Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

"Wikipedia activism"

Wikipedia activism

I think she means Wikipedia is not paper, and I'm not sure why we need an external site as a reminder. :-P

--Kim Bruning 04:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, then, you should write an article about this. —Centrx→talk • 05:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh? Even more articles? This isn't enough of a wake-up call already? --Kim Bruning 06:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

And perhaps she is simply mistaken, and was the Sonja Green entry redirected because it was a copyvio[1], [2] (older versions were copyvios as well, see the history), while Austin Grossman, as written, had nothing to do with how she describes it ("it contained a fairly complete list of everything he'd written"? Not in the versions I have seen). This article is not a reminder that Wikipedia is not paper, but that anyone can write anything on his website without it being very correct. These articles were deleted because one was a copyvio, and the other made no claims to notability at all. Going back to sleep now... Fram 09:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks dude. :-) --Kim Bruning 10:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a thread on her article at User_talk:AnnaleeNewitz. -- Jreferee 15:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

A topic is presumed to be notable

Ordinary meanings of notable include three things: noteworthy, luminaries, and celebrated. See Googled definition Wikipedia has chosen noteworthy over celebrated. Should the guideline say "A topic is presumed to meet the Wikipedia notable guideline" instead of "A topic is presumed to be notable". The first wording ties the issue to Wikipeida's criteria whereas the second wording seems to allow the term to mean any one of noteworthy, luminaries, and celebrated -- whatever the editor wants. Further, on a similar note, I think we might want to minimizing using the word "notable" in setting out what Wikipedia notable is to minimize using the term to define itself. -- Jreferee 15:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Can't we simplify it at that point to "A topic meets the Wikipeda notability guideline..."? Capmango 17:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Rationale

I think it would be good to include in the notability guideline essay what the rationale is for using notability as a criterion. I understand that we don't want Wikipedia to turn into MySpace or something, but as the "abolish it" argument above points out, we have plenty of other tools to keep that from happening. I just want to know what the rationale is because I don't understand it. Wikipedia is where people go to find out about things that they hear of but want to know more about. If there is subject that only 10 people are ever going to search for, does that alone mean we should not have a page for that subject? Or a subject that 1000 people are going to search for, but all of those people will be in the same town because the subject is only well known in a particular region? Capmango 17:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm pretty sure that the number of people interested in searching for a given subject is a non-factor in terms of whether or not something has an article. The only times I've seen it come up were when somebody says "But nobody will search for that redirect" which isn't exactly meaningful here. FrozenPurpleCube 18:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, but that seems to be implicit in the guideline that something should be notable. I am trying to get a firm understanding on why it is important to keep non-notable information out of Wikipedia. I do see afd arguments along the lines of "this article would only be of interest to people who are fans of such and such, or play such and such" Capmango 19:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, speaking for myself, I consider the arguments of the type you're talking about to be non-persuasive and borderline offensive. (And sometimes over the border). FrozenPurpleCube 20:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I would describe notability as requiring a holistic approach to articles; every so often you come across an article that is arguably sourced (but almost exclusively to primary sources like court records, fictional works, or official websites), arguably NPOV, and so on, yet the community decides not to have an article. Notability tries and cuts through most of this "arguably meets policy" crap by saying "Look, we need good sources to write a good article, and these are not good sources." Nifboy 21:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That seems to me like a rationale for WP:V, not WP:N. Capmango 00:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability just says, if you can cite it, it's in. "Nathan Nathaniel is a 27-year-old British construction worker who was featured in (insert human interest story here) (cite said human interest story)." It's verifiable, but it's not notable. Nifboy 03:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• • And here lies the basic difficulty, because the difference between a human interest story and an encyclopedia-worthy even is not in the least obvious, and every one of us judges differently. But we can not simple eliminate the 2 RS rule, because there are so many cases where we have to judge, and where it often does serve as a rough guide.To some, a murder case which involves claims of police discrimination between the killings of the poor and of the middle-class is not only newsworthy but encyclopedia-worthy: it illustrates the structure of society and the way it is maintained, the sort of thing every citizen must know and understand; to someone else, it is part of the routine background of life. To some, the life of a 14th century noblewoman where only the passage of the estates and the dowries can be documented is important for its documentation of the structure of power and its relationship of property; to another, it is the trivia of history without any real effect on the course of events. To some, the names of the characters in soap opera is the sort of information I would rather not exist but is in any case best forgotten; to another it is the essence of the literary forms of our time.

