across disciplines. --EEMIV (talk) 02:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - As I see it, SNGs should supplement, augment, and enhance the GNG when necessary because of certain situations wherein the General is not wholly relevant to the specific topic. The GNG should not just be thrown out, however, because it is an inconvenience. Specifying additional third-party sources that are acceptable on a particular subject matter makes sense. Coming up with entirely new ways of determining notability or otherwise dramatically altering GNG is not necessary and is potentially dangerous to the quality of the encyclopedia. --16:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - SNGs should not over ride GNG, neither should GNG over ride the SNGs. They should work in harmony with GNG setting the initial criteria, and the SNGs discussing the specifics of how that relates to a given topic area. Blueboar (talk) 19:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - opens the flood gates to wikiprojects coming up with all sorts of standards which could violate some of the 5 pillars. NJGW (talk) 05:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strongly oppose - floodgates as per author directly above. Also, I've seen that SNGs have in the past been edited by special-interest editors, often to the point that almost anything will pass the SNG, without any comment from the wider editing public until it's far too late. Nothing should be allowed to override WP:N. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose. When I read ‘if an article ... passes WP:N but does not pass the specific notability guideline ..., the topic is deemed not notable’ I initially thought I had misread it; see also one of my remarks above. This proposal would exclude material that would be okay for inclusion according to the global guidelines and this I consider unacceptable. It also would allow individual wikiprojects to broaden what is considered notable in their area limitlessly. As I stated in remarks above, I think subject spefic guidance is useful but not if it contradicts the global guidelines. And if there is something wrong with the global guidelines, we are better of fixing them instead. Shinobu (talk) 14:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral on B.5 edit

Neutral I do believe that there will be times when something can pass a SNG and not the GNG and be appropriate for Wikipedia, but that is a (very?) rare situation. -- Ned Scott 04:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can't really make a call on this one; seems somewhat "six of one, half a dozen of the other" and self-evident. 23skidoo (talk) 05:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either is sufficient once my caveat from earlier is taken into account. Stifle (talk) 13:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Articles should meet either of the standards. There are cases where someone might fail WP:ATHLETE, for example, but has significant coverage in other independent sources. Some Olympians might have been a national hero but didn't succeed at the Olympics. Royal broil 14:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say both rather than either, there are hundreds of 8-14 year old footballers at big clubs destined never to play a game. Many of them have been written about in the national press and international sports press, they could pass WP:N with all this hot air. Does this encyclopaedia really need football biographies about hypothetical guy who played for a Premier League youth development team until the age of 15, got injured, then released without ever playing a game, who now works as a plumber and holidays in Corfu? E P 14:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What Royalbroil wrote. --74.125.60.1 (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Proposal B.6: SNG criteria support reasonable presumptions of notability edit

Proposal: Subject notability guidelines act as complementary criteria to the general notability guideline. Meeting SNG criteria does not exempt an article from merge discussions or other common means of reaching consensus about content. Instead, they offer criteria that support a reasonable presumption that sufficient sources exist to support an article. Failed efforts to find appropriate sources should be weighed on balance with the presumption that they exist.

Rationale: There is no deadline, so rational suppositions about article potential are appropriate. Notability is the presumption that sufficient independent sources exist to satisfy the content principles of Wikipedia. The general notability guideline is the most direct way of forming that presumption. The subject guidelines provide additional sensible reasons for holding such a presumption. SNGs were originally written by experienced AfD editors reviewing their institutional memory, noting general indicators of article viability. A merge discussion and consensus remains a viable option in cases where time has been allowed for improvement, editors have exercised due diligence in searching for sources, and it seems evident that sufficient sources are not available (e.g. the Pokemon character merge).

