Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

"The" criterion?

I just saw this: "The criterion for notability, shared by many of the subject-specific notability guidelines and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not,..." But wait, aren't the subject-specific guidelines there to provide more criteria? "The" criterion makes it sound like this is the only notability criterion! mike4ty4 02:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• I would support a change to "A" criterion. --Kevin Murray 02:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

That sentence was recently changed from "the primary notability criterion..." to "the notability criterion" (apparently without discussion). That changed the meaning of the sentence resulting in the above. I have added primary back to the sentence.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the revolving door. It has been changed from primary, to general, to central, to the more recent omission of any word. You might want to read back through the discussion and look at the pnc template discussion including the ongoing TfD. It is referred to at various sub-guidelines under various names at various times. Welcome to continuity central aka: Wikipedia. --Kevin Murray 00:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit, having looked up “eviscerate”, I see you feel strongly for the inclusion of “primary”. Can you explain what you think is meant by “the primary notability criterion” that is not meant by “the notability criterion”. SmokeyJoe 13:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• "Primary" in the "Primary Notability Criterion", I believe, derives from User:Uncle G/On notability, where Uncle G discusses primary and secondary criteria. WP:N doesn't explicitly refer to secondary criteria, leaving the residual "primary" as redundant, adding nothing, but possibly confusing. "Primary" can be easily interpreted as implying things that were not intended. Similarly, "General" is redundant in the absence of "specific" criteria. In the interest of simpler, easier to understand English, it can often be a good idea to consider removing unnecessary adjectives.

SmokeyJoe 12:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Since there are other notability bases set forth in the subject-specific guidelines, and the sentence itself specifically references those other guidelines, taking out the one word which acknowledges that fact is not removing surplusage but instead renders the sentence self-contradictory, confusing and, in fact, incorrect.

If it's to say "the criterion for notability is..." (thus implying exclusivity), the sentence cannot work in its present form. I guess the whole tail end can be removed and a footnote added with something like: "There are subject-specific guidelines which include the notability criterion as defined here, as well as additional notability criteria, tailored to the subject covered."

Nevertheless, I think this really is the "primary" criterion by long standing consensus and the fact that something like it is a requirement of verifiability and what verifiability means in actual practice.; primary fits like a glove and it should be included right up front so that confusion is avoided. Sourcing is the only way to actually achieve verifiability (which is not negotiable). So even if "notability" in its current form was gotten rid of entirely, we would still need a mechanism for deletion of unverified and apparently unverifiable content. We might call it something else but the heart of this criterion would have to be retained regardless—this is not true of the additional criteria in the subject specific guidelines. That's why this criteria is dominant and should be explicit about its central position.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

“we would still need a mechanism for deletion of unverified and apparently unverifiable content”

Why? Is WP:V unclear? Remove all unverified content. If the article is then empty, create a redirect if possible or prod it for deletion. Referring a page of unverified content to AfD with reference to WP:N obfuscates the overriding importance of WP:V. SmokeyJoe 00:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Dispute at Wikipedia:Television episodes

There is a dispute at WP:EPISODE regarding whether the guideline is a style guideline or a notability guideline. The page became a guideline following discussion here. It seems clear to me that the consensus was to accept this as a style guideline, but another user has disagreed with me. If you wish to comment, please do so here. Thank you, Black Falcon 19:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps we need a style template similar to the Incguide, and a guideline tage which identifies style guidelines specifically the way that the notability guideline tag is specific. --Kevin Murray 03:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• There is no practical difference between a "style guideline" and a "notability guideline" or even a "pineapple guideline". The only reason we use those terms is because CAT:G was getting overly large. >Radiant< 09:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • • If we are getting too many guidelines to list them effectively in one place, isn't that a clue that CREEP is rampant?--Kevin Murray 16:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I would welcome you to join with WP:LAP which attempts to clear that up. >Radiant< 08:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

A different view

Let us step back and ask "How do other encyclopedias determine article inclusion or notability?" Well they use experts, often an editorial board that decides what articles will go into the encyclopedia and then which experts will write them. The two uses of experts are different. We have a problem with article inclusion criteria because we do not use experts and have not reached a consensus of how to do it. On how to write the article we have. I am not going to argue for the use of experts. It is not the Wikipedia way. If I wanted that, as an academic, I would go to Citizendium. I am not doing that.

So what is the Wikipedia way? It is using people who care and using them to seek consensus. It works for article content with some backup core policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:RS and so on. We should be using people who care and consensus for article inclusion also. Attempts to write agreed guidelines are not going to work. Instead of experts getting together to decide whether we need an article on X, we should use our editors who care about the broad topic that X is in and know about the area. We should have more subject guidelines and trust WikiProjects more. Combined with the core policies and a robust AfD system, this will take care of article inclusion.

I know that people are going to jump in and argue that participants of WikiProjects will try to protect articles in their area and allow all kinds of rubbish in. What is the evidence for this? I do not see it. I am active in several WikiProjects and find the opposite. The Project often has it own criteria and the members are concerned about quality. Let me give two rather different projects. The first, the Wine Project is fairly new and started when there was already a mass of articles on wine, wineries and wine companies. The project wrote Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a wine guide and are working to clean up wine articles by merging or deletion. The other, the Scouting Project, started in early 2006 when the coverage of Scouting in WP was poor. It has also developed criteria and regularly merges (often mostly out of existence) articles on individual troops, individual Gang Shows, or merit badges, and many individual camp sites into larger articles. It discourages articles on non-notable topics and educates editors to move towards higher quality. All the Projects I work in do the same. We should be trusting our equivalent of subject experts, the editors who care and know about a topic and work together to improve its coverage on Wikipedia. --Bduke 03:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm biased, because the only time I saw something even remotely similar happen was... Goddess, that was two and a half years ago? Regardless, it led to the creation of WP:COMIC, then WP:WEB, and a lot of the usual arguing (including an ArbCom case) until the original proposal was recanted and the following suggestion was to move off Wikipedia for all the topic's needs. The only other project I'm involved in maintains a deletion list but doesn't get involved beyond that. Nifboy 15:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I will note that our activity on webcomics has largely made us a laughingstock in the sizeable webcomic community, and that we still don't handle it properly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

On those rare instances which aren't an emotionally charged, spiteful "circle of friends" endeavor, I care. The rest, I do not. Nifboy 17:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I know nothjing of our efforts on webcomics or of any relevant Project. I would welcome more information about how we fail. However, if as jeff says, we still do not handler it well, that is not an argument against my proposal as all current guidelines and policies are not working either. --Bduke 22:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Brian's thoughts are very sensible, and are much in keeping with the spirit of wiki. Trust the contibutors. Keep the rules simple. Don't over-regulate or you'll stifle investment. SmokeyJoe 21:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I can go find it, if anyone wants, but WP:ROADS was caught red-handed using a "newsletter" sent to all their members to canvass AfDs on roads, and many projects post AfD discussions on the project noticeboars. Canvassing is soliciting from a non-neutral location. Members of a Wikiproject are by definition a non-neutral location, as only those who like that subject will tend to sign up. It sounds like some projects are doing a commendable job of overcoming that issue, and that is wonderful! But many others (Pokemon, schools, trains, any of those anyone?) will simply fold their arms and say "Keep anything that relates to our area!" That is unacceptable, and leaving such decisions solely in their hands would be disastrous. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not proposing "leaving such decisions solely in their hands". There is still AfD and if the article does not follow policy, such as having no good sources etc., or even if other editors think the Project is keeping crap, then there will be consensus to delete. In fact that is pretty much how it works at present. I would also add that it has been determined that putting a neutral piece of information on a Project page about a AfD proposal is not canvassing and nor is using the deletion sorting pages. I do not think that labelling the main people who care about a topic and have some knowledge of it as non-neutral is helpfull. As Wikipedia gets bigger and bigger, the Projects are becoming our greatest strength. However, perhaps we could use some other mechanism such as WP:RFC to pull WikiProjects into line if they are being non-neutral. My experience is that Projects are bending over backwards to show that they are following NPOV and I have not come across a Project that says "Keep anything that relates to our area!". If they do, we have other mechanisms to stop them. --Bduke 23:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hrmmmmmm! Actually, your proposed RFC on projects, I believe, has some merit whether or not we were allowing them to make content decisions and guidelines. (The larger ones often de facto can do that anyway, I do imagine we'd be rid of a lot of Pokecruft if not for WP:POKEMON). I think Wikiprojects can often be wonderful, and I've seen tremendously good work out of them, but if we're going to ask them to set content policies (or even significantly influence them within their specific area), we need a way to make sure that those guidelines are in line with the core policies and standards. That's not so big a deal for some projects (I'm in WP:CITIES myself, but cities are pretty unmistakably acceptable for inclusion, and there's tons of sources on any city I can think of), but others will have to have good and clear ways for dealing with the borderline areas, and that'll have to be something besides "Eh, throw everything you can find in." Maybe we can more widely publicize the examples of the projects you cite, and hope others will follow suit? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

"I know that people are going to jump in and argue that participants of WikiProjects will try to protect articles in their area and allow all kinds of rubbish in. What is the evidence for this?" - Browsing through shows a few articles that are not great and are part of projects. AGF makes me say that these articles will be improved or deleted, but I've seen plenty of poorly sourced, poorly written, articles remain unchanged since their creation, with no indication that they'll be improved. If it's an article about a real life 'thing' that has some sources it's possible for someone -perhaps even me- to have a go at article improvement, but often stubs stay stubs because they only have a primary source (the thing appears in episode 68 of series three of some show) or because the thing has no usable sources. EG: Football (soccer) players will get bare biographical details on some official club site, and a whole bunch more stuff on some fan blog. (I'm not attacking the soccer wikiproject, they appear to be happy to delete articles and they appear to be working hard to improve wikipedia.) Dan Beale 10:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I did not get back on this. I have been tied up. The points that Seraphimblade makes are good ones, although I suspect a lot of Pokecruft preceeds WP:POKEMON) and I think "Eh, throw everything you can find in." is not at all common. We need a mechanism for guidelines, written for Projects on criteria for article inclusion, to be open to wider debate to ensure they are not incompatable with policies. I'll ask the good folks over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council to discuss it, but I'm still very busy. --Bduke 23:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm Concerned about losing good articles

A lot of articles about MMORPGs are being deleted on the grounds of lack of notability. There is a shortage of mainsteam press on MMORPGs, as they expand primarily through review sites and word of mouth. Some of these games have half a million players and are up for speedy delete, regular delete, or demands to "prove" notability.

In my estimation the notability guidlines are just that:GUIDLINES. We should be giving some of these articles a little slack, or re-write what notability is. The present system isn't working. People are treating the guidlines like law, and we are losing very important articles because of it. If I had my way each of the 40 or so MMORPG articles deleted over the past week would have the deletion reviewed. The situation is bad, in my humble opinion, and I hope somebody will take a look into this. Thanks for listening. Matt Brennen 03:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. If they are really that important, then someone somewhere will write about them. There are several great game magazines out there like Games for Windows, Computer Games, and PC Gamer. If you can't even find a mention of an MMORPG in one of those magazines, let alone the thousands of publications available in any decent public library's periodical databases (like ProQuest, Infotrac, or LexisNexis), then perhaps the MMORPG in question is not really that "massive." In that case, such a Miniscule Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game is not appropriate for Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a soapbox where MMORPG fans can promote their favorite obscure game. See official policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. See also the policies on Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Also, the problem with the lack of sources for obscure games is that the risk of legal liability has an inverse relationship to the number of sources; that is, the less sources, the more likely that one or more assertions in the article is just wrong (see policy Wikipedia:Verifiability). The notorious John Seigenthaler episode underscores the need for such policies. If you do not like such policies, perhaps Wikipedia may not be the best use of your time. These strict content policies have been formulated through several megabytes worth of debate among Wikipedia's administrators and active editors.

Second, if you do not know how to use ProQuest, Infotrac, LexisNexis, EBSCO, and the like, I suggest you ask a librarian. They will be happy to assist you. That's how I've dug up all kinds of interesting sources for Wikipedia. See my work on Lawyer for an example of what a properly sourced Wikipedia article should look like. --Coolcaesar 06:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to be the first publisher on something. Ever. That's not just part of the notability guidelines, it's core policy. If no one has written about those MMORPGs in reliable independent sources, we are not to be the first. Notability is not popularity. It is reliably-sourced material being available. This is not the place to "correct" any lack of sourcing, we simply mirror sources. We mirror a total lack of sources with a total lack of an article. If you believe sources are lacking on a particular subject, contact some sources who write about games to tell them that's what you want to read about! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't mean that the MMORPG articles should be deleted; rather, what it means is that the reliable source standards for MMORPGs should be revised. We *have* sources that are reliable, or that should with any sane rule be considered reliable, we just need to recognize them as such.