In an edited work, the editor in charge can decide what to cover; for a community-based enterprise we must accommodate all of us, or exclude some by restricting the community. If we exclude the interests of any of us, we destroy the fragile alliance which lets the enterprise proceed.
As a more precise example, at AfD the notability of some far left British political figures is being discussed: some of us could not care less what that splinter party does, and considers almost none of its leaders significant--others feel just the same way about the Conservative party. What we do not like, or do not understand, we think not notable. And that is the basis of the arbitrary 2 RS rule--we do not have to decide these questions. DGG 08:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Decision on Wikipedia:Notability (films)

Wikipedia:Notability (films) has been debated as a proposed guideline for some time now. Two editors now propose that it be adopted as a guideline since there has been no discussion pro or con for some time. This seems to be reverse logic to me, but I'm tired of fighting that fight. I suggest that anyone with an interest visit that discussion ASAP. --Kevin Murray 12:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Presumed to be notable

At this AFD post, the editor writes,

The notability guideline says that if a subject has multiple, reliable, indepent, non-trivial sources than it is presumed to be notable. It does not say that if failing one of the above then non notability is to be assumed.

My thinking was that the "presumed to be notable" language meant that, even if a subject has multiple, reliable, indepent, non-trivial sources, it still is possible that it is not Wikipedia notable. The above quote seems to say that even if a subject does not have multiple, reliable, indepent, non-trivial sources, it still might be Wikipedia notable. Perhaps the guideline should have some clarafication as to what "presumed to be notable" means in the context of this guideline. -- Jreferee 15:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I understood the second reading of this, i.e. notability should only even be up for debate if the subject lacks mulitple, reliable, independent, non-trivial sources; in that case we argue notability on other grounds. Of course, "reliable," "independent," and "non-trivial" are all subjective terms so we just end up arguing the notability indirectly by debating the sources. Capmango 17:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The way I read it, both are right. The "presumed to be notable" language says who has the burden of proof (like a legal presumption). If a subject has significant coverage in independent reliable sources, a prima facie case has been made that the subject deserves a stand-alone article on Wikipedia. If an article's subject lacks such coverage, its proponents bear a heavy burden of showing why the subject is nonetheless notable. If the article's subject does have such coverage, its opponents would bear the burden of showing why a stand-alone article is not in the best interests of Wikipedia (for example, including the subject as a section of a broader article may make practical sense in some cases). PubliusFL 20:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

A linux guideline

As I become more involved in AfDs, I'm finding articles on a Linux version fairly frequent. Perhaps something should be established on the notability of Linux versions as it is open source and many exist. Perhaps this guideline should apply to all open source items, such as wikis (Obviously we aren't going to have an article on every wiki). How would this be done? Redian (Talk) 04:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Question for the regulars here

I have removed a question I originally posted here. It was intended to inform myself by touching base with some regulars here. I can't do it when someone else insists to interfere in blatant disrespect of my requests. AvB ÷ talk 22:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm restoring my question at the request of a trusted editor. AvB ÷ talk 22:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

In a discussion on Talk:Chiropractic someone came up with this argument: "If this organization still exists and is notable, then it shouldn't be hard to find sources discussing it from the last five years." - should I take this seriously? We have reliable secondary sources from 1988 and 1992, describing the organization, NACM, as having a membership in the low hundreds, and reporting on some of its activities. We have the organization's web site. A number of editors want to mention the organization in the article, and have no problem adding the date of the sources indicating that there are no newer sources available. The opposing editors told me the organization no longer exists and demanded recent sources to prove them wrong. Otherwise they wanted to keep the information out of the article. Later they said they needed new sources to assess the notability/weight/relevance of the organization. Thanks for your help. AvB ÷ talk 19:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)2, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