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Support B.6 edit

Support as proposer. This is an attempt to present all notability guidelines in the context of a coherent principle and purpose. I believe it is a reasonable compromise between various opinions and positions, finding a middle ground between "wikifactions". Vassyana (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Bingo. We found the right bowl of porridge. This should describe common practice and will be a nice method to bring the SNG's into the fold more "officially". Protonk (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - An excellent formulation. The SNGs can tell us when we should avoid deleting content due to a lack of coverage in readily-available online sources (i.e. when there is a reasonable expectation that such coverage exists in print sources or in restricted online databases), but they do not override the requirement for sources. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I can't think of a better way to word it, or any comments to add. I believe this proposal lacks all of the failures on which I've opposed the other proposals in this section. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support By far the best formulation discussed here (one I can support!). Reflects the better practice and is a reasonable compromise and it's good that the rationale has an explanation of what the notability guidelines are here for. Editors can disagree over where the balance should be struck or how much time should be given but this is good - we are never going to all be in total agreement and anything more exact will reduce support for this as a compromise. I think Masem's comments below have weight and my absolute best preference wording would be slightly different but overall this is a good wording for agreement. Davewild (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. In a word: Content. Nifboy (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aye. This would probably bring WP:N in line with WP:NOTDIRECTORY: Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted. Hiding T 09:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, well said. NVO (talk) 13:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support: The principle I like here is that "SNGs are synonymous with 'sources probably exist'". That means you can't just write any old SNG like "all songs are notable". You'd have to convince people that "usually if the song is a gold record by a notable artist, there's at least SOME coverage out there in reliable secondary sources". I'm concerned that saying "SNGs show when sources probably exist" is akin to saying "SNGs show notability", so why not just say "SNGs assert notability"? But I think this proposal begins to address that by essentially saying that "if we spend a lot of time trying to find actual sources and just can't do it, maybe 'sources probably exist' has just been disproven". For articles that meet the SNG, but not the GNG, I'd hope that constructive arguments would focus on how much time and effort has gone into looking for sources. But I'm concerned that arguments would turn to non constructive proof by assertion: "even though no one has been able to find any sources, the SNG declares that sources probably exist, so you're not allowed to discuss the GNG anymore." The wording would have to encourage truly measurable and constructive discussion, rather than the latter kind of blind assertion. Randomran (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support with Randomran's caveats. The amount and type of effort to look for good sources will be part of the process of weighing the failure versus the presumption - which weighing and judgment may start with tagging, at the article's talk page, or even AFD. If reliable third party sources aren't actually produced after tagging and/or discussion, AFD is highly appropriate. GRBerry 17:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support "Weak" because I've seen editors assert that GoogleHits and AmazonHits are a reasonable presumption for the existance of reliable sources for any type of topic, "support" because there are (hopefully) enough wiki editors who know that GoogleHits & Co can also mean a lot of selfpublished WP:NOT junk, especially in fiction and popular culture topics. I also think the wording of this proposal already prevents a lot of carte blanche misuse. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm happy with this. The problem working with offline sources - especially those that relate to older subjects - is that it can be relatively difficult to dig up the necessary sources within a set time frame. This leads to a bias towards articles on recent subjects or subjects which have tended to receive coverage in more readily accessible formats, and can result in significantly unbalanced coverage. This proposal provides an out, and thus can help fill redress some of the bias. Nevertheless, it is dependent on the quality of the SNGs, otherwise the threat raised by Kww becomes very real: the SNGs need to provide a solid, justifiable and preferably objective basis for the presumption that sources will exist. Poor SNGs will be particularly problematic, as it is (virtually) impossible to show that "X meets the SNG, but in spite of that no sources can exist". The burden of proof has been moved to the SNGs, thus need to be able to trust them. (On the plus side, mergers do provide an out of sorts). - Bilby (talk) 07:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a comment here, the argument that "sources aren't online" doesn't fly well; sourcing articles properly may require some physical legwork to get the physical copy if it is known to exist and needed for the article. Now, I do point out that we are talking about a difference between a topic that can be easily sourced and just hasn't had sources added, and a topic that should likely have sources that have yet to be found. In the first case, we are generally lenient and don't call for deletion as there's no deadline; the second case is what is being addressed by this proposal. --MASEM 12:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. I probably worded it badly, but I expect legwork when doing an article. I meant what you said. :) Articles which can be easily sourced we source, and do so whether that means relying on online sources or on known offline ones. The value I see in this proposal is that it allows articles which we can reasonably presume to have sources to exist, even though the sources are hard to find. And generally, the "hard to find" sources relate to older subjects, and are generally offline or not indexed online. - Bilby (talk) 12:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - in most situations, and support more strongly where this principle is used to overcome systematic bias. However, acknowledge the problems raised by the oppose 'voters' - this is open to abuse. PhilKnight (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the accepted SNGs are generally well thought through. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Of all the proposals on the page right now, this is really the only one that comes close to reflecting actual practice. --erachima talk 12:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support — a reasonable proposal. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 16:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per the rationale given by proposal. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Helps to clarify things. Walkerma (talk) 05:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Second Choice Support per Philknight. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 08:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. While the project has no deadline, AfD discussions do and it can be difficult to find reliable sources in the time required, even if they do exist somewhere (and thus the subject is notable, even if it can't be proven so). This allows for such articles to exist. Waggers (talk) 10:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems like an acceptable compromise. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 12:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support seems reasonable and to my understanding reflects actual practice. older ≠ wiser 12:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the perfect use for SNGs. Consistent and useful for editors. Warofdreams talk 12:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems sensible.--EchetusXe (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Least imperfect of the options. I think that the presumption route permits for reasonable editor discretion to argue for keeping articles that experience tells us are almost certainly are notable, but are lacking in readily available online references of the type that we normally are able to find on demand during an AfD. I would like to see some consideration for the premise that the presumption can be rebutted - i.e. if Art A passes AfD 1 on this basis in January, it may not get the same pass for AfD 2 held a resonable period time (say, six month to a year) later. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - a good compromise--Cailil ^talk 19:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am impressed with the wording of this proposal, and while I sit on the fence on many of the arguments in this 'B' category (both sides make fine arguments), I can find no fault with this. -Verdatum (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support This seems like a reasonable, if somewhat confusing, definition of SNGs. Wronkiew (talk) 02:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - just makes sense. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Yes, we should apply these rules rationally and sometimes that means a one-size-fits-all solution doesn't work. SNGs help define the way in which the GNG applies to a subject, and the GNG is moderated given the subject. This reflects common practice and cuts wikilawyering. Adam McCormick (talk) 06:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a good way of articulating that the SNGs complement and reinforce the GNG. I have read the !votes against this proposal, but I think they are better taken as objections to poorly contrived SNGs. Naturally every SNG must reach consensus and can be challenged if it is producing poor results. A well-conceived SNG can balance our desire for comprehensive coverage against that for well-sourced articles. I think the opposition may be demanding too short a time horizon; if sources are not present in an article now that does not mean none exist anywhere in the world. At the same time, I don't think articles should languish indefinitely with no sourcing, and perhaps there should be some effort to standardize time frames for demonstrating notability. Fletcher (talk) 14:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This seems to be a well-thought out alternative proposal. Sources on older sports related topics exist and could usually be found with archival research, but that is difficult to pull off sometimes, especially within the narrow time span of an AfD. matt91486 (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The domain-specific notability pages help give evidence of notability, without needing to find the absolute proof. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support As per Tilby's excellent comment: "The problem working with offline sources - especially those that relate to older subjects - is that it can be relatively difficult to dig up the necessary sources within a set time frame. This leads to a bias towards articles on recent subjects or subjects which have tended to receive coverage in more readily accessible formats, and can result in significantly unbalanced coverage." --Technopat (talk) 11:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Best proposal of all. Reasonable middle ground. It addresses problems with people refusing to merge articles. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Best, relies on reasonable editors making good decisions locally. betsythedevine (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support: This seems to sum up my feelings on the subject. It is always important, especially with new articles, to consider whether sufficient third-party sources might exist which could be added to the article. SNGs go a long way towards forming the presumption of whether such sources do or don't exist. This seems to be the best description of how SNGs actually work, at least in my experience. Of course, sources should be added after a reasonable length of time, and/or if challenged or demanded (via maintenance tags or AfDs). If in those situation the sources don't turn up, then deletion or merger is certainly an option, which this proposal seems to take into account. Basically I doubt I could have said it better myself. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Any impartial means of showing likely notability is valid... not just the 'significant independent coverage' standard. Yes, most such means, definitely including 'significant independent coverage', contain inherent biases, but we should be using all available methods of determination rather than one at the exclusion of everything else. --CBD 11:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - This makes sense. Timmccloud (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose B.6 edit