Web comics suffer the same problem. Ken Arromdee 20:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

What "sources" might you speak of? I know with webcomics, the "sources" that were generally given as defensible had no hint of fact-checking or editorial control. Are there editorially controlled, fact-checked sources available for these MMORPGs? If so, they're probably reliable and they're fine. If not, they're not, no matter how much anyone may want to have the articles. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Lists of Victims

With all of the stuff around the Virginia Tech massacre and the keeping of List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre, are List of Victims of (insert event here) articles OK as long as the victims are collectively notable? And yes, I do know that consensus can change. UnfriendlyFire 06:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Depends. "List of victims of X" articles are essentially extensions of the main article. I think the only concern is to make sure that the victims are indeed collectively notable and that the resulting article does not stand in violation of WP:NOT#MEMORIAL or WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'd rather see any listing of victims as part of the main article ... but that's a merging decision up to the editors involved in those articles. I think from the standpoint of Wikipedia:Notability, there is no problem to a "List of victims" who are collectively notable. From the standpoint of other policies, I think it largely depends on how the article is written and how available sources are utilised. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

as I have been saying at the Afd discussions each individual one of them has or is gathering ore than 21 independent sources of individual media coverage, which , according to the general N rule, would make them notable in their own right, in which case a category would be also appropriate. If so, the list wpould be more appropriate in the main article. (I do seem to be in a minority about this, however)DGG 07:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The "21 sources" may each have only a passing mention of the individual victim in a collective list. We have often kept victim lists for shooting sprees, but have generally not done so for plane crashes or terrorist bombings or people in WTC1 or WTC2. I have commented that in a serial event such as a spree killing, each victim has a chance to interact with the killer (such as blocking the door at the cost of his own life, by giving a "Christian witness," jumping out a window, attacking the killer, while in bombings or most plane crashes (not Flight 93), they were purely in the wrong place at the wrong time and their actions or lack thereof generally had no bearing on the outcome. Edison 02:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed policy change at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

A modification to the deletion policy regarding biographies of living persons has been proposed. The proposal seeks to reverse the default retention of biographical articles that attain "no consensus" results at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. That is, it seeks to make deletion the default action for AfD discussions of biographical articles that do not reach consensus. Comments regarding the proposal are welcome and may be made here. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Guideline status

Wikipedia:Notability has consensus support as a guideline. (This is not to say that WP:N does or does not have certain problems requiring further work.) Yes or No? SmokeyJoe 12:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think a poll is going to solve anything as much as a frank discussion will. The last poll we had in March seemed to indicate that a) people want WP:N to be a guideline of some sort, and b) the "traditional" wording that's causing the problems has a 2-1 consensus AGAINST it on a pure head count. So no, I don't think this currently has consensus as a guideline, and I think it needs to be demoted until we can come to a consensus on how to make it palatable again. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• I'll assume good faith in Jeff's tally, but among the opposition to the specific wording there were a broad range of views. No other wording received the support that the traditional wording received. It seems like a coalition can be formed for a compromise, and it seems that the wording at the template is palatable to a broad range, although not a full majority. A valid question is, what constitutes consensus in the absence of a majority for any specific wording? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Murray (talk • contribs)
  • You don't have to assume good faith in my tally, the numbers are there for everyone to see in the MArch archive. At no time did I say that any wording recieved any significant support in favor, however, but that there is a strong consensus in opposition to where we're at now. The wording is not palatable to a broad range, however - there's no evidence to suggest as such. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    • There seems to be a general consensus that there should be some notability guideline. But there's no particular consensus around this current version. The bigger problem is that notability is already presented as policy in probably the majority of AFD discussions. It's a guideline with exteremely weak or no consensus, and something needs to be done to stop the rampant abuse of it at AFD. --JayHenry 21:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Something being presented frequently helps to demonstrate consensus. That's not an "abuse," that's exactly how policy is made. Granted, there are some pretty non-negotiable policies (NPOV and BLP come to mind), but for the most part, this one seems to demonstrate a consensus that should be apparent-we want decent, well-sourced articles. Having a good deal of coverage available tends to promote neutrality (more than one source is out there to draw viewpoints and observations from, and they're not from potentially biased sources), prevent original research (being able to state "There are tons of sources cited, your original interpretation is supported by none of them" is effective at that), and of course enhances verifiability (if quite a few sources are cited, chances are someone coming across the article can verify at least several of them). It follows logically from core policies, because the articles which meet this guideline are most likely to comply with those core policies, as shown above. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, you're right, it does have to stop, especially since there's no consensus for the wording, but that's what we're trying tofix. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• We don't decide guidelines by voting on them. If a guideline is worded incorrectly, we fix the problem rather than "demoting" it. As both Jeff and Jay state, there is general consensus that this page should exist in some form. So the problems with this page should be fixed by editing, not by removing it. >Radiant< 09:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • A consensus (which you asserted exists) can be tested by a vote.
  • As previously discussed (February), many believe this should be scrapped, many believed it needed rebuilding, some consider it essential. You are quick to assert “general consensus”. A snapshot of the talk page is a biased sampling. Having stated opposition, the opposers may find better things to do while committed proponents potter on.
  • The status issue is separate from the quality of expression/readability issue. Assuming that a coming version will actually say what the authors think it says, a distinct question is: Should it be a guideline that all all users should follow?
  • If the guideline status question should be postponed until the wording “is generally accepted among editors”, then in the meantime, the tag {{disputedpolicy}} is appropriate. SmokeyJoe 00:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• No, this page should not be marked as a guideline. It is not, and never has been, consensual. Existing policies (see WP:5P) suffice. The organisation of acceptable content on single or multiple pages should be decided on a case by case basis by the contributors involved. WP:N, as a rule to be imposed, is instruction creep and should be abandoned. However, the core ideas of WP:N are certainly informative and worth considering, and so should be presented as an essay. SmokeyJoe 00:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Been there, done that. The common usage of "notability" in many deletion debates daily shows that it is indeed generally accepted among editors. And by asking "Should it be a guideline that all all users should follow" you show misunderstanding of how guidelines work, because they aren't binding. >Radiant< 08:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Too often, seen in many AfD, nominations state little more than "not notable", or fails WP:N. Often, the entire article is unreferenced, thus clearly failing WP:V. The apparent message for the newbie seeing his article deleted is that he should restrict his contributions to “notable” subjects, where the message should be that he should limit his contributions to verifiable subjects. This is what I mean by “WP:N is misused”.
    • The question "Should it be a guideline that all users should follow" uses the text of the guideline tag. Do you mean to say that the text of the guideline should not be taken seriously? Would you support the insertion of “not binding” in the guideline text?
    • There are many guidelines. Generally, they seem to work well. But WP:N seems unique. It formulates a rule not based on policy, a rule that is sporadically applied and in some placed blatantly ignored. I agree with you that WP:N is consistent with WP:AFD, WP:NOT and WP:CSD. I am not opposed to the theory of WP:N so much as its misuse. Given that it is misused, and unnecessary, I think that it would be better if WP:N did not carry an official looking tag bearing the words “a standard that all users should follow”. SmokeyJoe 09:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
      • The fact that it's not binding doesn't mean it's meaningless. The reason it's a guideline is because it's guiding people to what they should be doing. There are many subjects which are verifiable, and yet inappropriate for inclusion. We shouldn't tell new users that "anything verifiable is suitable for inclusion", because that's not the case. Guidelines mean "We usually do it this way, but we do every once in a while find a reason to make an exception." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I do understand all that. But there is still the occurrence of: "DELETE! Non-notable!" with no further explanation. How about adding notes along the lines of User:Uncle_G/On_notability#Giving rationales at AFD? SmokeyJoe 10:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
          • WP:AADD is rather heavily used these days to counter those occurences. >Radiant< 10:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Substantial?

Any objection to removing the definition of "substantial" in WP:N#The notability criterion? The current version does not use the word, and it's incongruous to define a word that's not in the criterion.--Kubigula (talk) 03:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of having a conversation with myself, I think "substantial" just needs to be changed to "subject". If no-one objects, I will make the change.--Kubigula (talk) 03:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I object. It seems that although the PNC template has been removed, the text from the template was the most agreed upon recent version of the prime, general, central etc. criterion. I suggest stabilizing that before modifying the supporting paragraphs. --Kevin Murray 05:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This is false. The text from the template was never agreed upon. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not false! I said: "the text from the template was the most agreed upon recent version." Let's cut the propaganda. --Kevin Murray 15:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no propaganda - the texdt in the template was overwhelmingly rejected. Read the March archives. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"Coverage"

"Coverage" is a vague, ill-defined term and in fact implies "newspaper" or "radio station", not "historical books", etc. It should not be used here. —Centrx→talk • 20:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see that. Coverage regers to the amount that or degree to which an object is covered/addressed. It has nothing to do with the source of the coverage. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to a clearer term being used if one can be suggested, but "coverage" really can have a pretty broad meaning. Something can be covered on the BBC, in a scholarly report, in a 500-year-old book ("The recently rediscovered texts, written in a medieval monastery, cover every detail of the reign of seven kings..."). I don't really see it as being exclusive of any particular type of sourcing, so long as such sources are published and verifiable (and that really is a requirement). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Student Newspapers

I've noticed The California Aggie has been tagged with notability. Is there any set criteria for newspapers anywhere? It seems to me that official student newspapers should be considered notable. Any thoughts, or links to an official newspaper policy? matt91486 03:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

If third-party sources don't substantially cover the newspaper, then it is not notable enough to have its own article. Merge it in to the main article about the school. —Centrx→talk • 03:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Tigerman

The Tigerman Saga

This is a valid work of fiction, and has been heavily edited on the page (search Tigerman in wikipedia), and is threatening to be pulled.

It received a full page editorial write up, in Nightflying Magazine, that has a circulation of over 80,000 per month. It got raves. They also published it as a full page write up in their online version of their magazine.

It sells nothing, it is not commercial, and it's sole purpose is to entertain viewers with extremely elaborate 3d digital Illustrations, and an innovative story. I have seen nothing like it on the internet, and is truly groundbreaking. It has links to the National Wildlife Humane Society (a non-profit endangered species org of sanctuaries that rescue endangered species, mostly big cats).

It is valid literature, and valid art. It is in e-form, and although there is a DVD of it that can be purchased (proceeds to endangered species only), it is also available in that same audio visual format for free download.

OK, my name is not Hemingway, nor Tolkien, but since nothing is being offered for sale, then it has NO commercial nature whatsoever. If you want a book by Tolkien or Hemingway, that cannot be said. I have also seen HUGE wikipedia pages on comic books that are totally obscure, out of print and unattainable.

I have an animal sanctuary myself, and am the subject of a National Geographic Explorer special, for a rescue of a couple of tigers that the government confiscated.

What makes an illustrated online book any less important in the literary artworld, than one that is on paper?

With the deep messages of conservation and wildlife preservation, it is an important e-book, and deleting it means that wikipedia will not read it but cast judgement based soley on someone named Xtreme racer. There are no copyright violations, and as author I m giving my work away freely.

I devoted 10 months of hard work into this piece of literature, and have seen much other artists, and writers work elaborated on wikipedia. You may find a link to me, Catman, on the Almman Brothers Website... Wikipedia sees fit to provide and enormous page concerning their artistic contributions, and I have not seen Xtreme racer pruning their site and threatening deletion.

Thecatman1 03:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

More about me Catman Webb, About The Author

The PNC is not well-written

"A notable topic has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject."

“non-trivial published works” is confused. I am sure that what was meant was that the “depth of coverage”, of the subject, in the published work.

As previosuly discussed, the word choice “trivial” is unfortunate because it carries a connotation of worthlessness, a connotation for which there is no need. A better word is “incidental”.

“Published works” should be substituted by “secondary sources”. It is secondary sources that prove by their existance that the subject is notable.

What’s with the past tense for the topic?

Do we really need the word notable? Anything ever noted must be notable.

I suggest:

"A topic is worthy of its own article if it has been the subject of non-incidental coverage in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the subject."

SmokeyJoe 06:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I actually find that to be a significant improvement. I do, however, have three comments. First, I'd replace "worth of its own article" with "notable". As the guideline is titled Wikipedia:Notability, we should define what we mean by that. Second, changing "published works" to "secondary sources" makes the part about the sources being "independent of the subject" redundant. Secondary sources are, by definition, independent of the subject. Third, I don't think we should change non-trivial to non-incidental. The latter has many more interpretations and leaves open the question "incidental (or non-incidental) to what?" Thus, I'd recommend this: -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

A topic is notable if it has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources.

I believe "independent of the subject" is probably a good idea to leave in. You and I know offhand that "secondary" includes by definition "independent", but some people don't. It also needs to say "and independent of each other", to weed out, for example, 20 papers republishing the same Associated Press column-that's one source (the original AP piece), not 20. As to "incidental" rather than "trivial", I like that, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that anything that's been the subject of non-incidental coverage should be covered in its own article. In many cases that would, if nothing else, violate WP:NOT. I also don't like the term "worthy", particularly, that seems to imply a value judgment, which we shouldn't be in the business of making. All we're seeking to ask is "Do enough sources exist on this subject to write a decent article, or not?" Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You have a good point about leaving in "independent of the subject". I think we can best cover identical or near-identical republishings in a comment clarifying the meaning of "multiple". So, how about one of these two revised versions: the first explicitly emphasises that sources must be secondary, but is somewhat redundant near the end; the second is less explicit in its emphasis on the secondary nature of sources, but drops the redundancy and emphasises that works must be published (maybe a link to WP:OR or WP:V would be appropriate?): -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 09:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

A topic is notable if it has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

A topic is notable if it has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable published works that are independent of the subject.