To add more clarity, the content in question reads "A small group called National Association for Chiropractic Medicine is an attempt to organize reform-minded chiropractors." Aside from the organization's one-page website, there is no current sources discussing this organization (what they do, who they represent). Perhaps "past-tense" phrasing would be more apropos? Regardless, I thought WP:N doesn't limit the content of an article. Perhaps this request is misplaced here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedic notability doesn't expire just because the sources are old. If the organization in question was verifiably noted in a significant way in publications then it is still notable. Now that being said, that doesn't mean the organization is active, nor does it mean that it is necessarily worth mentioning in a particular article. It could well be that the organization in question isn't actually active any longer and that it's not really worth mentioning in this specific article. Past notability doesn't always imply current day relevance to the topic, and in order to keep articles focussed it might be useful to periodically trim out information that isn't likely to be useful to a solid enyclopedic discussion. (I'm just talking in general terms here - I have no comment on the particular article in question one way or another.) Dugwiki 21:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Dugwiki. Much appreciated! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Dugwiki. Eminent observations along the lines of something I would have written myself in response to the above (see e.g. [3][4]). Am I right in inferring from your answer that you would not accept the blanket assertion[5] that sourced information can be removed when the sources are over five years old? To me it sounds like pseudo-WP:N language. Perhaps useful to start a discussion, but useless to refute thoughtful arguments. Would it have a chance to become policy? Thanks in advance. AvB ÷ talk 08:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Levine, this was my question, as you know (diff)(diff)(diff) not intended as a WP:3O or another WP:DR process, just something to let myself be informed. As I've written before, if you change my question, I cannot use the answer because it is no longer my question. As I have repeatedly asked you to consider. And now you are thanking someone who is responding to what is essentially your question. Therefore I'm retracting this question and will use venues not open to you to allow editors I know and trust to comment. AvB ÷ talk 22:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a community and you were questioning a policy dispute between the two of us (and others). I was assuming that this was part of WP:DR. Thus, I wanted to be informed on this matter as well, and I wanted to be sure that whoever responded to our question would have a clear frame of reference on the matter. All I did was to provide context. I think Dugwiki's response is quite lucid, addresses both of our concerns and certainly sheds much light on our small policy dispute. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a good response in a general sense. However, due to your interference it's become useless to me, as explained to you in advance. The more context, the more guarded the general responses will be, up to a point. Until one explains the whole thing with sufficient context. Although this requires lots of time from respondents, it will lead to responses geared to the specific situation. Like the one from Fyslee. AvB ÷ talk 23:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

A bit of context is needed here. The situation involves descriptions of various chiropractic "practice styles and schools of thought." That is the focus, not actual membership in various organizations. The widely differing philosophical schools of thought are represented by various competing organizations (often lambasting each other and attempting to steal members from each other), and those chiropractors who share those schools of thought naturally tend to sympathize with the organizations which advocate such philosophies, even if they are not members of those organizations.

Thus actual membership (and even the organizations themselves) is not the main topic. The topic is the schools of thought, and to help readers we supply the names of the organizations that support those philosophical schools of thought. That's the context. Thus the actual current status of the organizations is totally irrelevant. If their schools of thought have been known and published (and they have), and chiropractors openly sympathize with them, then those sympathies can be mentioned, thus establishing the existence of these various schools of thought, which we have divided into four groups with widely varying degrees of influence, often totally unrelated to their actual membership numbers in organizations.

To show the ties of sympathy between chiropractors and organizations sharing their POV, these statements have been added to each section:

1. Traditional straights tend to share the viewpoints found in the International Chiropractors Association (ICA), as well as the Federation of Straight Chiropractors and Organizations (FSCO) and the World Chiropractic Alliance (WCA).
2. Mixers tend to share the viewpoints found in the American Academy of Chiropractic Physicians, the American Academy of Spine Physicians, and/or the American Chiropractic Association (ACA), and all the major groups in Europe are also members of the European Chiropractors Union.
3. Objective straights tend to share the viewpoints found in the Foundation for the Advancement of Chiropractic Education (F.A.C.E.), the Federation of Straight Chiropractors and Organizations (FSCO) and the World Chiropractic Alliance (WCA).
4. Reformers tend to share the viewpoints found in the National Association for Chiropractic Medicine.