Weak Oppose: I agree that this appears to be a very common line of reasoning, and one that I believe is without malicious intent. It is, however, still highly prone to abuse. The geographic editors have pushed this past the limit, with their claim that every place that anyone has ever lived is notable, because there must be a writeup about it somewhere. It needs to be made explicit that someone has to be able to pony up the sources, and, if no one can, the article can't be kept. I think that these presumptions should be enough to save an article from PROD, but once it gets to AFD time, the sources have to actually be found. No source, no article.Kww (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is in incisive and well thought out reason to oppose. I should note that I agree with Kww's concerns here. Having a guideline like this means that some serious community attention will be focused on the individual SNG's. That, to me, is a good thing, so it did not cause me to oppose. Protonk (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is a well-thought oppose. I'd also echo Protonk's point that an approach like this would focus additional community attention on the SNGs. The merge solution was focused on as a compromise because it would be likely to preserve content while discouraging stand-alone articles for topics lacking sufficient sources. Is there some way that your concerns could be addressed and/or alleviated while sticking to the middle road approach? Vassyana (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to pick up on one point; you say "once it gets to AFD time, the sources have to actually be found". What sort of time-scale would you be looking at here? I'm wondering if, like Prod, we could instigate some sort of category, a holding pen, of articles without sources. Given we now have hidden categories, this may be more plausible. What I'm thinking of, is take an article to afd. If it doesn't have sources but people assert sources can be found, an admin can close as keep for thirty days for good faith efforts. We then categorise in a manner similar to prod, and after 30 days delete all articles still in the category. Furthermore, we can adapt DRV to this: any article where the sources are found after such a deletion can be restored through discussion at DRV. If consensus is that the sources are okay, restore article, bob's your uncle. Makes deletion more a database management system rather than a battle for the soul of Wikipedia. Sort of like the junk mail folder, we all have one, we just all probably empty it on a different timescale. I think 30 days is probably about right, since it's too short for inclusionists and too long for deletionists :). I mean, since I've been at Wikipedia I can count on one hand the number of articles which I've created without inserting references. That's the practise we have to stop. We have to encourage people to add sources, even if it means asking them on their talk page and then recording somewhere that this IP added this info based on his memory of events twenty years ago. Maybe we would have to rethink deleting talk pages of deleted articles, although I can see where that may cause issues with BLP concerns. A solution to that would be to have a draft space accessible to admins and responsible editors. Come to think of it, that's what deletion currently is, although not officially. Hiding T 09:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In general to all the above and in light of my comment to this below - Remember that we state that in WP:V that we have "If a topic is not covered in reliable third-party sources, WP should not have an article about it.". Considering that and the positive spin that I suggest SNGs have, then we can strongly assert that topics that should be included by the SNGs due to our purpose as an encyclopedia but cannot be justified due to lack of third-party sources should be merged with similar other topics. Or in another way, we can allow a wider range of topics to be covered but bearing in mind that those only based off no or minimal external sources should be presented in a list/table format with redirects (what I hope people can consider is the compromise needed). The GNG still represents the case for any topic at all. --MASEM 12:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly supported in policy and guidance at WP:EP, WP:NOTDIR and WP:SALAT, so I think we need to simply work out how to codify that policy and guidance into WP:N. Hiding T 12:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've got it; I've always been a proponent of having inclusion guidelines which generally are more positive than notability, and I think this is exactly where it fits into play. The inclusion guidelines would state that topics that meet it (below) should be covered in WP, but only merit a full article if validated via WP:Vs need for third-party sources; otherwise, such topics should be grouped or merged into a large topic that does have its own article. A topic is to be included if 1) it meets the GNG (and therefore 99% of the time merits own article) or 2) it meets criteria for inclusion laid out in what are the SIGs: Sub-inclusionary guidelines, what the SNGs would become under this approach. The SIGs would still need to be vetted to 1) reduce their number as to make the criteria for inclusion as straight-forward as possible and 2) assert they have global consensus through further discussion - I'm not expecting the strong ones like BIO and ATHLETE to change much but this puts, say, FICT in a new light. Inclusion is still a guideline, so that topics that aren't GNG or meeting the SIGs but obviously need to be included may spark a new discussion of a modified SIG or a new SIG. A transition to this from the current notability framework is not difficult and would not be disruptive beyond the rewriting of guideline pages. The only point that we would need to make sure has global consensus is that groupings of topics that fail GNG but meet a SIG (list, table, or whatever format) are considered appropriate: these are topics we should be covering but they lack the sources to fully cover them, so they are presented in this format. (It should be noted that a topic that meets a SIG but not GNG still needs to pass WP:V and other policies, even if the V is through primary sources; a thought to take into re-examining the SNG/SIGs). And because these lists would exist we need to make sure that the SIGs include both whitelists of topics and blacklists of topics; for example, in FICT, I can support whitelist coverage of major and minor/recurring characters, but one-offs are blacklisted. I know these lists aren't populary with some, but I really think this is where the compromise sits, and by taking this approach of considering V and other policies, we can make sure WP has broad, verifiable coverage without too many excessive details. --MASEM 13:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly where my mind has been headed, to be honest. WP:FICT worked well when it told people what to merge; we'd just be returning to that approach if not that wording. I certainly think there is merit in discussing which topics are suitable for lists. Hiding T 13:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a point of accuracy, even though you are correct that are closest approach to FICT was saying what goes in a list, I don't think we want to approach it exactly like that; we want to say what topics should be covered (including those, due to lack of substantial article per WP:V, should be covered is a list form). (I realize this is falling under Kww's oppose vote but I think this that the point raised this is what started me on this in that we can work this all out with inclusion describing what gets covered, and V describing what gets a full article). --MASEM 14:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As this proposal is virtually the same as B.3., as both proposals are based on the assumption that notability can be inhertied/presumed/acknowledged (which it can't). Although it is current practise for SNGs to define when sources are presumed to exist (e.g. if a movie wins an Oscar), this argument is fatally flawed, as it is self-referencing argument which can only be substantiated when reliable secondary sources can be cited to support the "expert" opinion. A presumption of notability does not work in the absence of reliable secondary sources, as such presumption may be based on spurious claims that cannot be substantiated (e.g. where a topic is said to be notable because of dubious award). SNGs currently contain inclusion criteria that are not supported by verifiable evidence and cannot be applied universally, and should there be dropped althogether, as reliance on "expert opinion" robs editors of their autonomy to determine which subjects are notable.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it does do that. I think it is seeking to balance the multiple reliable sources of WP:N and the single third party source of WP:V. You can source the fact that a movie has won an Oscar. That may be all you can source about it. Some people would therefore state we should not have an article on the movie. Some people would say we shouldn't. Since we can't let a panel of experts decide whether something which is sourced and is verifiable is to be excluded from Wikipedia, we have a problem. Don't we? Hiding T 09:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If there is no evidence of notability, or no sources at all, that is the problem, as you can't write an article without content, and you can't provide analyis, commentary or criticism without reliable secondary sources. Even if an expert can't write an article that complies with Wikipedia content principles if there is no verifiable information. An example of this is the stub Ashley Fernee has virtually no content, which sugests to me that the so called "expert" opinion that notability under WP:BIO#athletes is inhertited/presumed/acknowledged cannot be substantiated.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is moving teh debate on. Now we're into discussion over WP:STUB and WP:PERMA and listifying. Our guidance at WP:STUB appears to me to indicate two routes, to merge or delete. (Some people may argue it also allows the stub to be kept.) Now it all comes down to what side of the fence you sit on. Are you a mergist or a deletionist. Do we merge and redirect Ashley Fernee to List of Adelaide Football Club players or do we delete it? What makes our coverage of the football club complete? Where does our comprehensiveness stop? This is the very nub of the argument. The middle road appears to me to be merge and redirect. Have the list. It's a suitable topic for a list, and seems in keeping with editing policy, discriminate listing and acceptable list topics. You may disagree. And there's the rub. Who is right? Whose opinion is of more value? The person whose opinion is that verifiable information should be deleted or the person whose opinion is that verifiable information should be retained? What context frames that debate? The context of doing the right thing, of improving the encyclopedia, since that's our purpose. Of writing from a neutral point of view. If we list or record some players for the club, surely we have to list all, otherwise we place a distinction upon those we list, saying they are of more worth than others. So the answer would be to listify. We therefore give each player their due weight. Some get articles because they have greater achievements; others get a list entry since they only have the one. This tends to work better for real people than fictional characters, mind. But then that is as it should be. Hiding T 13:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with Hiding's view that we should "listify" topics whose notability is unproven. In my view, if no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it, and this applies to lists as well; if there are no reliable secondary sources to justify the existence of list, then why should we allow lists that are a directly derived from primary sources that fail WP:NOT#DIR or lists that are a synthesis multiple primary sources that fail WP:OR (e.g. List of Adelaide Football Club players)? I fail to see why Hiding thinks that such list cruft is appropriate if it fails Wikipedia content policies as well as WP:N.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your approach also breaches Wikipedia content policies. We have reliable third party sources for an article on Adelaide Football Club players. Your approach seems to be that we should never ever use primary source for anything, which flat out contradicts all our policies. Hiding T 09:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think accussing other editors of breaches of policy serves not useful purpose. Wikipedia says that if no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it, but it does not say you cannot cite primary sources. Of course you can cite primary sources, and why you would think I am against this, I have no idea. The List of Adelaide Football Club players does not cite any sources at all, nor does it cite any sources as evidence of notablity. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think accusing other editors of breaches of policy serves no useful purpose stop being a pot and making me a kettle. Here's one for you. Superman, featured article, humongous references, no question regarding notability. A section on the publication history of the character is needed to ensure coverage is comprehensive, and as part of that comprehensiveness a list of the comics Superman has been published in is also of value to understand the publishing phenomenon the character has been. All of which can be sourced, but the list is too long to fit into the main page, which itself is already too long. So the list, which if placed in the main article, is notable by virtue of covering a topic, Superman, which has reliable sources, is split. Should the list be kept or deleted? Why? If Adelaide Football Club meets the GNG, then a complete list of players at that club makes our coverage neutral, unbiased and is entirely referenceable; if we can't cite that a player played for the club, he shouldn't be on the list because that's original research. But we don't have to cite the fact that he played for the club to secondary sourcing; for this fact we can use primary source material per WP:V; a club website or a club history. I wouldn't use personal testimony from the player, per WP:V and WP:RS. So, here an application of the GNG, a guideline, contradicts our core policies, and is ignored since it is supplicant to those policies. I hope that finally clarifies the position. The idea of citing sources wasn't to demonstrate notability; it was to verify information and to ensure we remained neutral and avoided original research. We don't write about notable topics; we write about those topics we can do so in a verifiable, neutral manner, avoiding committing original research. That's the position WP:N supports. Notability is not a goal; it is a tool. I strongly suggest you read through the history of how notability was created and how it is used on Wikipedia to better understand the nature of both the tool and the project. Hiding T 11:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think I am starting to understand where our positions diverge. If you see an article without sources, you simply want it deleted. Is that fair to say? Hiding T 11:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to Hiding, deletion is only one of many possible outcomes for articles without content or notability; merging the topic into a notable article would be more appropriate. In the example of Adelaide Football Club, I note the following: the article itself provides little in the way of sourcing (currently the article its mainly comprised of OR) and those sources that are cited do not provide any evidence of notability as they fail WP:NOT#NEWS. We now have three related articles which fail WP:N, namely Adelaide Football Club, the List of Adelaide Football Club players and Ashley Fernee who is an Adelaide player. All of these articles hang on the coat tails of WP:BIO#Athletes, by which I mean the notability of these articles is assumed to be inhertited/presumed/acknowledged on the basis that their subject matter is related to sport played at a professional level. However, the assumption which underpins SNGs that notability can be inhertited/presumed/acknowledged in this way conflicts with the existing consensus that notability is not inherited. The only reason why these topics have not been merged is that their is no stict timetable for doing so (which is reasonable), but in the long term, I would suggest that these topics will be merged at into a more notable article at some point in the (distant) future if no reliable sources can be found.