I think either of those would work just fine. Let's wait for some more input, though. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It still doesn't address notability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

How do you figure "A topic is notable if..." doesn't address notability? That seems about as direct a method of addressing it as you can get? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It's still assuming the same faulty premise that has been discussed ad nauseum. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if we must get legalistic, that still addresses notability, it just does so in a way you dislike. If I say "All article topics that start with B are notable, and all that start with any other letter are not", I'm still addressing the question of notability, albeit in a manner no one else would be likely to agree with. Black Falcon's suggestion certainly addresses the question of notability. Why is the premise faulty? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

We've talked about this so much already - the amount of sources is not what creates notability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree! The amount of sources is not what creates notability ... but it is what enables us to prove notability. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, not really. Or, let's put it this way - "multiple, non-trivial, independent sources" do nothing of the sort - some sources can, and other situations of notability don't need sources to be proven in terms of notability. It's that confusion between what is notable and what is verifiable that rears it's ugly head time and time again. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep the "multiple": Obviously we need sources, and important topics will have multiple sources, independent of each other."Secondary sources that are independent of the subject" is good. --Dragonfiend 17:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Why do we "obviously" need sources for notability? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

How else can we prove that others have considered a topic "worthy of note" without pointing to instances were others have addressed that topic? -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Because the idea that the only way someone can do something of note is by, say, a "reliable source," which is usually the mainstream or specialty press, covering it is not true - you can establish notability through a number of ways depending on what you're talking about. The sources are necessary for verifiability purposes, but they do not establish notability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that. Sources themselves don't establish notability ... they reflect it. However, the only way I see that Wikipedia editors can prove that a subject is notable is by pointing out that there are published works about it. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

(De-indenting for my proposal) Okay. For the sake of argument, let's assume that's true - so why "multiple, non-trivial?" I don't know why I didn't think of this sooner: why not simply say "Notability of an article's subject is based upon a consensually-reached criteria for that topic. It is expected that editors adding that information do do using our policies regarding verifiability and reliable sources." This way, we're hitting upon everyone's complaints while not losing sight of what some people are insistent should be here. Thoughts? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

But notability is still determined by being noted (or at least, demonstrated so.) The more reliably something has been noted, the more it's provably notable. So, no, it has nothing to do with consensus here, it's determined totally outside, by what reliable sources choose to write (and not to write) about. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, it isn't. We've been through this, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I also like dropping “independent of the subject”. It implies that Human is not notable because all sources were created by humans. I almost like Balck Falcons idea of clarifying that “multiple” will disallow non-independent secondary sources, but I thik he has the gist of it wrong. Identical republishings from independent publishers should be OK to demonstrate notability. What is not OK is when the secondary sources are published by publishers/editors that are not independent of the subject.

I confess to not understanding badlydrawnjeff’s arguments.about linking notability and sources. What does notability without reliable secondary sources matter? If you can’t verify your measure of notability, what’s the point?

I still dislike “trivial” as it sounds like a value judgement on the writing, writer or publisher. Check the meaning of “trivial”. I don’t see that “incidental” leaves open the question of “to what”. Incidental is an adverb to coverage. What was covered? The topic, what else could it be?

If we must use “notable”, can we say “sufficiently notable”, acknowledging that there may be a continuum of degrees of notability, and that we are here defining a measure of a degree of notability?

I suggest:

A topic is sufficiently notable for wikipedia if it has been the subject of non-incidental coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources.

SmokeyJoe 01:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to help you understand, so bear with me - in short, notability is separate from verifiability. Something can be notable (i.e., a major achievement, an association, etc) without being verifiable, much like something can be verifiable (i.e., a person in a phone book, a blog) without being notable. By introducing sourcing into the equation, we're effectively removing that line and saying that "if it's verifiable, it's notable - but we're going to go beyond what's required by policy anyway to establish it," when we have perfectly good working guidelines already that generally handle notability (i.e., what makes an article's subject worth including) well. So we shouldn't confuse the two, and we certainly shouldn't be requiring an arbitrary number of sources along with a bunch of roadblocks, especially with the amount of bitching about "lawyering" we're getting. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you have in-principle opposition to a notability criterion? If there is going to be a notability criterion, why shouldn’t it be expressed as a subset of verifiability? SmokeyJoe 10:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

To an overbearing one? Yes, because it's been proven not to work and soundly rejected by the community. Why shouldn't it be expressed as a subset? Because it's not a subset - they're two separate ideas, as I explained above. --badlydrawnjefftalk 12:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Proven not to work and soundly rejected by the community? That’s what I thought too, and what I’ve been trying to argue at length above. But due to lack of support or sympathy, I think I have to give up. Given that a notability criterion is going to be imposed, albeit only as a non-binding guideline with exceptions allowed, I don’t see any other choice than for wikipedia-notability to be defined except according sources.

“Notability of an article's subject is based upon a consensually-reached criteria for that topic.” is an alternative that I would support ahead of having the guideline WP:N. Effectively, it trusts contributors to judge for themselves. It seems appropriately wiki.

I do see a difference between notability and verifiability. (Sufficient) Notability is now being defined by the identification of two reliable secondary sources addressing (covering) the subject in non-trivial depth. Verification of facts depends on primary sources, whether explicitly, or primary sources embedded in secondary sources. I know that WP:V doesn’t precisely say this. WP:V carries implicit principles of notability. SmokeyJoe 09:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The PNC sounds fine to me. Edison 02:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you tell me what "non-trivial published works" means to you? SmokeyJoe 03:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know which version of the PNC Edison was referring to, but to me, "non-trivial published works" in any version is meaningless. We should be judging the triviality or non-triviality of coverage in the works rather than the works themselves. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 14:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"Sufficiently notable" and "Non-incidental" are fine by me. We should keep "independent" as per Seraphimblade above. --Dragonfiend 04:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

A topic is sufficiently notable for wikipedia if it has been the subject of non-incidental coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

27 words. Four levels. But linearly structured. Seems impossible to misunderstand. SmokeyJoe 04:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, since the old one seems to be a point of contention, let me make a proposal of my own.

A topic's notability is determined by the amount and depth of coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the subject, and the number of such sources available.

No more lawyering that "two always means multiple", no more lawyering that "a paragraph is non-trivial!" Basically, that properly puts the burden of proof, as WP:V suggests, on those who make a claim. Someone who wishes to delete an article must actually look at the sources and make a case as to why they're insufficient. On the other hand, those who wish to keep will need something more substantial than "Got a paragraph in the local paper twice, that's multiple non-trivial." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm fine with the existing guidline, but not opposed to switching in a few synonyms if we think they're more newbie friendly. --Dragonfiend 04:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm fine with the existing one myself, but nothing wrong with making a few improvements. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ummm ... as much as people might hate the old criterion, at least it was clear. The suggested version only states that "notability is determined by ..." and yet does not actually state at what point notability is proven. That pretty much makes AfD a subjective free-for-all (more than the usual, I mean). I don't view that proposed change as an improvement to the existing wording. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 14:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, I think it's idealistic that "someone who wishes to delete an article" will "actually look at the sources and make a case as to why they're insufficient". Rather, I imagine that articles with 20 sources will be nominated with the text: "NN. Delete." Since there is no objective standard by which to judge anymore, any argument to keep or delete will be equally "valid". -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure which "suggested version" you're disagreeing with here, Black Falcon. Seraphimblade's A topic's notability is determined by the amount and depth of coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the subject, and the number of such sources available? I don't like that one either, muyself. --Dragonfiend 15:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That's very close to what I've been showing, and I don't oppose it as long as it's not treated as "primary" or "more important" than anything else. Call it a general criterion, and don't try to force it on anything else, and my opposition drops. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Considering primary sources

WP:OR specifically states the following: Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases). An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions. --Kevin Murray 20:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There's definitely a contradiction between that and WP:V. Neither of those should have any bearing on our activity here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, I'm not seeing anything in WP:V which requires a secondary source, but I could be missing it. I see "third party", "published" etc. but no requirement for secondary sources. Why would we want to be more restrictive in determining inclusion? --Kevin Murray 21:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what this has to do with anything here, anyway. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the WP:NOR policy is pretty restrictive: it cites only two exceptions to the secondary source policy (current events and legal cases). I think if this guideline has none of the qualifications of WP:NOR it would be misleading. Also, KM, you should note that you added the emphasis above, and there is no such emphasis in the policy. UnitedStatesian 21:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I bolded that quote since it is the pertinent issue. I don't think that giving two examples is meant to be specifically restrictive to those two cases only, and current events is a pretty broad category. --Kevin Murray 01:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see any tension. Guidelines can be given the rare exception (as the guideline tag says), NOR is acknowledging the rare exceptions, while still stating, as this guideline does, that articles should rely on secondary sources. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge WP:NEO to Manual of style

I propose that WP:NEO guideline be merged into the manual of style. Part of this page deals with the use of such words in articles, which is clearly within the purview of WP:MOS. The remaining discussion of neologisms as topics for articles is redundant to other guidelines such as WP:N and no original research. --Kevin Murray 19:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Trying to help

How about this: in an effort to make bdjeff and others more comfortable with this guideline, would it help to change the first words from "The primary criterion for notability is. . ." to: "The general guideline for notability is. . ."? (and then change primary and criterion to general and guideline throughout the page). I can understand the objections to "primary": it could be interpreted as implying that this guideline somehow "dominates" the subject specific ones (those GLs may well have had much more thought and discussion behind them). However, I cannot agree with those who argue that a general guideline is neither highly useful nor necessary, and argue that the subject specific guidelines are sufficent. Two reasons: 1) how much of WP content lies outside the purview of the existing SS GLS? 2) As KM constructively points out through both talk and edits at all the right times, a general guideline is very valuable as a touchstone that both helps to keep the SS GLs from drifting too far afield and becoming inconsistent (WP:PORNBIO, anyone?) and is a strong foundation for starting any new SS GLs. As far as "criterion," I think it may be a little to legalese for some. (although I believe STRONGLY that the wording of the current guideline is nowhere inconsistent with WP:POLICY, and in fact that WP would benefit from having a general article inclusion policy stated positively rather than negatively (by WP:NOT)) UnitedStatesian 20:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

and note I wrote "would it help" not "would it solve all their problems": I am looking to continue the incremental positive improvement, not a cure-all to all of everyone's issues. UnitedStatesian 21:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

To answer your questions, 1) Not a whole lot, but enough, and 2) we operated without a general guideline literally for years, and continue to do so without any problems (and WP:PORNBIO is not inconsistent, but instead fills a community-reached need. The first words are only part of the problem, and I wouldn't have a protest with a "general" or "primary" or even overbearing guideline if it accurately reflected notability, but I'm not convinced that's possible. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I am not sure who the "we" is in "we continue to operate without a general guideline": I am sure there are a lot of editors who don't use this guideline (and by "this guideline," I mean the whole page, not a particular sentence or word on it) at all, but like it or not, and despite the tags, WP is operating with this guideline, and many many other good faith editors are finding this guideline very, very useful (that's not to say this guideline can't continue to be improved, of course). I also don't think we are looking for an objective definition of notability (and I agree that same would be difficult or impossible to gain consensus around) - instead, I think we are looking for a page that some editors find useful (frequently, and not, of course, always) in the context of WP. UnitedStatesian 21:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

(EC) I believe the same problem exists here, though, Jeff. Notability doesn't just mean "notable in a vacuum". In context here, it means "suitable for an article." I don't particularly like that, but there's no consensus to change the name of it, so that's what we got to work with. In context of that, we must figure "What's suitable for an article?" not just "What do I think is notable?" Yes, we went without a PNC for some time. That doesn't mean it's bad. Especially in a project growing at such an explosive rate, many things will happen, requiring that policy be changed.

• We'll find that some policies that worked fine for a community of a few thousand editors and tens of thousands of articles don't scale well to a community of tens of thousands and an article count in the millions.
• We'll find that being higher-profile causes issues that didn't arise when no one knew about the site.
• We'll find that previous attempts, while well-intentioned and carefully thought out, may not have worked as well as expected or had nasty unintended consequences.
• We'll simply find ways to do things better. Maybe something before was decent and worked alright, but we can find something that's better and works great.

In this case, it meets at least the fourth one, and I would say it meets all of them. The subject-specific guidelines may have worked at the time, as a "rule of thumb", when the project was smaller. But now, being higher-profile, we get more fancruft, more original research, more articles unsourceable to anything but a primary source. And now we've found a nasty unintended consequence-it's hard to get rid of that stuff, and if we try, fans will just write "subject-specific guidelines" that basically have the effect of "Well we don't need to follow V, when it says secondary sources aren't optional." (The other nasty side effect there is simply policycruft, just too damn many guidelines, which sometimes seem to conflict with this guideline, with one another, and with core policy.) So, on to the last point, now we've found a better way! Use sourcing and WP:NOT as the "bars", and simply make the sub-guidelines advisory ("A subject is more likely to have sufficient sourcing to merit an article if..."). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure your entire premise is true - fans are not creating subject-specific guidelines for their favorite "crufts," and the only subset proposal that has gained traction has been the PORNBIO one, one you dislike but is still necessary. You can't use sourcing as the bars because they aren't bars at all - the subject-specific guidelines do an amazingly good job as acting as bars to a flood of worthless content. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

. . . but they are of no help at all to a different flood of worthless content, the flood that lies outside of their collective scope. That's where and why a general guideline is useful as well. UnitedStatesian 22:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, and I don't mind a "general guideline" as long as it a) doesn't try to assert surpremacy over the subject specific guidelines, and b) accurately reflects what notability is. The problem is that every PNC-style entry has done both of those things. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

GREAT!!! I think changing "primary" to "general" addresses a); I hope you may be able to compromise on b) given the difficulty with creating an absolute definition. UnitedStatesian 22:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Disputed wording or inclusion of the notability criterion

A topic is notable if it has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