The shared expression is "...tend to share the viewpoints found in..."

The fourth section is the one being questioned, simply because a few chiropractic editors don't like the organization and its philosophy, which are considered heretical in mainstream chiropractic circles. Such hatred of an organization and its POV are not good Wikipedia editorial motivations. That is also the reason the organization is not open about its membership numbers, since such chiropractors risk harassment and threats, yet the organization exists (quietly), has members, and even sympathizers in the scientific arena outside of chiropractic, since it is the only group that openly distances itself from the key unscientific foundational beliefs of traditional chiropractic. Its school of thought is shared by actual members, and by chiropractors who are not members. They exist and that is undeniable, and because the school of thought is so radically different and challenges the very foundations of the profession, it has gained much greater notability than is warranted by the actual numbers of chiropractors who hold it. So in spite of it being a minority position, it is quite significant.

The fourth section's wording has since been changed to something else that is even less satisfactory. The version above maintains a uniform format for all four sections and is worded so as to be undeniable and so much a part of common sense and knowledge as to be an uncontroversial statement that needs no special documentation, in the same sense as stating that most people who speak Norwegian share the same language as citizens of Norway (and making the same type of statement for three other countries). Such statements are simple statements of fact and the uniform format is worded so as to be undeniably true. Now Levine2112 and a couple sympathizers want to wikilawyer in an attempt to remove mention of the organization (and even the fourth category), even though it is notable enough to have its own article at Wikipedia! Should hatred of an organization and the philosophy it represents govern editing here? -- Fyslee/talk 22:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

First, to be clear, I do not have any hatred fror NACM. I honestly never encountered mention of them other than on Wikipedia. I believe this to be so because NACM (if it still exists at all) isn't a very notable organization. I've heard of the ACA, ICA, FSCO, WCA, ECA and even FACE, but never have I heard mention of the NACM. In terms of practice styles, I've heard of straight, mixer and minimally have heard mention of reformers (but really not much at all). So if I was the judge here, I would say that Reformers may slightly pass WP:WEIGHT, but NACM certainly doesn't. But I am not the judge. It is up to reliable sources to provide the weight needed here. Small mentions in articles from over 15 years ago hardly qualifies. My question to Fyslee is: How do you know that this organization still exists, quietly or not? How do you know it hase members, chiropractors or not? I have seen no sources presented which demonstrate this other than the old, old sources and an outdated, crude, one-page website with links to one "hotmail" based email address rather than an email address using its own web address (i.e. It doesn't look very official). So, even though I was the one who originally authored the text which you cite above (Reformers tend to share the viewpoints found in the National Association for Chiropractic Medicine), I have been persuaded that we cannot even say that as we don't have any reliable sources stating that; nor do we have any sources showing the current notability of making such a reference to the NACM. I completely understand your point of view here, but without up-to-date references, we don't know it to be true anymore or very encyclopaedic in terms of weight. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

As a regular contributor to the chiropractic article I also don't feel any "hatred" towards the NACM. I don't get that at all. Levine has captured my sentiments exactly. 15 years ago they were notible, now they seem like a historical footnote. Not anything from them since 1993? Hence my suggestion to place it into the Chiropractic history article. If that equals hatred in Fylsee's book, um, O.K.--Hughgr 03:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not a purely subjective judgment...

"Notability is a subjective judgement based on objective data. The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines."

But it is not a purely subjective judgment, otherwise anything, including a couple of paper scraps written by who-knows-who found on the street saying "I HEART <whatever>!!!! <whatever> RULEZ!!!!!!!!" could be used as "objective evidence". There is, or at least, there must be, a constraint as to how liberal it can get -- otherwise the whole point of Notability is thwarted. mike4ty4 08:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability in the dictionary sense is clearly subjective. Notability in the Wikipedia sense is based on objective evidence, and the key point in the paragraph you cite is to lay out the type of objective evidence that is required. However, as I re-read the paragraph, I think I agree that the wording ought to be improved.--Kubigula (talk) 14:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Like it or not there is much subjectivity in our objectivity. There is no way around it. So why be in denial? --Kevin Murray 17:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I've made my peace with it :). However, I do think the wording could be clearer to discourage ILIKEIT arguments. I'll try to take a crack at it later today.--Kubigula (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