--Gavin Collins (talk) 12:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain to me where we disagree then? Or why it has taken us so long to get to here? Hiding T 12:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I may just comment here, this seems like a good example of what this proposal is about. If the proposal was accepted, WP:BIO#Athletes would be stating, more-or-less, that "it is reasonable to presume that sources exist for Ashley Fernee, because he has played at the highest level of his sport". But he is hard to source, as he played in 1996 - while not technically pre-web, it was certainly before most newspapers regularly put material online. So Google News should (and does) turn up nothing. Thus the question is whether or not it is reasonable to presume that these sources will exist. We can test that, and it turns up that it is - there are sufficient sources for Ashley Fernee to meet the GNG. So taking the SNG as providing a presumption for notability worked. - Bilby (talk) 08:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try Bilby, but there is no evidence that Ashley Fernee is notable; the sources you have added are trivial in nature as none of them describe, in any detail, the player himself or the games he played in. Without non-trivial content cited from reliable secondary sources, this stub remains little more than a directory entry. This stub illustrates my points perfectly: you can't write an encyclopedic article from tables of statistics. Routine news reports do not notability make.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that this is the place to argue Ashley Fernee's notability. :) Nevertheless, all the references make specific mention of him, and while they constitute simple comments along the lines of "he has been delisted" or "he is unlikely to get a game this season" (which was in a short article specifically about his future for that year), they also tend to be more than "he scored a goal". They do, taken as a whole, provide verifiability for every claim made about him - when he was drafted, when he started playing, how many games he played, when he was delisted, where he went after delisting - and all come from reliable third party sources. (There would be more, but the whole legwork thing comes into play - the dedicated AFL magazines should have more, as should newspapers from the time he was drafted). Personally, I'd be happy to see it merged, but that's the point of this proposal: it is reasonable to assume that there are enough sources to write at least a short, verifiable article, and thus it should stay or be merged so long as it can be shown that the presumption is fair. Given that I found mentions of him in over 80 articles in 10 minutes, I'm reasonably happy to accept the presumption even without the SNG providing support. - Bilby (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as an aside, I diagree with the "you can't write an encyclopedic article from tables of statistics". First, because it wasn't relying on statistics, but comments made about him (where statistics are read as "kicked X goals with Y possessions in Z games). While second, it is an encyclopedic "start" now - it may never be a GA, or probably even a B, but properly referenced starts are still of value. - Bilby (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree. You cannot write an encyclopedic article based on trivial coverage in newspapers, and this point is clearly set out in WP:NOT#NEWS. But let us set aside this arguement: this illustrates my point that a presumption of notability is self-referencing, as it can only be substantiated through the citation of reliable secondary sources. The question then arises, why rely on a presumption at all if reliable secondary sources can always be found? Why should I have to rely on WP:BIO#Athletes if Bilby can always find reliable secondary sources? This is an equally stong arguement, as there is no point in relying on the crutches of presumption, if evidence of notability can be found everywhere.--Gavin Collins (talk) 21:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good question. I think there is a "political" answer, in terms of allowing editors to build criteria specific to their area of interest without allowing them to override WP:Note. However, in terms of the purpose of Wikipedia the problem is that it will take a while to get those references, and you and I probably will be unable to do so as we're not sufficiently versed in the field. Without them there could be nothing on Ashley Fernee, as failure to meet the notability requirements would result in deletion. (Presuming that the SNG didn't exist). This would be a problem, because it would still allow other atheletes of similar prominence (or lack thereof) to have articles, if their more recent providence allowed for sources readily accessible to everone. This would create a systemic bias. (I think it would be fair to question why we even have articles on players who only ever walked onto the field once or twice, but that's a different issue). This proposal doesn't say that Ashley Fernee should have his own article - merger is an option if they don't turn up - but it makes a case for continued existance based on the likelihood that referencing can be added by someone in the future, and thus help redress the bias. (I should add that this proposal would require that WP:Athelete say more than "this athelete played at the top level", as now it would be expected to say "this athelete played at the top level, and therefore we can expect sufficient sources to exist"). - Bilby (talk) 22:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the political answer has been provided by Wikipedia:V#Burden_of_evidence, which states that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. If we rely on presumptions of notability to override the requirement to provide evidence, then we relinquish responsibility for providing evidence of notability on the basis that evidence might be provided in a future period. I can see that your argument that the requirement to cite reliable secondary sources can be deferred until they are found is attractive, but at the same time this conflicts with WP:V which requires evidence to be provided by the editor who creates the article, not by someone else at a later date. It is often said that there is no timetable in Wikipedia, but I don't think this arguement was ever intended to relieve editors of having to comply with WP:N by deferring the application of GNG to future periods. --Gavin Collins (talk) 04:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(od) You make good points, as usual. And I agree - certainly with overriding the requirement to provide evidence for claims. But I don't think this proposal touches on WP:V. Editors must still verify claims, but notability can be presumed under the right circumstances. (Given that WP:Note goes beyond WP:V). Actually, the reason I like it is because it places an additional burden on the SNGs which improves their value without lessening the GNG. As an example we both may remember, a SNG can't just say "winning this award is proof that it is notable", but now it would be expected that they change it to "winning this award allows us to presume that that sources to show notability exist because...". Randomran is right, I think: the burden of proof is placed on the SNGs to offer reasonable guidelines, and on the editors to show that they meet the SNG or the GNG as before. The risk, as Kww highlighted, is that the SNGs may not be reasonable. - Bilby (talk) 05:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again I beg to differ. I think WP:N should be amended to state that the burden of evidence rests with the editor who creates or restores an article, by citing reliable secondary sources to demonstrate that the article's subject matter is notable, otherwise the burden is shifted from the contributing editor to everyone and no one. The assumption that notability can be inhertited/presumed/acknowledged should be expunged from SNG's, as this is simply a device to relieve contributing editors of this burden, and, as Kww states above, is a licence to abuse Wikipedia's polices and guidelines.--Gavin Collins (talk) 05:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most of the second, but not the first. There is no reply to the first - if you take that stance, then only articles which demonstrate notability now can be kept, whether or not they are verifiable or whethe ror not it is reasonable to presume that sources exist. This continues with the current bias towards new topics or readily sourced topics, but so be it. :) However, on the second you'll find some support in this proposal, as this proposal kills "inherent" notability, as SNGs don't define notability in the proposal, but instead are used to show that existing ideas of notability (the GNG) are likly to be met. I still think you may be confusing WP:V with WP:Note, but that's a separate issue. - Bilby (talk) 05:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any conflict here. The general position is that yes, we shouldn't have any articles which do not have any sources. However, it is also acknowledged we have a rather large backlog and some articles without sources are more troublesome than others. But no article has a free pass. I don't quite agree with Gavin that there is a burden "to demonstrate that the article's subject matter is notable", but I think me and Gavin agree that there needs to be a consensus that "the article's subject matter is notable", which is best, easiest and least controversially done through independent reliable sources. I think we also agree that the lack of those sources doesn't mean deletion, it means that an article isn't perhaps the best way of presenting the information. Deletion can be an answer, but if the information is cited, sometimes it may be that a better home can be found for it through a merge. I think that's the position around which consensus is forming. Notability is the framework around which we debate, and when that debate begins, then yes, it is expected that during that debate those arguing for the retention of material pony up the sources or otherwise give a bloody strong reason why the information should be retained. Here is where the conflict perhaps lies; everyone has a different take on what the bloody strong reason is. SOme people say there isn't one, but if we respect consensus and case by case application, that view doesn't always hold sway. That fact means we have imbalances, which again causes conflict, but I think if we take a long term approach we can conclude that the drift is towards better sourcing, better referenced articles, which means at some point all articles will have to pony up the sources. Personally I think that's five years off. YMMV. Hiding T 13:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Kw above in that much of my oppose is based not on the principle per say, but the fact that in practice, SNG are crafted by those with the intent of keeping as much of the chosen articles around as possible. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as written, since it seems to give articles a way out from WP:V ("failure to find sources.... shouldn't lead to deletion"). If you can't document it, don't write it. --Alvestrand (talk) 12:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per similarly worded G3 - allows too much abuse when not grounded in WP:N and WP:V. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose- Notability can't be presumed, either the article has it or not. If an article has no sources supporting its notability and the Internet fails to assert it as well, we must determine that the article has no notability and delete it. This proposal basically says that the absolute lack of sources doesn't mean anything and we MUST assume that it has notability because a SNG says so. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 06:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Bad idea to have SNGs at all. A well-written GNG should cover everything. No article should be written without citations. Binksternet (talk) 09:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - When an article is started without sources, as I observed, it tends to be expanded without sources as well. --:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 11:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is a wordy and watered-down version of B2, so I have to oppose it as WP:instruction creep. The time frame and consensus procedures for deletion discussions are established elsewhere. Besides, deleting an article for lack of sources now, does not prevent it from being created again in the future. The wording of this proposal invites wiki-lawyering from indiscriminate inclusionists. VG ☎ 12:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose another one that sounds okay at a glance but doesn't bear close scrutiny. Particularly: "Failed efforts to find appropriate sources should be weighed on balance with the presumption that they exist." If sources can't be found, we must for practical purposes figure they don't exist. Obeying this proposal to the letter would throw a monkey wrench into efforts to remove hoaxes, which are made to sound notable but for which no sources exist. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for all the reasons above. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - EconomistBR beat me to the punch; notability shouldn't be presumed, but proven. --Explodicle (T/C) 20:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - of course. We cannot codify a guideline to break a core policy such as Verifiability. We might use this RFC to look at current practise and see if people are by habit avoiding policy, and are using subject specific guidelines as "authority" to do so. SilkTork *^YES! 23:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this opens the door to BLP issues, everything should be source and sources should be provided by the editor at the time of inclusion. Gnan garra 01:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Same as before, I'm against SNGs. One universal, easy-to-communicate GNG. And if the GNG can't be stated in simple, straight-forward terms it probably doesn't belong in the GNG. Iterator12n ^Talk 02:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There is a deadline: it arrives when someone lists the article at AfD. Geometry guy 16:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with KWW; provisions that allow N & RS issues to be deprecated will be wantonly abused. Eusebeus (talk) 13:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Failed efforts to find appropriate sources should be weighed on balance with the presumption that they exist." - No. If you can't find the sources, you can't assume they exist. This is a crutch for lazy editors. --John Nagle (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE There should be a deadline to reference claims made in any article by the author(s) as the lack of a time frame begets neglect and encourages the omission of basic WP rules...I'd like to exhibit an example, where the author who appears to be also the subject, used WP to post external links to his web sites and not to build his own biography. The inclusion of said article was granted as per WP:Music, yet the subject has neglected to post references to most of the underlying text. It's behavior like this that we should discourage and we should raise the standards as to who qualifies for an article page.Jrod2 (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The idea that something is notable because some source might exist to show that it is notable is on its face flawed. Although I strongly subscribe to the belief that the basic notability of an article should be established at the time that the article is written, I am willing to give editors a reasonable amount of time to find sources if they request this. However, there does come a point when allowing more time is futile. Blueboar (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - There is no deadline ALSO means that the article can wait to exist until the sources appear. The great thing about notability is that once established it cannot go away, BUT, if it isn't present immediately it can be acquired years later. Why rush and create something that may or may not ever actually have sources to support it for years to come? Since there is no deadline, one can wait until those sources arrive. Assumption is still assumption in mine, and Wikipedia's books. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. This is essentially B.3 with tagged on to it that unsourced articles should be allowed to exist if the notability guideline says so. This contradicts the verifiability policy, therefore I must vehemently oppose. Shinobu (talk) 14:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral on B.6 edit