Given that it seems we must have a notability test, I don't consider the wording or inclusion of the notability criterion to be disputed any more. Who does? SmokeyJoe 08:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not to say that further refinement might not be a good idea. I still think that "sufficiently notable" ["for wikipedia" is implied] is better because then we would not be redefining in absolute terms the meaning of notable. I'd like to see the explanatory note for secondary sources link to a good definition of secondary sources, as is done in the criterion itself. I don't much like "primary" in "primary criterion", though I am pretty happy if it is left out of the section header. Maybe its OK in the normal text if others really do feel it fits like a glove. I felt it might confuse with primary/secondary sources, but I don't think it actually does. But none of these concerns are that serious to me. SmokeyJoe 08:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The wording does not reflect community consensus, thus the tag. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

bdjeff, could I trouble you to light a(nother) candle instead of cursing the dark? The latest (4/23) language I saw you propose was: "Notability of an article's subject is based upon a consensually-reached criteria for that topic. It is expected that editors adding that information do so using our policies regarding verifiability and reliable sources." I don't find that helpful at all: I don't understand your distinction between "subject" and "topic", I don't understand your reference to "that information" (I assume you mean "information on the subject's notability," but I don't know for sure), but would welcome further enlightenment on your proposal, or a different, positive proposal. But I do think we tend more easily to reach consensus incrementally instead of radically: what is the ONE WORD in the current text you would most like to change (is it "multiple"?), and to what? (Then we can move on to the second word . . .) UnitedStatesian 16:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I assume that, if we were to discuss such wording, we could adjust as we went. For one, "topic" and "subject" are interchangeable - I was trying to reduce use of the word "subject" and inadvertently created some confusion. Secondary, by "that information," I meant "information on the subject of the article," i.e., "It is expected that editors adding information to Foo do so..." As for incremental consensus, the radical change was this PNC. No incrementalism existed in the establishment of it, and consensus is clear that the current wording lacks support. My problem words with the current criterion? "is," "subject," "non-trivial," "multiple," "secondary". None of those words in the current criterion reflect the reality of consensus or help distinguish whether something is notable or not. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I too dislike "non-trivial" but we have not been able to form consensus on another word. I would support an alternative. --Kevin Murray 16:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that the word "subject" is misleading, but the problem is mitigated in the bullet points, substantially reducing my objection. --Kevin Murray 16:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the need for including "secondary." Primary sources which are not primary research may establish notability, based on the notability of the primary source. Clearly this adds more subjectivity, but it seems impossible to have a purely objective standard for inclusion. --Kevin Murray 16:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we absolutely have to have "secondary," because to do otherwise would be contrary to WP Policy, which states: "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, verifiable, published secondary sources" UnitedStatesian 17:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

At no point would it be contrary to policy to allow primary sources to establish notability in some cases. It only becomes contrary to policy to allow an article to exist without any secondary sources, which is a different situation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Which policy requires that all articles have at least one secondary source? --Kevin Murray 17:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:V. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually I took the quote above from WP:NOR, and note that it uses the plural, "sources." UnitedStatesian 19:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that none of the wording has consensus support, the only issue I have with your comment here is that "subject" is somehow mitigated in the bullet points - I'm not seeing it. Perhaps you mean the section in non-trivial that says that it need not be the only subject, but it doesn't solve the issue, especially in terms of notability - a series of "trivial" mentions can establish notability, such as mentions in greater articles about important things, a few sentences about a related subject, etc. One or two may not establish much, but if you have 5 "trivial" mentions that say five different things, it establishes the importance. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This is subjective based on the definition of "trivial" which is such a loose word. But I do agree that notability can be cummulative from many sources. I just don't think that we can codify this to absolute objectivity. How can we achieve your goal without opening the barn door to the nonsense? --Kevin Murray 16:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no such thing as objective notability, so we're never going to achieve this. The way to make sure the "barn door" stays shut is twofold: 1) leave the subject specific guidelines be, who have traditionally done a good job keeping that door shut, and 2) in the abscense of the subject-specific guidelines, simply make sure that we expect that there's a sufficient amount of information to demonstrate the notability, and allow the various processes to hash out the details (i.e., make the AfD question not about lawyering over multiple sources, but rather about whether the sources presented establish notability). --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I feel that the current version allows enough flexibility within the bullet points to address extraordinary circumstances where multiple sources are not available. While I have preferred other versions, I feel this is fairly close. I wouldn't go so far as to say that it has demonstrated consensus, but it has my support. However, quoting this at sub-pages without the bullet points will be misleading. --Kevin Murray 14:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

For anyone who has a problem with the word "subject", I can suggest an equivalent wording that omits it: A topic is notable if it has received non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. To me, "has received non-trivial coverage" and "has been the subject of non-trivial coverage" are essentially identical in meaning. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

No strong objection, but the word "coverage" implies press coverage, rather than inclusion in books etc. Can we come up with something better? --Kevin Murray 17:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

. . and I would suggest using either "topic" or "subject" consistently, and not switching from one to the other. UnitedStatesian 17:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, switching words leads to ambiguity. --Kevin Murray 17:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree about consistency ... I don't the reason behind the notion that "coverage" implies press coverage, but please see the section above titled "Coverage". -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Centrx. However, I see problems with both coverage and subject, but for lack of a better word, would rather support coverage. --Kevin Murray 17:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it solves that problem, I think, but not others. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned that consensus is too hard to measure at any single point in time, since voting is impracticle and frowned on at WP. I think that consensus at WP needs to be demosntrated over time and the surviving text of edit challenges etc. seem to represent defacto consensus. I think that the best that we can do is to come up with a compromise among the editors now involved here and see how it gels over time. It should be very clear though that the guidleine is flexible and is not set in stone. --Kevin Murray 17:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

How about this: "A subject is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia if it has received non-trivial coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject and verifiable." Let the multiple be implied from "sources" and clarified in the bullets. Perhaps discuss primary/secondary in a bullet? --Kevin Murray 18:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

We're getting somewhere, but the non-trivial is still problematic as I've detailed above - significant trivial coverage sometimes demonstrates notability in a better way than minimal non-trivial coverage. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"A subject is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia if it has received significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject and verifiable." Let significant be discussed further in a bullet point. --Kevin Murray 18:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• • It's better, although I'd link to RS and V. Perhaps the best we're going to get with the flawed premise at least. As long as this doesn't get forced anywhere else, I could probably support it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I must disagree with Jeff ... I think "significant" is a far more subjective term than non-trivial. Also, the "and verfiable" part is probably redundant. Could you perhaps clarify how you'd define "significant" in the bullet point? -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Subjective concepts require subjective terminology, for one. For another, "non-trivial" eliminates substantial "trivial" coverage from establishing notability, which creates problems. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

For a definition of significant let's start with Webster:

Main Entry: sig·nif·i·cant 1 : having meaning; especially : SUGGESTIVE <a significant glance> 2 a : having or likely to have influence or effect : IMPORTANT <a significant piece of legislation>; also : of a noticeably or measurably large amount <a significant number of layoffs> <producing significant profits> b : probably caused by something other than mere chance <statistically significant correlation between vitamin deficiency and disease> --Kevin Murray 19:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

How about "extensive", rather than "significant"? Or maybe "ample" or "considerable"? Xtifr _tälk 06:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Relisting proposal, to attract more comments

I propose changing "primary" and "criterion" to "general" and "guideline" throughout the guideline page. For my longwinded reasons, and the reaction so far, please see Wikipedia talk:Notability#Trying to help Please add further comment below.UnitedStatesian 21:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you propose as the relationship between the "general guideline" and the subject specific guidelines?--Kubigula (talk) 21:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I intend that the change from "primary" to "general" remove a possible interpretation that this guideline is somehow superior to the existing SS guidelines. I see them as peer guidelines, and I like this GL's current language that reads "shared by many of the subject specific guidelines . . ." This guideline is most important in its applicability to subjects that have no SS GLs. Let me know if this helps. UnitedStatesian 21:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It helps me understand your proposal, but I don't think it solves our problem. The problem, as I see it, is that we have a web of guidelines on notability that don't mesh with each other very well. Almost all of the subject specific guidelines have some variation on the "general guideline", though the language is subtely different in each. To me, this creates confusion and opens the door to wikilawyering. Also, there is an inconsistency in saying a group of comedians should be subject to a slightly different version of the general guideline than a group of musicians. To me, the whole notability scheme would make much more sense if we could agree on a single basic "general guideline" for notability - I personally have no problem calling it that rather than a "primary criterion". This guideline should then be incorporated into the subject specific guidelines - not as a trump, but as unifying theme. Frankly, I rather like the way WP:MUSIC addresses the issue - you are presumed notable if you meet the general guideline or if you meet one of the other subject specific indicators of notability (charted hit etc).--Kubigula (talk) 03:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"Main" is the word you are looking for. —Centrx→talk • 04:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no preference, but we are seeing resistance at the sub-guidelines to titles that suggest primacy of this concept of notability over the subject specific “exceptions”. I advocate a consistent primary guideline, but it seems to be non-PC to have a PNC. --Kevin Murray 04:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Notability of lists

Could someone point me toward the notability guidelines for the inclusion of lists in Wikipedia - if one exists? My feeling is that the bar for inclusion of a list article vs. a standard article is set somewhat differently. Thank you. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• We've been meaning to write a page on that along the lines of overcategorization. We appear to have quite a number of lists that have unclear inclusion criteria, or are irrelevant intersections, trivia, or original research. It would seem that some pruning is called for. >Radiant< 10:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Yeah, there's no specific guideline for list inclusion, other than that a list article as a whole should meet the normal notability guidelines and other policies. For example, a list, taken as a whole, should be about a topic that is minimally notable. Individual entries within a list wouldn't have to be notable by themselves, but taken as a complete list it should be an accetable topic. Also, as a general rule of thumb, anything that is good enough to be a category is probably also good enough to be a list article. So if a list article is directly associated with a reasonable category then it's probably an acceptable list. (The converse is not true - not everything that is an ok list makes for an ok category. Hence the frequent "listifying" of bad categories on cfd.) Dugwiki 15:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• At the List of geologists, which I help to maintain, we're limiting inclusion to notable geologists, and providing a capsule summary of the listees' notability, which seems to work pretty well. Pete Tillman 03:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

A topic is notable if others have considered it worthy of note. Is that objective?

Sorry, I do not have time to be here all the time so I keep coming back to see what you are discussing. On the face of it, this statement does appear objective, but I think when you explore it further it is not. "Others considering it worthy of note" simply means that they have noted it - i.e. mentioned it somewhere. We then have to decide whether the mention is trivial or not trivial, really independent of the subject or dependent, significant or not, reliable or not, and so on. All of these are subjective. It is in my opinion a mistake to use words that appear objective when they are not. Also writing about something only means the author wanted to write about it. It is does not imply the writer thought it notable. I go back to my earlier view that we use as many specific guidelines as possible for broad subjects, possibly by using WikiProjects and then discuss topics that fall between the cracks at AfD. The more we try to pin this down, the more we will be using this to delete articles that should not be deleted. Note, I am neither a deletionist or an inclusionist, but I do say it is better to keep an article if it well written than to delete one. Readers being interested in the topic is just as valid a claim of notability as the ones we are discussing. --Bduke 22:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Good points. My personal criteria for encyclopedic inclusion is whether there is likely to be significant curiosity about the topic. I think that we are here to answer questions, and when we can we should, but always accurately. --Kevin Murray 23:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

But accurately is the point here. Yes, obviously, if we can give a good, well-sourced answer, we should. But if all we can give is guesses, interpretation, and original research and unreliable material, we're doing the reader the greatest service by saying "We don't have enough material to give you a comprehensive overview. You'll have to figure this one out on your own." We're not Google, we don't need articles on every passing Internet fad or flash-in-the-pan current events story. That's Wikinews' job, not ours. Ours is to wait for reliable secondary sources, and if and only if there are enough of those to write a good encyclopedia article, write one. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with almost all of Black Falcon's points above, and a few of Jeff's too :). In fact, I agree with Kevin (I'm very agreeable) that the basic definition of whether something is notable is really whether it is likely to be of some general interest - i.e. of interest beyond those involved with the subject. The subject specific guidelines do a pretty good job of setting criteria of what is prima facie notable within that subject. Beyond that, the best objective proxy for general interest is whether reliable sources can be arsed (thanks Jeff) to write about it.--Kubigula (talk) 23:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should move the page to Wikipedia:Noted since the actual state of being noted (rather than the capacity to be noted) is what we're looking for here. Nifboy 01:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Moving forward

Reading much of the discussion above, I've made some changes to the text:

1. I've made some changes to the meat and potatoes based on the discussions we've had - it incorporates much of everything, mostly based on Kevin Murray's text.
2. I've added a tag to start further discussion on the actual subjectiveness of notability, which appears to have been established. Further discussion is necessary.

Thoughts as we continue on? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeff's edit

Question: Why must these be secondary sources? Some primary sources are legitimate. I think that secondary somewhat implies tertiary, but is this ambiguous? I like the word sources better in the first sentence and then clarify below in a bullet paragraph. --Kevin Murray 17:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right, that's a poor oversight on my part. As long as independent is there, that's the important part - independent primary sources can establish notability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The current wording of "Significant" in this context means providing enough information to establish the notability of article's topic. is hopelessly subjective (not to mention extremely exclusionist). It's not the content within sources that proves notability, but rather the existence of such content. The former requires a subjective judgment to be made by editors. Who's to say that "Olympic gold-medal winning" is not an insufficient claim of notability, if I choose to argue that way? Sure, the majority will disagree with me, but this turns article deletion into a popularity contest. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, notability is subjective - this is simple fact. It's not the existence of the content that shows notability, that misunderstands the entire concept. I also don't understand your re-addition of "multiple," which was discussed at length above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I also don't see the need to mention "mutiple" in the lead paragraph, since it is discussed in detail in one of the following paragraphs. --Kevin Murray 18:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

(moving my comment below following an edit conflict; also to reindent) Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems that significant or non-trivial are equally subjective. I a tie, I would vote for the non-hyphenated word. --Kevin Murray 18:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I support your changes, Jeff. Kevin's note about the sources is a good point, too. I really dislike the wording of footnote 9, though. Maybe we can come up with a less cliche figure of speech to adequately explain that a well-research deletion nomination/argument is preferred. — Scientizzle 18:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this better for footnote 9: "* ^9 Wikipedians have been known to reject on nominations for deletion that have been inadequately researched. Research should include attempts to find sources which might demonstrate notability, and/or infomation which would demonstrate notablility in an other manner."? --Kevin Murray 18:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, quite. Nicely done. — Scientizzle 18:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

We have two possible definitions for notability, Jeff.