No one is better equipped to make it work. I'm sure you will do a fine job! --Kevin Murray 18:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the sentence serves any useful purpose but as a confusion magnet. Notability is subjective as that term is used vernacularly. Once we have defined a usage of it as meaning "coverage in reliable sources" for purposes of Wikipedia, it is rendered, ipso facto, not a subjective standard. One could properly say that "the basis for defining notability as requiring coverage in reliable sources is subjective" or even that there is sometimes some subjective judgment calls as to what acheives the constituent elements ("what is meant by coverage"?, "what is meant by reliable") but notability, as delimited here, is not subjective; that's the whole point. If it's going to exist under this name, the guideline should expressly state that the use of notability, for purposes of Wikipedia, is not the dictionary definition (which relies on a subjective judgment call), and is thus, pointedly, not subjective as used here. To state it another way, if we called this guideline "encycloclusion", would we need to say "encycloclusion is a subjective judgement based on objective data"? If not, there's not need to treat the word we are using as if it still means something other than that to which is has been defined.--Fuhghettaboutit 20:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed; except that I would say notability, within Wikipedia, means coverage in reliable sources or other evidence defined in the SSGs. I added the subjective/objective sentence as a way to tie together WP:notability and vernacular notability. Kevin previously said I was opening a can of worms, and he was probably right - as are you. I'll remove the can of worms/confusion magnet sentence.--Kubigula (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC) (p.s. Anyone up for moving this page to WP:Encycloclusion?

Ha! Anyway, magnetic worm should not be a source of confusion.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow - I'm impressed you were able to pull out a link relevant to that crazy mix of metaphors.--Kubigula (talk) 02:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I sense that we are drifting back into an old argument over whether Notability in the Wikipedia sense is objective or subjective. I think the idea that Notability is not subjective never achieved consensus, although some argued passionately for this. The judgments over what sources are non-trivial, reliable, relevant, etc. are subjective, so any conclusion drawn from them is ipso facto subjective. The fact that it is not purely subjective does not mean that it is purely objective either. The sentence quoted here was developed as a compromise to address these issues. I don't think it should be removed, because sweeping this under the rug only causes additional confusion. Dhaluza 12:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The old disputed section of the guideline declaring that notability is objective is gone. Whether or not one agrees that notability is subjective or objective, I think we all agree that objective evidence is required. In other words, an editor's personal preference or interest is insufficient - there must be some reliable off-wiki validation or measure of the subject's significance. I had thought that the deleted sentence was a good way to lead to the idea of objective evidence, but I can see how it also leads to confusion - unless one has read all the discussion that got us here. So, I now think the guideline is more useful and less confusing without that sentence, so long as the straightforward assertion of objectivity is also gone.--Kubigula (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review Kari Schull et al

The nominator of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kari Schull|AfD for Kari Schull]] is attempting to overturn the "keep" decision at [deletion review Kari Schull]. This discussion is linked to 3 others the previous day, where the author of the articles is attempting to use the "keep" at Kari Schull to overturn the rejection of his other similar articles. Interesting potential precedents for the application of BIO regarding awards, the defacto primacy of WP:N, for the reform of special case notability criteria in general, or just whether we run this project by WP:ILIKEIT. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 18:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Notability

Do we need another subject specific guideline at Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Notability. Trying to define notability of team sports has been tried at WP:ORG without acceptance, and now is being tried again independently. It seems to be more well intentioned but congestive creep. --Kevin Murray 23:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kevin, yes, we do need guidelines for this subject. WP:ORG is a useful guideline, but it does not address all the issues facing coverage of a topic such as college football.

WP:ORG states that an organization is notable if it attracts non-trivial media reports. All major college football programs would meet this requirement.