Neutral I'd generally agree with this but I imagine that the scope with which it could be interpreted means that pretty much anyone could agree with it when thinking about it from their own viewpoint (example: note the two opposing viewpoints laid out in Wikipedia:There is no deadline(essay)). I don't imagine that this being accepted would really solve any problems. Guest9999 (talk) 01:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral this statement of fact seems reasonable enough, but it's important to discourage (not ban) this sort of encouragement of unsourced material in the guidelines. MrZaius^talk 05:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. The idea of SNG's at least being able to extend the time-frame to look for sources was at least a very good one. If an article passes the apporpriate SNG, it has 30 days to provide evidence for passing GAN. What's wrong with that?Yobmod (talk) 12:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant, but harmless. This is already covered by WP:IAR, and by the fact that WP:AfD last at least 5 days. Note that failure to meet with WP:N isn't a WP:CSD. (BTW, I think that the minumum duration of a WP:AfD should be even longer, at least one week, but this isn't the place to discuss that.) -- A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ! !  12:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. Stifle (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Anything can be split out or merged back in at any time based on a consensus of involved editors. I don't see what this assertion adds or removes from that reality. Jclemens (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Sounds OK, but is kinda wishy-washy. I mean, I understand that somew subjects are patently going to have sources (for example, an unreferenced article on a Governor of a U.S. State may not currently have any sources, but it is patently obvious that such a Chief Executive is likely to have recieved enough coverage to merit an article) HOWEVER, it is WAY too easy for someone to simply make blanket assertions which are not so obvious (ex: My friend's band played at a local club. It is possible that some newspaper reviewed their performance, and thus, they may be notable based on that). --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. What does that even mean? ~A H 1^(TCU) 14:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral tending to oppose. I don't really know what to say about "presumptions of notability". If sources must be out there, but nobody can find them, I expect wits will be sharpened and determination increased by listing the article at AfD. Geometry guy 16:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. These "presumed sources" should be found and referenced. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on B.6 edit