1. A topic is notable if it is worthy of note. This is inherently subjective and can never be proven.
2. A topic is notable if others have considered it worthy of note. This is objective. If others have written about a topic, that constitutes proof that they considered it worthy of note.

I use the second definition. The first definition would turn AfD into a subjective free-for-all where people could even claim that small countries like Luxembourg are not "worthy of note". It's an extreme example, I admit, but then again, there's no arguing with a statement that is inherently subjective. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the second option also. --Kevin Murray 18:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no real difference between the two. The first is more semantically correct, the second simply more explicit. How do we choose whether something is worthy of note? By discussion. Notability, being inherently subjective, recognizes this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a massive difference. In the first case, we make the judgment of whether something is "worthy of note". In the second case, the judgment is made by those who publish sources. We shouldn't choose whether something is worthy of note (parly because it's OR and partly because we'll never agree ... by "we", I mean the Wikipedia community, not the two of us specifically). -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm on board with the collective we. If you're concerned with OR, we should junk notability entirely, as all notability, using that barometer, is original research - we're choosing whether something meets a threshold of note, not letting something else indicate that threshold. The OR argument holds no water - we instead come to the conclusion of what's notable - worthy of inclusion - by discussion and consensus, and not making any actual commentary on the subject other than whether we should include it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I see your point in the abstract, but we have to make some concession to what is practical in the real world. No purely objective standard is possible in the realm of notability, but the more subjectivity that can be removed the better. Otherwise, is subject to infinite tests at AfD and subject to the luck of the draw as to who is participating in the debates that day. --Kevin Murray 20:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Practicality in the real world is exactly why I'm pushing for these changes. A source-based test has no real world practicality or legitimacy - see, for instance, Wikipedia's reputation concerning webcomics. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, that's my point. We shouldn't be choosing whether something meets a threshold of note ... we should simply reflect whether others consider a topic to have met a certain threshold of note. The original research is not done by us, but rather by people who create published works. I agree that their (i.e., writers') choices are subjective, but that needn't be our concern. The legitimacy of a source-based test lies in the fact that the presence of sources proves that others have considered a subject worthy of note. We can create a subguideline for webcomics that deviates from the PNC, but our general framework of notability should not be based in the ever-changing subjective whims of editors. --Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

So we just wait until someone says "So-and-so is notable?" You may as well eliminate 90% of our articles in general then, since those words don't ever show up. No matter what, the test we apply is going to be subjective, so it may as well reflect reality. The subject-specific guidelines do a good job of that, a sourced-based one does not, as demonstrated in the February and March archives. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You are again focusing on the content of sources. If I write about topic X, it means that I consider topic X worthy of note, irrespective of what I write. If I didn't consider the topic worthy of note, I would not have bothered writing about it. You claim that any test is subjective, but ... how is the presence or absence of sources subjective? We either are able to find sources or we are not. There's nothing subjective about that. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Because the assumption that sources = notability is subjective. And once you establish that, you must establish the basis for when those sources are useful. And once you establish that, you have to figure out if those sources are actually worth using. And that's where the subjectivity comes in. If we simply say "sources," then, again, this is not a useful page, because anything and everything has some sort of source. Ultimately, whether we can find sources or not is irrelevant to whether something is notable enough for inclusion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The issue of the type of sources that may be used is partly covered by WP:RS. Some parts of the PNC are indeed arbitrary (though not subjective): the "multiple" criterion, for instance. Any test will include some agreed-upon arbitrary criteria. However, the basic premise that the presence of published works proves that others consider a topic worthy of note is not subjective. If they didn't consider it worthy of note, why would they write those works? If we can agree on that basic premise, the other parts (multiple vs. single, substantial vs. non-trivial, secondary vs. independent) can be worked out through consensus. However, the starting point must not be subjective. To say that a topic is notable if we editors say it is will leave us in a hopeless pit of subjective confusion and will also legitimise the deletion of "notable" (per my definition) but unpopular articles. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If we want to use RS as a barometer, again, fine by me - open the barn door wide open, I'm all for it. Realistically, though, it can't be done. "Multiple" is just as subjective as anything else, by the way - you've made a subjective decision that a single source cannot establish notability, which is completely false anyway. That's why I can't agree with the "basic premise" - it's unrealistic. Sources don't constitute notability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's forget the "multiple", let's forget "non-trivial", let's forget everything except the basic premise I initially advanced: the existence of sources about a topic proves that people outside of Wikipedia have considered it sufficiently noteworthy to write about it. You've stated that it's subjective and that you disagree with it, but have as yet not stated why. So, why is it subjective? Which part do you disagree with? Also, I hate to nitpick, but while the choice of "multiple" is arbitrary, its inclusion does not make the PNC subjective (it makes it arbitrary, but not subjective: different people with the same information should arrive at the same conclusion). -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Because sources do not constitute notability - notability is being worthy of note, which is done by action, not by who can be arsed to write about it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeff's statement is right. The conflict here could be avoided by WP:N talking about "sufficiently notable". "Notable" has a dictionary definition that is not the one asserted here. SmokeyJoe 00:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that just writing about a subject is indicitive that the author perceives notability. The only remaining issue then is verifying independence. I think that determining NPOV and accuracy are more related to our content rather than determining notabiltiy. --Kevin Murray 21:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your final statement, but we're not quite there yet as a project. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Never thought I'd say this, but I like most of Jeff's change. I don't object to removing "secondary" as redundant (independent sources are by definition secondary anyway), and independence of the source from the subject is indeed what we should be focusing on. I did take out reference to the subject-specific guidelines as an "override", since that seems to give the impression that if something passes a subject-specific guideline, we should write on it even without independent sourcing. Per V, this is incorrect-"If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it," and of course core policies override either this guideline or the subject-specific ones. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

My problem with removing "secondary" is that it opens the door to independent tertiary sources (e.g. the phonebook and similar) to establish notability. Many, many of these are unfortunately used as "sources" for wikipedia articles UnitedStatesian 00:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

"independent sources are by definition secondary anyway" is not true. "Independent" here is not well defined. If Seraphimblade disagrees, please cite the definition. "Secondary sources" is the important term, and is well defined in scholarly fields, even if the boundaries can be fuzzy. UnitedStatesian is wrong to assert that a phonebook is a tertiary source. A phonebook is a primary source. It is co-temporary and offers no transformative commentary or analysis. SmokeyJoe 01:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:ATTFAQ for primary, secondary, and tertiary. As to the phone book, we can classify it as a 16th-level Paladin source if we want to. It's still a trivial (or insignificant, under the new wording) source, so it still makes no difference. "Independent" means that the person or organization who published the information is not related to the subject of the information. So, for example, a corporation's own report on the quality of its products is non-independent, as is the report of testers hired by that corporation. On the other hand, the results of Consumer Reports or Underwriters Laboratories would be independent. A person's autobiography is non-independent. A biography written by a scholar or author is. A reprinted press release from a corporation or other entity is non-independent. A story in the press written by a reporter is independent. Hopefully that gives some clarity? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

“As to the phone book, we can classify it as a 16th-level Paladin source if we want to.” Only if you think this is an exercise in frivolity. “It's still a trivial (or insignificant, under the new wording) source” A phone book is neither trivial nor insignificant. If you needed to cite the address of a certain person at a certain time, a phone book entry would be suitable. It is depth of coverage of a subject that should be described as trivial, or significant, or incidental, not the publication itself. Do you need examples of independent sources that are primary, and others that are secondary, and yet others that are not independent but are secondary, for you to understand that independent sources and secondary sources are not the same thing? SmokeyJoe 02:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) I don't think the nitpicking-at-words bit is really necessary. For the purposes of determining whether we should have an article, which is all we're discussing here, the phone book is a trivial source. If you need to order a pizza, it's an excellent source, but we're not discussing how to order a pizza. As to "primary independent sources", I would indeed be interested to see one of those. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, we are discussing whether “secondary source” should be ditched in favour of “independent source”, or as redundant. I’m saying it definitely shouldn’t. The only way I can see WP:N as having reasonably interpretable meaning is for it to be written in terms of secondary sources, which is definitely not the same thing as independent sources. When you say “the phone book is a trivial source”, you are ignoring my example where the phone book could act as a robust source. You are also perpetuating the clumsy language of UncleG’s PNC. The triviality of a source is a peculiar, useless concept. You’ve even admitted in your own words that you consider the triviality of the phone book to be context dependent. This makes “triviality of a source” not a useful measure.

Two people who separately witness a traffic accident first hand are "primary independent sources". The two people are primary because they can give accounts not influenced by any intermediate between them and the subject. They are independent of the subject, and they are independent of each other (unless they confer with each other).

Even though wikipedia is not a reliable source, you might consider Independent sources, Wikipedia:Independent sources, Primary source and Secondary source. Note that only the last two are well referenced.

Do you wish to defend your position that “independent sources are by definition secondary”? --SmokeyJoe 08:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

No need, you did it for me! The article you pointed to on primary sourcing already very nicely addresses the bias/non-independence issue. Under some circumstances, it is possible that a primary source could be independent (for example, the account of an eyewitness to a crime, an old journal found writing about someone who put something about a historic event in it). But the converse is not true, secondary sources (the final police report on that same crime, a historian's book on that event) are always independent. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

A book, covering the history of a school, funded and published by the school, written and edited by staff of the school, is a non-independent secondary source, with regard to a covered historical event within the school. A company annual report, where it comments on company activity, is also a non-independent secondary source. Your historian's book on the crime is non-independent if the historian was the criminal, the victim or was otherwise involved in the crime. The final police report is non-independent if the driver paid the police. --SmokeyJoe 21:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Gere letter about marriage notability

There is a dispute regarding notability regarding the addition of several sentences to the artcile on Richard Gere. The proposed text is...

In April 1994 the French weekly tabloid Voici wrote that the marriage was a sham and that Gere "preferred men" [1] In May, 1994, Gere and Crawford took a full-page ad out in the London Times, announcing that, 'We are heterosexual and monogamous and take our commitment to each other very seriously. Reports of a divorce are totally false. We remain very married. We both look forward to having a family.' [2] On Dec 1, the couple released a brief statement announcing their separation, calling it a "personal and painful decision". [3]

User:FNMF is against inclusion and says: "I believe the other example given in WP:BLP, about a messy divorce, remains relevant, and I re-iterate its message: "Is it notable, verifiable, and important to the article? If not, leave it out." I don't believe this material is notable, nor do I believe it is important to the article. This material is not encyclopaedic. And I continue to reiterate: no credible source asserts the allegation about Gere's marriage as true. There may be verifiable sources that the allegation exists. But there are no verifiable sources prepared to assert the allegation as true."

User:sparkzilla is for inclusion and says that 1. Gere wrote the letter himself and placed it in a major newspaper. 2 The story has been picked up by are multiple independent secondary sources: The Independent [4], Entertainment Weekly[5], People[6], L'Humanite L'Humanite, at least a couple of published books, [7] [8], The New York Times [9] , The Biography Channel [10], BBC News [11], and of course, The Times itself [12] [13] [14]. Most of these sources explicitly say that Gere placed the letter to counter rumors that he was a homosexual.

Please also note that there is a related on "The meaning of sensitivity in BLP policy" here: [15]

Question: Is this event in Gere's life notable enough to add to the page? Please try to keep the scope of the discussion to points regarding notability. Thank you for your comments. Sparkzilla 16:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please place requests for comments in WP:RFC and not here, and add a summary to the article's talk page. I am tempted to do this for you, but I would prefer you do that yourself. This page is for discussing the policy and not specific cases. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering if this was the correct place...I'm confused though - where should I put the text above. I don't want to put it on the article's talk page. I would prefer to have some comment from editors who are independent of the existing discussion and who are more familiar with the intricacies of notability issues. I appreciate your advice. Sparkzilla 16:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see that you continue to disregard numerous requests from admins to stop posting these Gere related requests in policy talk pages. This is becoming disruptive, and could earn you a block if you persist. Please keep the conversation about this dispute in the article's talk page, and use the WP:RFC mechanism to pursue WP's dispute resolution process. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You can find the instructions here: WP:RFC#Instructions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me help you out here. I will create the RfC for you so that you can see how this is done. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I am sorry that I misplaced this item, and it is not an intention to spread it far and wide, but to get a real answers to a difficult question. Might I suggest the creation of a "Notability Noticeboard" - that way we could get more independent discussion of notability concerns away from highly-charged article talk pages.

Please note that I am acting in good faith to find answers to this issue. The other major party involved does not want to submit to consensus and has stated that he will only allow the material to go on the page if policies are changed. Other editors have commented that this is not in the spirit of WP. I am spending a lot of time and energy to try to get resoution of these issues through RFCs and other discussions.