Might I suggest a slight rewording (or at least consideration during discussion) in that SNGs describe material that should be covered in WP due to the presumption of independent sources that would exist for them and that coverage of such material rarely fails content and other policy guidelines? More generally, this is to say that SNGs describe things that we should be covering in WP; it may be its own article, it may be a list, but these are terms, people, places, and things that are core aspects of WP's coverage and that can likely be validated. If you approach it from this way, saying that an SNG for an area of coverage defines what should be covered, this might help to reduce the number of SNGs (do we need BIO and ATHLETE for example), be more positive ("we should cover these" instead "we can only cover these if...") and many other benefits. Mind you, these still need to not be developed in a vacuum; a FICT done in this manner without larger consulting would leave a lot to be desired, I believe. --MASEM 17:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried to strike a balance in that regard by focusing on merge solutions instead of deletion for cases when due diligence turns up a paucity of sources. I have found it difficult to address this point more explicitly without creating wording that appears to strongly favor one view or another, reducing the viability of the proposal as a compromise. For example, it could be argued the language you use is easily abused to demand unreasonable amounts of proof that it is a "rare" case, even for a merge and redirect preserving the content. I believe being more explicit on the point you raise is possible, but would require some hearty discussion, effort and compromise to strike the right balance. Vassyana (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree wording is everything, but as long as we're aligning on thoughts, all for this. I think by thinking of the SNGs as positively identifying topics in specific fields that WP should really cover (article or list), allowing for anything not explicitly covered by these to be defined by the GNG, makes notability seem much much friendlier than our present approach of "no sources, so we don't cover it." This approach really makes complete sense to me, particularly in light of what I've seen with FICT; we can now state (perhaps) that every episode of a notable TV show is notable to be covered in some form on WP. The only trick is to note that when sources are lacking, full articles are strongly discouraged. The exact wording is something we can come back to after (hopefully) this proposal gains support. --MASEM 18:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it was necessary to add B.6 and don't think it is necessary to add anymore proposals such as "SNG criteria support exemptions from notability", as this is just one more way of slicing and dicing the existing proposals. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is mentioned that notability cannot be presumed, but even the GNG only forms a presumption of notability. A presumption of notability is not the same as a blanket assertion of notability or inherited notability. It's also worth noting that I openly share strong exclusionist views in no uncertain terms (see User:Vassyana/notability and User:Vassyana/fiction). While I would prefer abolishing the SNGs and strengthening the GNG, that is not a viable avenue and it disregards the views of many established (and sensible) Wikipedians. A compromise solution in the middle ground (though maybe not this one) is needed to acknowledge the spectrum of legitimate views and forge some viable consensus. Vassyana (talk) 15:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to clarify that notbality cannot be inherited/presumed/acknowledged in the absence of reliable secondary sources, as you only have opinion (e.g. "the Earth is flat") in their absence. A presumption without evidence cannot be substantiated, no matter how reasonable it is.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the SNGs still require a secondary source to verify (e.g. a news article noting the Oscar winners). Also, your support for merging solutions above would seem to line up with the proposal fairly well. How could your concerns be addressed in the proposal? Vassyana (talk) 12:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am deeply sceptical of this approach, given that the a reasonable presumption of notability runs into the Problem of induction when compared with the more Scientific method that requires that claims of notability should to be backed up by evidence, which is the approach followed by WP:V. Like you, I once considered that a guideline based on a reasonable presumption of notability would provide an opportunity to broaden Wikipedia inclusion criteria, but my opinion has changed, and I now view this approach as not only being intellectually flawed, but it would actually be damaging to Wikipedia, as it can conflict with existing guidelines (e.g. see the example of Ashley Fernee above), but also make us dependent on so called "expert" opinion when it comes to mergers or deletions of topics which do not cite reliable secondary sources. Since arguments supporting a reasonable presumption of notability are easy to manufacture, I think this proposal will give licence to charlatans and quacks to push their view that their pet topics are notable.--Gavin Collins (talk) 05:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a science experiment. Certainly we want to have guidelines that provide as close as possible to objective delineation between what should and shouldn't be included to avoid endless arguments in AFD and guidelines/policy pages ad infinitium. However, we also are free to define what we want Wikipedia to be. Yes, we need to be aware that if SNGs aren't checked, walled gardens claiming their own sense of notability can be developed and that the current SNGs need to be vetted to make sure they meet what consensus believes WP should be. But, regardless, WP is developed based on expert opinion in all areas - that's the purpose of the open wiki nature, and expert opinion has helped to developed policies in the past and will continue to do so in the future. (See, for example, MOSNUM, where a number of 'experts' are debating how we handle date formatting). As long as we understand that expert opinion should lead to objective measures for WP's policies and guidelines, and not to create large grey areas of how thing should be handled, then we are applying expert opinion correctly to develop WP. --MASEM 05:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Especially given oppose 4, it seems it would benefit the proposal to me to explicitly mention that it is still, of course, necessary to verify that the SNG is met. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is this proposal substantially different from B.3? The wording is different (and more confusing) but it seems to be saying pretty much the same thing.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 14:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Proposal B.7: SNGs (only) provide subject area interpretation of the GNG edit