Regarding the discussion on Talk:BLP -- I am discussing the implications of "sensitivity" in the policy using Gere as an illustration of how the policy is inconsistent. I could use other examples, but Gere's simply the one to hand. The discussion of inconsistencies in the policy, which will affect many thousands of pages, is in the correct place. Thank you for your understanding. Sparkzilla 17:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

PS: I added some text to your RFC to try to limit comments to the notability of the event. Thanks again. Sparkzilla 17:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

A topic is (sufficiently?) notable if

Should the notability criterion include the word “sufficiently”, or would that be too convoluted? We don’t want it too convoluted, but as the criterion stands (has always stood), it begins by asserting a fallacy. Notable, as defined by the criterion, is different to notable as defined elsewhere, and as used in the real world. Is not wikipedia supposed to communicate in standard English, and so should use standard English definitions? As it stands, the criterion implies that notability is boolean. Of course it is not. Something can be not notable, barely notable, kind of notable, very notable or extremely notable. The insertion of “sufficiently” clarifies that while there may be a range of degrees of notability, that notable enough for one purpose may be different for another, and that whatever the test of notability used elsewhere, this is the agreed measure for wikipedia. Thoughts, anyone? SmokeyJoe 06:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Something is either notable or isn't. I personally see no reason to entertain the idea of "borderline" notability and leave that door open further. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Smokeyjoe. - Kittybrewster (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

And I agree with Badlydrawnjeff. --Coolcaesar 17:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jeff as well ... the use of the word "sufficiently" introduces uncertainty to the guideline that is, in my view, unnecessary. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think such qualifiers would just cloud the issue. Whether something is "barely notable" or "extremely notable" has little bearing on the policy. In both instances, it would be "notable". Things that are more notable should likely be treated in greater depth with a wider variety of sources. However, that's a matter of article-building, as opposed to determining notability in and of itself. Vassyana 22:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

In legal or academic language, a term often carries a much more precise meaning than is usual in its day-to-day use. I think it is much better to explain precisely what the term "notable" means in the context of Wikipedia than to smudge its meaning to fit daily, imprecise language. nadav 05:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Student newspapers/magazines

are student newspapers and magazines distributed around campus notable enough for individual wikipedia articles? e.g. something like Bath Impact? cheers. 86.31.103.208 11:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It depends. Have there been articles in other publications, or books, written about them? If so, these should be cited in the article, and the subject would most probably be notable. However, in the article you cite, there are no such sources. This leaves me skeptical of that paper's notability. UnitedStatesian 12:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

thanks. what about this sentence: "Student Impact was nominated in 2004 for the Student Website of the year award at the Guardian Student Media Awards, in which it came runner up". would that make it notable?

also, what if there are other articles, publications, books about them, but they are all university-produced? e.g. a "history of Bath university", published by the university, mentions it on page 700, or "Bath Uni Today" magazine mentions "Student Impact" in its February issue. (all invented examples). 86.31.103.208 13:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Some school/university newspapers are notable (I don't think you'd find many to argue, for example, that The Harvard Crimson isn't notable), but it looks like Bath Impact is not. Probably that would be a better candidate for merge/redirection to the main university article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Get rid of the notability system? Or make it official policy?

Hi.

Why not just do away with notability? Notice how in the WP:V page, it says that: "The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth.". There you go -- that's the threshold for inclusion and OFFICIAL policy. As long as something meets that, and all other official policies including WP:NOT (ie. it does not make Wikipedia into something it is not), then it should be fair game for inclusion. However, if there is a gneral consensus (and there seems to be) that the actual bar is higher and notability is necessary, then I suggest that this WP:N page be worked out to the point where it can become official policy, and/or WP:V's statement changed (not to discredit verifiability, but just to make clear that it is not sufficient for inclusion. Necessary, but not sufficient.). mike4ty4 19:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

This is covered ad nauseum in the archives and is indicated in this guideline: Wikipedia:Verifiability applies to the verifiability of specific facts, not to whether a topic at large is included in the encyclopedia. —Centrx→talk • 20:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Pretty well agreed with Centrx. It is verifiable that "Seraphimblade (Wikipedia editor)" exists. (After all, I'm talking to you right now, and in a published, accessible form.) Yet an article on that subject would be inappropriate. That's what notability handles. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

There's so much in the archives I'd have no idea where to look for this specific issue :-O Anyway, there is no place in the guideline that V applies to specific facts and not the inclusion of entire topics. So the difference between N and V as "bars of inclusion" is that they deal with differing scope: WP:N deals with entire subjects, WP:V deals with individual facts. mike4ty4 20:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone Disagrees With This Policy

That person is me. Look, I want to have a wonderful free encyclopedia as much as the next guy, but I don't feel that this policy behooves that vision. The big argument for the notability policy is that it is conducive to an environment were people write poorly sourced articles, but there is already a policy regarding this matter, so the notability policy is redundant at best.Jamestown James 04:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Actually, there are things that this policy covers that would not be covered by core policy. To take an extreme example, I could write an article about my car that passes all core policies. That article would be neutral, would use verifiable, reliable sources (government documents and a police officer's accident report), and would require no original research. Such an article would not be a directory entry, crystalballery, or any other NOT entry. What it is, is non-notable. A good encyclopedia article should tell the reader "Why is this subject important or significant?" We could not possibly write a good article on Microsoft, or Albert Einstein, or agriculture, without explaining why these subjects are important and significant. So if the answer is "It's not important or significant", we shouldn't have an article on it. Seraphimblade

^{Talk to me} 05:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This is fine and all, but there are much more relevant AND sourced articles that are lined up to get the chop. Here are a bunch of articles with value that are nominated for deletion by this outrageous policy: Airship (Final Fantasy), Awakening (album), Krista Benjamin. Now, I admit that I don't care for the poetic work of Krista Benjamin, but there are people out there who buy her books, and read her poetry, and go to her readings; and they deserve to read a reasonably well written article on her. Look, if we are all together to create a free, international encyclopedia that is capable of storing most all human knowledge, why not blow twenty kilobytes of memory on the work of Ms. Benjamin?Jamestown James 00:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, none of those are nominated for deletion yet. I may nominate them, but first will do some looking to see if any additional source material is available. We don't go by our personal thoughts or opinions, we go by third-party published works. In the case of the Final Fantasy airships, I fail to see how they have notability or significance in the real world. They may be notable and significant within the fictional Final Fantasy universe, but that makes it suitable for a Final Fantasy fan wiki, not Wikipedia. (There are also way too many fair-use images in that article, I'll be cleaning those up as well. One would work to illustrate the topic.) In the case of the author, I can't find much at all. In the case of the band, I can't find anything besides that one web review.

What would serve you better than anything here, though, is to go look for sources. If you can prove me wrong, and go find a bunch of reliable independent source material for these subjects, there's not a chance in hell they'll be nominated for deletion. On the other hand, if the sources cited are all there is, those articles should be deleted. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how wikipedia would be lessened, exactly, by the presence of the article you've suggested above. If an editor can meet NOR, verifiability, and NPOV guidelines and is sufficiently motivated, there hardly seems to be a reason to deny that editor an opportunity to toil away in obscurity. To say that an encyclopedia article describes "why a subject is notable" really amounts simply to saying that an encyclopedia article describes a subject efficiently and well; articles on non-notable subjects can certainly meet that goal. Orphic 08:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

How so? We require writing from sources, notability requires sources. If very little sourcing is available, you can't exactly write a comprehensive article. As to lessening Wikipedia, there are a lot of things we are not, and an indiscriminate collection of information (even verifiable information!) is one of them. Every article we have requires continuous effort in vandal-patrolling, upkeep, fact-checking, and the like. We're not here to do that for people that want to write a vanity autobiography or a fansite for their favorite garage band or a memorial on their recently-deceased family member. We're here to write an encyclopedia, and part of that is some editorial control and a limitation of scope. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If we eliminate the Notability policy, we open the door to every crackpot 9/11 conspiracy theorist videologist on the planet. Let's not let Wikipedia become a soapbox and advertising vehicle for every Nutburger craptologist hawking Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 06:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Let the people say AMEN. Edison 06:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about?Jamestown James 00:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This is perhaps one of the most commonly held misconceptions of wikipedia, and one reason the notability policy is as entrenched as it is. Verifiability and original research policy are sufficient to deter the kinds of articles you're worried about. Frankly, notability is a very poor tool for this, as it's difficult to pin down and easy to subvert.Orphic 08:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Orphic, if an article can verified and is not controversial, then I don't see how it takes anything away from the rest of wikipedia, even if it doesn't add anything it me writing an article on Colemak keyboards,fx-82 calculators or the sort would take away from the any existing article on wikipedia. (please don't pin me down on the specific examples i give as there irrelevant and probably covert elsewhere in wikipedia so bad examples)Xbehave 15:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Trying to tie things together

Because I refuse to allow this to die on the vine - if conversation stops, it's because we've come to a conclusion and moved on. I'm reading the above discussions, and there's a lot of agreement here amongst those of us who have been in this battle for the long haul, so here's my new attempt:

A topic is generally notable if there are sufficient reliable sources available to verifiably establish the topic's importance. In most cases, the sources should be independent of the subject.

This is radically different from anything we've seen on the page so far, but I think encompasses everyone's input at this stage:

1. It requires verifiable reliable sources.
2. It at least assumes a sourced-based scenario without flat-out requiring it, allowing for the exceptions that are provided elsewhere.
3. It notes the independence in a second sentence - this way, it's not part of the quotable section, which is the first line most will point toward, but is still part of the actionable content, recognizing that there will be *some* cases where non-independent sources can establish notability.

I think this is as good as we can get at this point - it does a better job forcing the right kind of discussion than any previous version, it doesn't get bogged down in language that invites the type of lawyering many hope to avoid, it's closed-ended enough to keep the "firehose of crap" from entering the doorway, while open-ended enough to allow for sensible flexibility in the absence of a subject-specific guidelines. Any objections? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I like it. — Scientizzle 23:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. My initial concern is that "importance" becomes a key word in this definition. Defining importance then leads us in a circular direction.--Kubigula (talk) 00:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

But isn't that what we're trying to do anyway? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What I think we are trying to do is to find the most objective guideline for an attribute that is admittedly subjective - i.e. what are people likely to find interesting or informative. As I said above, it seems to me that the most objective proxy for whether something is of interest is whether reliable sources have found it interesting enough to write about it. Personally, I'm pretty happy with the current wording of the guideline. Though, you have convinced me (at least) that there is no need to treat it as the "prime criterion" that trumps the consensually reached individual subject guidelines. I like the way WP:MUSIC incorporates the general guideline. Jeff - do you have any thoughts or objections to the way this issue is handled at MUSIC?--Kubigula (talk) 01:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:MUSIC is probably the perfect way to do it on a subject-specific level - it mentions it, but doesn't treat it as more or less important than anything else. We'd be smart to continue to do it that way across the other subject-specific guidelines, tailored to the issues at hand. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it should still require multiple sources. There may be the occasional exception to that, but guidelines always have the occasional exception. Also, we don't need sources to verify the topic's importance, per se-we've already got "Notability is not fame or importance", and I entirely agree with that. What verifies notability is how much something's actually been noted, in reliable sources. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Multiple has little support, and misses the point. Why are you still insisting on it? Also, notability is fame or importance, another fallacy this "guideline" has touted. We're trying to make this more in tune with reality. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing radically different about the first sentence- you're just rewording the primary notabilty criterion. I don't like the "in most cases" though - non-independant sources generally count for very little. Friday (talk) 02:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Then you have no problem with it as a whole? --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I cannot agree with that definition. It does not even match the spirit or the letter of the subject-specific guidelines. Here are my problems with it:

1. "generally notable" ... exceptions to a guideline are needed, but it's best not to introduce this amount of ambiguity at the very start.
2. "sufficient reliable sources" ... sufficient for what? who judges 'sufficiency'?
3. "establish the topic's importance" ... notability is not importance (importance is itself a hopelessly subjective concept ... how do you propose to measure it? The # of people who've been "arsed" to write about the subject?); also, it is the existence of sources, not their content, that proves that a topic is notable.

   (edit conflict). Notable is defined as "worthy of being noted". The best way of knowing whether something is "worthy" of being noted is to see whether anyone has noted it.

4. "In most cases, the sources should be independent of the subject." ... to establish notability, the sources should always be independent of the subject (sure, we can make some exceptions via IAR, but again, there's no need to make the guideline ambiguous).

In short, I believe that proposed notability criterion is hopelessly subjective and would render Wikipedia:Notability essentially worthless as a guideline. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Seraphim/Friday/Falcon - may I ask you your opinions of how this issue is handled at WP:MUSIC? I'm curious if the approach taken there is something we can use as a basis for a larger solution?--Kubigula (talk) 04:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

My view is that Wikipedia:Notability should consisty solely of the general notability criterion, preferably some variant of "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the subject and reliable" (copied from WP:MUSIC). That should be the general criterion which establishes notability for all topics. I have no problem with the subject-specific guidelines adding other criteria and/or requirements if there is consensus to do so. WP:N should be general in scope, but neither vague nor overly detailed. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that this idea has been soundly rejected, see the March archives. We have to start looking beyond it. Consider WP:N as a general starting point and I think you'll have a better go of it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I wasn't very clear as to what I was asking. I am trying to see if there is some consensus for a general approach, as I believe it would greating behoove us to have some basic consistency in how we approach notability across Wikipedia. The current version of MUSIC says you can either meet the general notability guideline/criterion or the other subject specific criteria (charted hit, etc). Prior versions of Music (e.g.) used to say that we have a primary criterion that determines notability, but we also have these other specific indicators that make it likely that the subject is notable. Personally, I found the old structure confusing as the relationship between the primary criterion and the specific criteria was ambiguous (e.g. if a band had a charted hit but was not shown to be the subject of multiple published works, should they be included or not?). The current version of MUSIC has the virtue of being much clearer.

So, I agree with Falcon (and I think Jeff agrees too) that WP:N should solely be a general criterion. However, I am looking forward to a possible integration of N with the subject specific guidelines and asking if the way the current version of MUSIC has done the integration is something that is palatable to the people involved in this discussion?--Kubigula (talk) 05:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The primary criterion never really had consensus, which is why it's not there anymore. The way WP:MUSIC is handling it is how all the subject-specific guidelines have handled it historically, and with relative success. The general preference, I believe, is to continue to handle it in that way. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

(In response to Kubigula) The handling at WP:MUSIC is improper. Sourcing should be the sole criterion. Any other criteria should be solely advisory as to when multiple, non-trivial, secondary sourcing should exist. They should not justify the inclusion of an article in the absence of such sourcing, and under absolutely no circumstances should they set a criterion such as "every album by a band that barely scrapes by notability is notable too". Every article should be judged on its own available sourcing, period, no exceptions, end of story. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, to address your latter first, there's no such thing as an unsourced album, and the articles are merely sub-articles with better formatting and a better way to present information. The handling of WP:MUSIC is how the general consensus is, has been, and continues to be on this one, the same with albums. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with what Seraphimblade has said above me. Sourcing is the only important criterion. To sum it up in one sentence: if multiple independent reliable sources about a topic do not exist, then that topic should not be included in Wikipedia. On the topic of albums: as far as I'm concerned, albums of a notable band are not automatically notable. They are only notable if the album itself, not the band, has been the subject of sufficient coverage in sources, e.g. news stories or reviews in the mainstream press. Walton ^{Need some help?} 18:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, then there should be no need for any of the subject specific guidelines. In a perfect world, we would all have access to all possible sources, and there would probably be no need for subject specific guidelines. However, I think the subject specific guidelines are generally built around the reality that sources are not always easily available. In other words, we know, for example, that there are reliable sources about a musician with a charted hit, even if those sources aren't uncovered with a quick google search. So, we have agreed on an set of criteria that make someone or something likely to be of interest and to have sources (by the way, I fully agree with you on the album issue). If we are ever to have a consistent approach on notability, I think we need to either have both WP:N and subject specific guidelines structured like MUSIC, or just have WP:N and delete the SSGs. I support the former option for both the pragmatic reason that there's no way we will get consensus to delete the SSGs, and because at this stage of Wikipedia's existence it is reasonable to have mutually agreed subject specific presumptions of notability (though we should also be more aggresive about challenging weak presumptions like the one regarding albums). As WP becomes more comprehensive, and information and sources become more available, it may more sense to drop back to a single universal notability criterion.--Kubigula (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

So, if no one has access to the sources yet, why not say "Hey, wait until someone who does have access to the available sourcing is able to write the article?" It'll still get done by the deadline. In the meantime, we won't have to guess at when sources might be available, have endless disputes over what's true or not when no sources are available to resolve the matter, or have inconsistent standards. WP:V is pretty clear on the matter, and I agree with it-you want it kept around, source it. Not at some point, the moment you write it. As to the album itself being a source, that's a garbage argument. By that rationale, I'm a source on myself, and can go write a vanity autobiography article based solely upon that. That's why we require secondary, independent, reliable sources, not just any old source. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I cannot stress this enough - sourcing ultimately has nothing to do with notability. Notability exists - period. You're either notable or you're not. This is why the subject specific guidelines work, this is why WP:N's ideas on sourcing were thoroughly rejected. As for my album example, if we were to be rid of all the album articles tomorrow, they'd be merged into the artist areas. And it would be the exact same content, except formatted poorly. Why would that be okay? We can use the albums as primary sources about themselves. Album articles are simply sub-articles designed for ease of navigation, so can we please regain some focus here? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't go one bit for the "Well if it's a splitout, or we call it a navigational aid, it's okay!" argument. If the article doesn't stand on its own, but there's an appropriate parent topic, merge it. And yes, just like anything, we require verifiability. Including of notability. In the case of notability, the verifiability question is "Well, show me it's actually been noted." If not, you can state it's notable all day long, but you can't verify it, so for our purposes, it's not there. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to go for it, it won't change what it is. As for your second comment, absolutely, but it's beyond the purview of what we're doing here. We're trying to figure out how something is notable, not how we prove it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Jeff, I think you are right that I am blurring concepts - particularly notability versus measuring notability. As WP:N says, notability simply means that something is worthy of attracting notice. That is a subjective concept, as different people think different things are worthy of their attention. So, the only absolutely objective way to measure notability would be to run a worldwide poll on each article and only include the ones that X number of people say are worthy of their attention. Obviously we can't do that, so we have to rely on the best objective proxies for measuring notability. Right now, we have two mechanisms - (1) coverage in reliable sources and (2) by consensus of Wikipedia editors. Coverage in reliable sources is a good objective method because such sources usually wouldn't and couldn't cover topics unless they were of some general interest. Also, reliable sources allow us to meet the Wikipedia policies of WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR. Consensus is also a good objective proxy because if enough Wikipedia editors think a given topic is of interest, then it is of general interest. Aristotle isn't notable because people have written books about him, he is notable because people want to read about him. If there was only one book about Aristotle (to meet V, RS and NOR), he would still be notable because I think we can agree that enough people want to know about Aristotle. If we could get enough people to participate in every AfD, we wouldn't need notability guidelines - if 500 editors think something is worthy of their attention, then it's notable by definition. Consensus, assuming there is sufficient representative participation, is a perfectly acceptable way to measure notability (though not V, RS and NOR). So, the more I think about it, the more I like the approach at MUSIC - it uses the two best methods we have devised to measure notability.--Kubigula (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

...I think for the first time since I started watching this page has it actually made sense to me. Nifboy 18:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I thank Kubigula for the first comment recently that offers a way to resolve the contradiction between the two general approaches that has been discussed here interminably. (though there were some other approaches to a rational combination of them as well) I haven't been participating much in these discussions for --quite frankly--I thought them unlike to lead anywhere, and that I had heard all the argument several dozen times on every possible policy page. (And also that I had myself no solution whatsoever to the apparent stalemate, so why should I add to the confusion.) I want to think a little about where we should go from here. DGG 18:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the key measure is 2. I don't think 1 should be considered as its already important and there's no point in relisting a requirement in different words. the emphasis should IMO be put on 2. I feel that notability deletions are too fast at the moment i only came to this page because twice in the last day, could notability deletions be subject to a longer vote on their talk page or a clause?im not knowledgeable on the wikimedia engine but does it track usage of pages? surely the simplest method to find out if something is noteworthy is to see how many people look at an article over a set period of time.Xbehave 15:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Understand

Dont understand the criteria for "subject to immediate deletion", because this article pertains to a person. Further the system states that the criteria is based upon persons who attract media attention or that people would be interested in knowing about. Who is the creator of this site, nor anyone else, the authority to claim which person who has lived or will live in this world is or is not of importance? An encyclopedia is a reference of knowledge, and history. Every person who lives or has lived has made an impact on history, no matter how small or how large, is equally important. The creator of this site, the company, its employees editors etc.. are merely living in the current time frame, so what can they decide or not decide as to the actions of persons no matter how insignificant, value to the overall knowledge base of the world in general? Why would this site make such criteria, especially over the history of individuals living or had lived in this world? So Paris Hilton should have more claim to fame than Mary Jones living in a poor black neighborhood? There have been many noted stories of un-notable persons, who have made great impact in the world, so who is to judge the significance of any persons particular influence over the world? An encyclopedia should be about the stating of facts as they happened, no matter if it is about John Doe and his first bike, or President Clinton and his first speech. If this site intends to limit such actions of incidence, as subject to the whims of its creator and its employees, then wikipedia truly is not an encyclopedia by any nature whatsoever, rather is an accident that just happened to get popular by many users of the internet worldwide. Anything that happens in the world is an event which has right to be reported in an encyclopedia, not censored as the intention is clearly set forth by the policies of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acscom (talk • contribs)

There have to be limits on the topics we cover on Wikipedia. Don't forget that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, written largely by non-experts. So in order to have credibility as an information resource, we have to stop people from using Wikipedia as free advertising for their company, or to write vanity articles on themselves. It's also necessary to attribute content on Wikipedia to a reliable source; if there aren't enough reliable sources on someone to write a decent article about them, then they can't have an article. Wikipedia is a tertiary resource, dedicated to publishing established and verifiable human knowledge; we're not here to make judgments about people who have "made great impact in the world" according to our own subjective views, or to publicise people and things who we think the world should know about. That isn't the job of an encyclopedia, and never has been. Walton ^{Need some help?} 16:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposal - second notice

In case anyone missed it in the ensuing vigorous debate over Matrixism, there is proposed rewrite of the lead and first section of this guideline at User:Kubigula/Notability. The proposal incorporates many of the issues that have been discussed on this page and provides some harmony and consistency between this guideline and the subject specific guidelines.

Any other comments, concerns, or suggestions?--Kubigula (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Still the same ones from before, honestly. We're still hung up on "multiple," and basing notability on the coverage rather than the ability to deduce importance. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, not all the same ones, because much of the proposed language is based on concepts that you have been arguing at length. Specifically: (1) the "multiple sources" test is no longer primary or superior to the subject specific guidelines; they would now be equal partners; (2) acknowledgment that sources, in and of themselves, do not determine notability - they reflect it; (3) acknowledgment that notability is ultimately subjective; and (5) discussion and consensus are explicitely recognized as mechanisms for determining Wikipedia notability. We set a line (subject of multiple sources) after which subjects are presumed to be notable. Anything short of that line (if not already covered by a subject specific guideline) can still be included by discussion and consensus. Honestly Jeff, this is really an effort to meet you at least three quarters of the way to your position. It reduces the ability of people to wikilawyer based on policy and smoothes the way for articles to be considered on their own individual merits, and I'm not sure how you could do much better than that.--Kubigula (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You claim these improvements, but I'm seeing very little difference. It still opens the door wide open for the same useless discussions we've been having ad nauseum - that sources create notability (they don't), that multiple sources are necessary (they aren't), and the only quality of sources that can demonstrate notability have to have "significant" coverage (they don't). My position on this is an attempt to meet people more than three quarters of the way to something reasonable - simply repreatedly rephrasing what's gotten us to this point isn't going to get us far. I apologise for my frank tone - I'm probably as exhausted as anyone else regarding the trajectory of discussion here - but if we're going to talk notability, let's talk notability, y'know? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I do think that's a bit unfair, as the changes go well beyond rephrasing prior language. It seems to me that you are focusing on the bolded presumption part of the proposal without looking much at the rest of it. At the same time, I recognize that many people who reference the guideline are likely to do the same, so maybe it's not unfair of you to have that focus.

I just changed the "Presumption of notability" section to further address your concerns, and removed the language that offends you from the bolded part. I believe the nuances can be discussed in the bullet points underneath. What do you think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kubigula (talk • contribs) 20:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

I'm merely speaking from someone who's seen where this debate has gone, and what's been happening - the focus will inevitably be on "multiple" and "significant," the exact problems the March straw poll cited as being problematic. I think the wording you have is pretty close, although I can see people complaining in the other direction, regardless of what the bullet points say. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I myself prefer to include multiple and significant myself, but I don't see it as crucial. "Coverage" suggests a non-trivial level of detail in the source and "sources" implies more than one source. I can live with those changes if that brings us closer to closure. I was hoping that I had sufficiently reframed the issue and tied together the policies to get us there, but we'll see. I'll give it a couple of days for more comments then provide a third notice to see where we are.--Kubigula (talk) 01:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I like it pretty well. Maybe the "in the absence of multiple sources..." bit, it could be added "and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article." An NYT name-drop is credible and probably neutral, but it's certainly not enough for an article on its own. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I incorporated your suggestion along with Jeff's.--Kubigula (talk) 01:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you have much of a guideline when you say "a topic is presumed to be notable... if editors of Wikipedia have reached a consensus that it is worthy of notice"That amounts to saying that a topic is notable if most of us think it is. Now, that may be the actual effect of the determination of notability at AfD, but it is not a principle to base decisions on. DGG 02:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That was intended to tie in the subject specific guidelines to WP:N, so perhaps it should say, "if editors of Wikipedia have reached a consensus at one of the subject specific guidelines." By the way, please feel free to edit the draft (that goes for anyone) if you think you can improve it. I should probably have made it a subpage here to make that more clear. Maybe I should move it...--Kubigula (talk) 02:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It is also unclear whether you mean that A/anything with two non trivial RSs is Notable AND that anything without them but which fits the other criteria is N, or B/Anything thats fits our general feelings about N is N, and that in general such subjects with have 2 RSs which is an indication that it will likely fit our standards. or C/Anythingthat fits our general feelings or specific standards is N, EXCEPT for those things that do not fit our feelings or standards, AND that the presence of sources is a rough guide for determining which way it should go.

As I read the text, it says C, and I do not know if you want it to say that. It seems clear that C makes the entire section about sourcing subsidiary, whereas in the past most WPedians seem to have thought it central. Before I change it to fit whatever I might like it to mean--which might be a counter-proposal rather than an edit--I would want to know what you yourself intend it to mean, so that we have your proposal understood correctly. DGG 03:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If I read your question correctly, I was originally aiming for A. FYI - I went ahead and moved my proposal, as modified, to Wikipedia:Notability/Proposed. Edit or counter-propose away.--Kubigula (talk) 04:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

and I have started a talk page there to continue. DGG 03:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Independent+non trivial? Debretts, Whos Who etc

Opening statement

I would like to seek some guidance here on whether or not it is appropriate to consider entries directories such as Debrett’s Peerage & Baronetage and Who's Who (UK) as meeting the requirements of The notability criterion. If this is the wrong place to ask for guidance on interpretation, please redirect this discussion somewhere else.

Background

The problem relates particularly to the British gentry and aristocracy, especially to Baronets (a hereditary title best confering the title "Sir", a sort of halfway house between a knighthood and a peerage):

• There are a number of articles, particularly those on British gentry and aristocracy where these volumes have been cited as references, and claimed as evidence of notability
• So far I have seen three schools of thought:
  1. That holders of hereditary titles should be treated as inherently notable, since that is an inherent characteristic of nobility
  2. That in the UK, the only hereditary titles which confer a presumption of notability per WP:BIO are those which confer (or conferred) a seat in the House of Lords (the history of that subject is a little complex, and needn't concern us here); the other titles are irrelevant
  3. That most holders of such titles meet the criteria for notability through their inclusion in at several of the guides such as Debretts and Whos Who

The above is my attempt at a neutral summary of the discussions at WikiProject Baronetcies. I hope that I have summarised the position accurately, but if any correction is needed I would ask that people try not to rehearse all the details of the positions we discussed at great length, but just briefly add to or clarify the summary.