Proposal: SNGs cannot modify the GNG; they can neither weaken nor strengthen the GNG. SNGs should (only) provide assistance to editors to interpret subject matter against the GNG, and support the consistent application of the GNG between disparate domains of knowledge, for example, Music versus Law enforcement agency vesus Geography versus Sport, etc.

Rationale: As Wikipedia expands and matures and as more topics are covered, subject specific area assistance is needed to deal with specific situations that vary widely over different subjects, that appear and are constantly debated in AfDs and that need stable solutions for the project to function smoothly. The practical utility of WP:N is decreasing, but its fundamentals are as still as important as always. The practical utility of SNGs is increasing. Many subject-specific issues of relative weight of various types of sources and also of what kind of coverage/evidence is required to demonstrate notability need to be addressed by SNGs.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Support B.7 edit

Strong Support This is how I have been treating SNGs, and no one conversant in AfDs has ever called me on it. Such discussions benefit from greater specificity than can be given in a general guideline. So, for example, WP:ACADEMIC makes it clear that not every professor is notable, even though just about every professor receives some kind of coverage. On the other hand, a national reputation is one of the things considered when granting full professorship, and so it makes sense to have a single policy on whether to admit full professorship at a research institution as evidence of a national reputation: we would not want this done regarding business people, however, as they hand out accolades like candy as part of mutual self-promotion. It is best that we can deal with these issues once and not have to revisit it every time there is an AfD on a professor (or business person). RJC ^Talk_Contribs 18:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Logical and reflects current practice. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support for the same reasons as the two previous supporters (and not withstanding any !votes I cast weeks ago above). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Extra strong support. I wonder why nobody came up with this before, it sounds almost obvious to me. -- Army1987 ! ! ! 13:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is essentially a bit more elaborate B.2. Since I support that, I suppose I should support this too. Shinobu (talk) 14:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose B.7 edit

Oppose: vague. Doesn't really say anything. Does this mean that the GNG is still 100% consistently enforceable, and SNGs just become help-essays? Or does this mean the obvious: that SNGs are specific versions of our notability guidelines? Either way, this doesn't really help us figure out the limits of how far the SNGs can push the GNG. Randomran (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral on B.7 edit

It doesn't really say anything. It just says SNG's interpret subject matter for the GNG. What does that mean? Does it connect to what the text of each SNG is? Protonk (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many times the SNG's interpretation of the GNG is a stretch. It may well be the case that some professional athletes (who the SNG say are notable) will fail to meet any notability requirements in any other sense: we may not know this person from any other - they may have no birth/death data and if we go back far enough, cannot be more than "Joe Blow played professional tiddlywinks in Fooistan." cited to the Fooistan tiddlywink encyclopedia which has no more data on Joe Blow. This instruction creep is much more inclusionary that need be - as probably the most routine crook in the first world gets much more secondary coverage than professional athletes in the third world outside of the most major sports. Bias? Yes, we like sportspeople and dislike crooks, but let's acknowledge it and remedy it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Additional comments on issue B edit

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Please add any additional comments on this issue here that fall outside the above proposals.