Assessment

The first position (automatic notability), is one which goes a little beyond WP:NOBLE, a proposed guideline which did not achieve consensus. I suggest that anyone is free to try to revive that process and seek consensus for a new guideline, but in the meantime, there is no such guideline, and that there is therefore no automatic presumption of notability for those such as baronets whose titles have never conferred a seat in the House of Lords.

The second position is roughly the status quo, strictly interpreted; it provides an answer only in conjunction with the third point.

The third point is the one which I am bringing here, because it seems to me (per my contribution to a recent AfD on a Baronet) that it offers a resolution to the dispute:

• If these directories do meet the critera, then articles referencing those sources meet the notability test
• If Debretts etc do not meet the notability criterion, then any such articles need other sources to pass the notability thresholds.

Caveat

Anyone reading the recent discussions will be aware that feelings are running very high on this question. Amongst the protagonists there are thoe who hold the British honours system in contempt, and those who revere it: both POVs are, of course, entirely legitimate and honorable, but unfortunately bring us no closer to resolving the dispute within existing guidelines, and our overriding requirement to neutrally accommodate all points of view. I would therefore ask contributors to this discussion to avoid those wider perspectives, and to focus solely on assessing whether volumes such as Debrett’s Peerage & Baronetage and Who's Who (UK) meet the the notability criterion. My proposition is that if we can resolve that relatively simple question, we will be much closer to reaching agreement on the fate of the individual articles

I personally lean towards a conclusion that those volumes don't meet the notability criterion, but it seems to me to be a very grey area and I have not made up my own mind. Here are the points which I have seen raised so far (I have labelled as pro those who reckon that Debrett's, Who's Who etc meet the criteria):

Notability criterion

1. The non-trivial test
   • Pro: Proponents of the directories argue that while the entries are tersely written, they are nonetheless non-trivial, and in some cases extend to a full page; opponents argue
   • Anti: Opponents argue that most of the entries are little more than genealogical lists and potted biographies like a condensed CV, and that many include only a short paragraph on each individual
   • but both sides seem to agree that no original research is needed to to extract the content
2. The Independence test
   • Anti: many of these volumes rely heavily on input from the subjects (when they are alive), and so cannot be counted as independent of the subject (e.g. subjects draft their own entries for Who's Who)
   • Pro: regardless of who drafts the entries, they are checked by the publishers, and any falsification would be rapidly noted by some of the many expert readers. Since falsification would be detected, it would serve only to damage the reputation of any individual who tried it
3. The Independence test, take two
   • Anti: there is ultimately a lack of independent sources for much of the material in these volumes, so they probably feed off each other a lot more than is acknowledged
   • Pro: That's inevitably the case with biographical data, but what matters is that there is proper checking of primary sources.
4. The reliability test
   • The two sides dispute both how much checking is actually done in compiling these volumes, and how effective those checks are
5. Secondary sources
   • I have not seen any dispute that these are secondary sources

Intention arguments

1. • Pro:Those directories are intended as directories of notable people, so inclusion in those directories is in itself evidence of notability, and it is not wikipedia's job to reject widely-accepted definitions of notability
   • Anti:Those directories have their own criteria for notability, which may or may not be wikipedia's criteria: we should not automatically presume that they are. In particular, Debrett’s Peerage & Baronetage is evidence of notability only if one accepts the premise that peerage and baronetage are inherently notable (though that does not of course apply to Who's Who)

So there's my summary. I've probably omitted some things and been mistaken in others, and welcome correction/clarification etc ... but please please please can we keep this discussion focused on the narrow question of which (if any) of these volumes meet the tests set out in Wikipedia:Notability#The_notability_criterion? Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

• Excellent summation. I would only add that the pro camp do not contend that acceptance of this perspective should lead to creation of numerous article on transiently-notable people (not that wiki allows such a concept). Also these books which send out proofs to the subjects invite inclusion of anticipated events - so errors do creep in but will be corrected in later editions. - Kittybrewster (talk) 11:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• This is a discussion better suited for WP:BIO, but these are reliable sources that are published independent of their subjects regardless of one's feelings about them, so it's not really an issue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I thought of WP:BIO, but I reckoned that a discussion focused on the notability criteria was better placed here. Elsewhere, another editor says that the discussion belongs at WP:RS, so I guess there's no place for it that will satisfy everyone. However, I'll leave a note at WP:BIO for folks to look here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, someone beat me to it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Looks like they're relatively reliable, but in and of themselves, relatively trivial and of questionable independence. In effect, those books would be the "nobility directory", and we wouldn't just automatically include anyone in them, any more so than we'd do so for the telephone directory. They'd be fine for supplemental material on people who have other material published about them, though. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The whole point of a phone book is that it includes everyone (unless you are ex-d) it is universal in nature. It is also very basis name/number/address. The various publications in question select for inclusion a small minority - in this case anyone they believe to be notable based on their criteria and give more general (sometimes substantial) discussion/details. If some fictitious sporting organisation produced sportsmen of the world I might quibble about any particular entry but not broadly that inclusion/exclusion and the infomation included must be some indication of notability. Alci12 14:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• I'd go for a liberal criterion, ie the first school of thought re nobility, and we should be comfortable with Who's Who and Debrett's for establishing notability, SqueakBox 01:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• The key here is whether these sources are independent, and I note that one source that is not, according to the guidelines, independent is an "autobiography". I do not know much about deBretts, since we here in the States had the good sense to get rid of the nobility a long time ago and now just debate the notability of D list celebrities who, at the least, are better looking, but Who's Who is essentially autobiography with perhaps a veneer of editing to the more flagrant abusers. There is absolutely no point in treating Who's Who, or anything like it, as a reliable source, given the lack of indepdence. As to whether nobility is inherantly notable, well, I will leave that to those who need to put up with them - certainly they are not inherantly notable outside the borders of their own country, where those titles may retain some meaning. A Musing 20:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• That is pretty much my take on it also, not only should an entry in Who's Who or Debrett's convey automatic notability I would also agrue that may they should not be used as they do not conform to to the critieria laid down in WP:RS due to their lack of independence and heavy autobiographical nature.--Vintagekits 13:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• A few years ago the foreword to "Who's Who" made a comment to the effect that people had sometimes regarded the invitation to contribute an entry to their publication as a distinction. That, they said, was the last thing it was: it was a recognition of distinction already achieved. The stated intent of Who's Who is to be a biographical guide to all those notable in British society (they take a rather traditional and conservative approach to who is notable). Debrett's People of Today, its competitor, has practically the same aim but a slightly different approach: they remove people who are no longer notable, whereas Who's Who generally do not. But I think the general approach to be taken is clear: they are independent secondary sources which can be used to judge whether a person is notable. I would not however say that a general rule "Anyone with an entry in Who's Who is notable" is justified. Sam Blacketer 21:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Why are they "independent"? I know that for Who's Who, every person is given the opportunity to proof their entry before publication, and, in most cases, the information that is included is submitted by the person or by a colleague. It strikes me like any other autobiography - the presence of an editor or publisher does not make it reliable under Wikipedia's standards.A Musing 21:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• That's a separate issue. The discussion is whether inclusion of a person in Who's Who etc. is a measure of notability, not the value to be placed on Who's Who as a source. For what it's worth, normally the details supplied are checked so that blatant inaccuracies are removed. Entries are often inaccurate on precise details (particularly years in which a particular post was held). The most serious concern is that subjects can remove from their entries items which they do not wish to be included, so one gets a partial view. Sam Blacketer 21:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• The fundamental guideline for notability states that a subject is notable if they have significant coverage in "reliable" and "independent" sources; the question here is whether Who's Who or DeBrett qualify as both "reliable" and "independent"; if they do not, then notability must be established elsewhere.A Musing 22:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Sam, this is a dead conversation and two new ones with different focus need to be opened. The opening statment states "I would like to seek some guidance here on whether or not it is appropriate to consider entries directories such as Debrett’s Peerage & Baronetage and Who's Who (UK) as meeting the requirements of The notability criterion." - that is easy to answer, it doesnts - we have WP:N and WP:BIO - WW and Debrett's apply different critieria to assess what they see as notable and we have ours. Now like I said we need two new discussions. 1. Using WW, Burkes and Debrett's as a source and 2. Does being a Baronet give automatic notability.--Vintagekits 21:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • To answer, in order: 1. They would be good as a supplemental source, but since the information in them is largely autobiographical, they should be used according to the caveats regarding self-published sources. 2. No such thing as "automatic" notability. An individual subject is notable or not, "notability by category" doesn't exist. (Granted, there are some categories, such as US Presidents, British Prime Ministers, or basic chemical elements, in which every member of the class happens to be notable. But that's not "because I say so," that's because every subject within those categories really is sufficiently sourced for a comprehensive article.) It appears for baronets, the answer is the same as for anything-some of them are notable, some of them are not. WP:NOT Who's Who, and we should make that distinction. Notability is not nobility. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Vintagekits, if the question as easy to answer, we would by now have arrived a clear answer, but in fact we are a long way from reaching a consensus :( As you will see above, only one of the "pro" arguments rests on the notion that inclusion in Debretts confers notability; the other points are all related to the question of whether the entries in those articles meet the notability criteria, which effectively a specific formulation of WP:RS.
      You say that two new discussions are needed, but I note that we already failed to reach consensus on automatic notability ... and how would any new discussion on Using WW, Burkes and Debrett's as a source differ from this one? The issues it would have to address are the ones raised here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
      • No concensus was reached as the discussion was held on the talk page of the Baronet Project (hardly neutral ground for that type of discussion) and it was just me and other members of the Baronet Project discussing it. Like I said I think two new discussions need to be opened. Your discussion on the notability of Baronets was perfectly formed but needs to be sorted out in a different venue (I suggest here) but this discussion is too vague and it trying to tackle too many overlapping issues at once. But thats just my view.--Vintagekits 12:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Just to clarify the above, I think the reason people are bring up the WP:RS in a discussion about WP:N is because if the publication fails WP:RS then there is no chance the it can convey automatic notability. Like I said this conversation is one conversation to early. We should discuss whether or not it is a reliable source first and then move on to this. This conversation is putting the cart before the horse in my opinion. I am not in anyway denigrating your contribution as it is most welcome, useful and insightful and you also seem to be the only one from the Baronet Project that seems to be able to critical appraise anything got to do with regards the subject. --Vintagekits 16:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Oh well, if you want to raise the issue at WT:RS, I suppose you might as well, since we don't seem to have gotten anywhere near a consensus here. But the two major issues here are reliability and independence, and I'm not sure that splitting it further will help: in this case, the two issues are inter-related. I don't see what's to be gained by a diversion to another forum, but as above, try it if you like. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
            • If the issues being discussed here was just "reliability and independence" then that would be fine. But what is being discussed here is whether or not an insertion in Who's Who or Debretts is sufficient to prove notability.--Vintagekits 18:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
              • Yes, and the core issues are "reliability and independence". You seem to be arguing in effect for a discussion which is simply relabelled. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
                • I am not, and I have already stated this - this discussion is trying to see if an entry in WW or Debretts give automatic notability on wiki. My opinion is that it doesnt and not only does it not give automatic notability it is infact a dubious source due to its largely auobiographical nature.--Vintagekits 18:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"Who's Who" and "Debretts" are not in my opinion independent sources of material for an article, as the subject can change the entry and certainly remove items that they do want to be included. However, they are independent sources for notability because the subject does not determine that they have an entry. The editors decide that someone is notable enough for an entry and invite them to have an entry. That is an independent assertion of notability. Only a few people are selected. Therefore I conclude that anyone with an entry deserves an entry in WP, but we need other sources to write the article so that the material is properly verified. This is a good example of why the concept of notability and the concept of reliable sources are not the same thing. --Bduke 23:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have just spotted WP:COI#Notability_and_saliency, which says: "Citations of "Who's Who" directories should not be used alone as evidence of notability. These registries' criteria for listing are, as a rule, over-inclusive and may be nonexistent; some are vanity publishers and offer listing for a fee. The inclusion of a name in such a publication is therefore not sufficient to guarantee notability." That appears to me to a fairly clearcut answer to the question of whether these sources meet the notability criterion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Some "Who's Who" directories are vanity and may offer inclusion for a fee, but not all do. The main UK "Who's Who", for example, I am pretty sure does not. We need to tell the difference. Debretts does not offer inclusion for a fee either. The presence of some shonky directories should not distract from the worth of the proper ones. --Bduke 12:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with that. Any vanity book or book offering inclusion for a fee should not be used. "Who's Who" published by Black & Co is not one such. Nor is Debrett's. - Kittybrewster (talk) 12:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not they all carry an "inclusion fee" is immaterial they are listings/directories and carry no depth of coverage. They as carry there own criteria for inclusion which is not the same as wikis, I dont see why we (being wiki) should bind ourselves to the inclusion policy of another publication - a publication that has an updated method and criteria for inclusion when we already have WP:N and WP:BIO - many of the entrants in both WW and Debretts are traditionally automatically selected for inclusion based on a title that they have been given or inherited regardless of achievement or notability. - vintagekits

You misunderstand. We are not binding ourselves. The two books that Kittybrewster and I are referring to are just one assertion of notability, but the content may not be sufficient or adequate for an article. It is immaterial whether they carry a depth of coverage. The entry is evidence of notability. We may need other sources to write the article. You also say that we have WP:N. It is not policy and is even a disputed guideline. We need to look at a variety of ways for demonstrating that a topic is worthy of an article - i.e. is notable, even though there is only one way to write the article - from good sources. Notability and sources are not the same. --Bduke 13:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

With respect I think that you misunderstand, this whole discussion is about whether or not an intersertion in WW or Debretts gives automatic notablility. To my mind the publications are selcetion criteria are totally outdated in this era and even if the entries were collated independently of the entrant (which they arnt) I would not consider them very highly for these reasons outlined.--Vintagekits 13:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)