I probably won't !vote on Proposal B as I am torn (I see an advantage of some SNGs but not all), but has it ever been considered to create a middle ground like de.wiki has achieved with de:Wikipedia:Relevanzkriterien (their version of WP:N)? One guideline for notability to explain the concept (i.e. instruction keep and redundancy is low), and it still lists indicators of notability per article type. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like sgeureka, I do see value in having SNGs, but I think their role is to provide subject-specific guidance to editors as to how GNG should be applied, rather than providing additional inclusion criteria based on "expert" opinion. I used to believe that because real-world subjects can be observed and recorded (unlike elements of fiction), that notability could be presumed/acknowledged/inhertited, and this belief justified the creation of inclusion criteria that supplemented GNG. However, I realised that this belief is based on so called "expert" opinion, and that any presumption of notability cannot be taken at face value; notability must be evidenced by reliable secondary sources, and that GNG is the only reliable inclusion criteria, since it is based on verifiable evidence.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you really think you can create a set of criteria that will encompass the notability of everything and not be so vague as to render itself useless (as the current "Stuff should be notable" has obviously done)? padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 15:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have not seen any proposal for inclusion criteria to better GNG so my answer would be no.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just realised I either opposed or went neutral on all the issue B options, none of them seem to express my viewpoint which I tried to best express in opposing option B.4 Would have prefered an option existed along the lines I tried to raise there. Davewild (talk) 19:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC) Striking now I have supported B.6. Davewild (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This comment may be more appropriate for another forum, but it seems related to the GNG/SNG split so I'll advance it here. There are numerous domains where it is unarguably useful to have complete, comprehensive listings for reference, although what domains qualify are arguable. Some would say Baseball statistics, filmographies, Nigerian beauty pageant contestants. Unfortunately proponents of these compendia believe that each entry is / would be notable--which is a load of rubbish. I suggest a new top-level entity (en.wikialmanac.org?) that can contain all of these sorts of facts--still subject to [WP:V], but without a notability requirement (though perhaps there could be guidelines on sufficient notability for a separate article as opposed to inclusion in a list). That way, people who believe all places are notable or that every single released deserves a page will have a place where they can pursue their urge. That approach has a number of merits.
- Wikipeida becomes a place for articles on notable topics again.
- There is a place to go for comprehensive information, with that as a stated goal. Despite my lack of affection for non-notable subjects in Wikipedia, like everyone else, I often find myself in search of non-notable information.
- The store for comprehensive information could be better structured and have better tools for categorization, automatic generation of chronological lists, etc., making it better suited as a reference tool for people who are trying to find the information (rather than those who are simply editing articles on their own pet topics). Bongomatic (talk) 03:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really really like your idea. I really want Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia, exactly the way the founders want it, and I don't want it to be a pile of information on every non-notable thing in existence. But at the same time, I would appreciate having a "Wikialmanac" to go to, where I could look up every non-notable thing in existence. I think this would vastly improve Wikipedia, while also not destroying the content that people have obviously worked hard to add. Please everyone, read this proposal above! AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
General comment: In many arguments above I notice a general confusion between proof of reliable sources for article topic and proof of notability of article topic. The notability itself should be proved by a reliable source, but that is not the same as the article subject. Example: If I want to write an article on fairies, I may make a claim that "Many people believe fairies exist". What I need to show is NOT that fairies exist, but that many people believe they exist - and that is probably verifiable. Yet I have seen many deletion comments based on the argument, "Delete the Fairy article, there are no reliable sources on Fairies, therefore they are not notable." And I've seen the same flawed argument surfacing above, hence the comment here. Walkerma (talk) 05:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remember the purpose - one of a specific guideline's purposes is to avoid systematic bias and to allow for the notability criterion to be met in situations where similar topics/people meet the notability guideline. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 08:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've read many people talk about the SNG's that seem to forget an important fact about them, they are still subject to other guidelines and policies, specifically WP:V. So if there is not a source to verify the band had a platinum hit, they should be deleted. Take the MUSIC guideline which specifically spells this out: In order to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. So its not a free-for-all. This same line should simply be added to all the SNG and it be made perfectly clear that if you pass any of those, the article passes notability, or if it doesn't pass under that criteria but does under GNG then it is still notable. And if there is a project based guideline that has not become a community guideline it should be ignored and never be brought up in AFDs. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A big problem with SNGs is, they get watered-down to the point that all you need to bootstrap your own personal indie-band's article into Wikipedia is a myspace page, 2 spins on a campus station in Paducah, and having one had an article written about you in the Beardsley Iowa Independent. All those will satisfy WP:V, the author will happily supply the links. Paducah's college radio station chart and the Independent will also satisfy WP:RS. The problem remains that notability is not demonstrated to satisfy WP:N, but it'll satisfy the watered-down guideline at WP:MUSIC. You end up with a proliferation of useless notability guidelines, and we're back to 3 years ago with a "Notability of porn stars" guideline. Let's please not go there again! AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

500KBs long!!! Who is going to read all of this and then somehow make sense of this? Wikipedia needs a Parliament. EconomistBR 17:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again I find his whole issue somewhat of a concern for the future of Wikipedia generally. This also seems to be going the way of arguing about how many angels can sit on a pin head. There is only ONE notability guideline, the main general one, Wikipedia:Notability. Specific notability guidelines should not modify THE notability guideline. What they should (only) do is explain how to apply domain specific subject matter against the general notability guideline, to help editors consistently interpret subject matter from radically different areas of knowledge. Exceptions, sub exceptions, variations, ad infinitum, will be (is already) just a growing nightmare. Peet Ern (talk) 00:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not everyone agrees on everything, obviously. I you want to discuss what I think you want to discuss, the talk page will work better. Wikipedia talk:Notability is also pretty actice with discussion right now, you might try that too. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

No additional comments here edit

Due to scope and size concerns, do not add any further comments outside these two issues here.

Please add additional comments relating to this RFC at this RFC's discussion page.
Please add additional comments related to Notability in general at the Notability guideline's discussion page.

Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise

Quick results (closer analysis in progress) edit

RfC: Notability compromise edit

How to discuss edit

Events leading to this RFC (why this RFC is important and necessary) edit

Terminology edit

Issue A: Notability of "spin-out" articles edit

Proposal A.1: Every spin-out is notable edit

Support A.1 edit

Oppose A.1 edit

Neutral on A.1 edit

Proposal A.1.2 Spin-out articles are treated as sections of a larger work edit

Support A.1.2 edit

Oppose A.1.2 edit

Neutral A.1.2 edit

Proposal A.2: Every spin-out must prove notability edit

Support A.2 edit

Oppose A.2 edit

Neutral on A.2 edit

Proposal A.3: SNGs can define that some spin-outs are notable edit

Support A.3 edit

Oppose A.3 edit

Neutral on A.3 edit

Proposal A.4: Lists may be exempted from the GNG edit

Support A.4 edit

Oppose A.4 edit

Neutral A.4 edit

Additional comments on issue A edit

Issue B: Relationship between GNG and SNGss edit

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

Support B.1 edit

Oppose B.1 edit

Neutral on B.1 edit

Proposal B.2: SNGs can outline sources that assert notability edit

Support B.2 edit

Oppose B.2 edit

Neutral on B.2 edit

Comments on B.2 edit

Proposal B.3: SNGs can define when sources probably exist edit

Support B.3 edit

Oppose B.3 edit

Neutral on B.3 edit

Comments on B.3 edit

Proposal B.4: SNGs are not needed edit

Support B.4 edit

Oppose B.4 edit

Neutral on B.4 edit

Proposal B.5: SNGs override GNG edit

Support B.5 edit

Oppose B.5 edit

Neutral on B.5 edit

Proposal B.6: SNG criteria support reasonable presumptions of notability edit

Support B.6 edit

Oppose B.6 edit

Neutral on B.6 edit

Comments on B.6 edit

Proposal B.7: SNGs (only) provide subject area interpretation of the GNG edit

Support B.7 edit

Oppose B.7 edit

Neutral on B.7 edit

Additional comments on issue B edit

No additional comments here edit