However, we also have articles on individual team seasons and individual sporting contests such as bowl games or contests For a few examples, please see 2005 Texas Longhorn football team (a good article), 2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game (another GA article) or Fifth Down. To address topics such as this, members of the wikiproject felt that a guideline would be useful. Johntex\^talk 00:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with it. It generally seems to encourage merging or deletion of permastubs and careful thought before article creation. It might be good, though, to take out some of the "notability by category" stuff. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability of local elections

To what extent are local elections notable enough for separate articles? A discussion of a particular case involving a number of related articles has just been started at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Edmonton Election Pages. DES ^(talk) 21:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Just noting that there is already a section providing guidance on notability of politicians under Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Criteria for notability of people. There is also a rejected notability proposal at Wikipedia:Notability (politicians) with discussion on its talk page which might be illuminating.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

But these are pages, nort on the politicians per se, but on the electiosn themselves -- rather like scorcard or season results pages in some sports. Take a look at the pages linked on the RfC and you will see what I mean. DES ^(talk) 02:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe this is an Emily Litella moment; not sure how my brain read elections as politicians but..."Oh, that's quite different...never mind".--Fuhghettaboutit 12:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's give our power away?

What I rather miss in the guideline is: why do we need notability?

I think: to avoid cluttering the wikipedia with ill-written articles about people's neighbours.

But why would we give our power away via the definition of: reliable sources writing about it? Most journalists turn to wikipedia if they want to know something, it's rather silly to look at the journalists to establish whether we should include anything?

For instance, deletion review of TerrorStorm. I cannot find any video's on video.google which have over a million hits (though I know they must be out there). Isn't it a bit weird to maintain that popularity means nothing?

Wikipedia is access to knowledge. Why deny the world the combined knowledge of the many willing authors by enforcing this guideline so strict? &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 23:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

But this is the point... we are in the business of providing access to knowledge, not of providing new knowledge. -- Visviva 04:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying we should do original research, I am saying we should redefine "notable". There is a sub-culture which is anti-establishment, which I have a gut feeling is "worth taking note of" but which is, necessarily, ignored by that same establishent — and Wikipedia takes the easy way out to just look at the establishment to determine notabilty. Does what I'm saying make sense to you? Within this sub-culture, some things are "notable" and others are "not" -- but wikipedia seems to dismiss the entire thing as unnotable. &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 08:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, if we determine notability based upon popularity and go with all the fads and crazes, then Wikipedia will be just like that, a fad or a craze. Popularity of something flows in and out like the tide, making notability almost impossible to determine. For example, an internet video may hit the 1 million mark in number of hits, but eventually, people will stop watching that video. A city of 1 million doesn't just grow overnight; it takes hundreds of years to make. Second, as with your point of not needing notability, would you ever read an article that talks about Grandma Lucille picking up Little Blue Boy's horn? Its a fictitious story I made up, but without notability, true stories as miniscule as this will wind up here. These would just be wastes of memory that the WikiMedia Foundation has to pay for with your donations. (Also, what proof do you have that most journalists look here for information?) Finally, Wikipedia works by consensus. You can create an article, and consensus (which usually relies upon common sense) will dictate whether that article is notable or not. As with your deletion review, consensus dictated that your article was not notable; thus, it was deleted. Diez2 12:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

WHAT

Sorry but could you explain before you put MY PAGE UP FOR DELETION(Kevin Scarpino)Joe Momma93: Game On 01:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't explain, I see no page by that title, nor has one ever existed (there would still be a deletion log if one had been there and since deleted). Are you sure that's the name you used for the article? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

He's referring to Keven Scarpino--Kubigula (talk) 04:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Lists require notable entries

Currently we have:

• ... lists should only include notable entries; for example, only notable writers should be in List of English writers.

There is a very good reason for this, since lists are notoriously abused for linkspamming and promotion of individuals and other subjects.

While it doesnt't explicitly state it here, I believe a legitimate requirement for proof of notability (and thus eligibility for inclusion in a list) is that the subject has an article here, even if it's a stub. To get that far, the subject must have passed the eligibility requirements, and once "in the door" the path is opened for access to inclusion in lists.

Does this sound like a reasonable requirement? It is just a more explicit statement of what is already between the lines.

I already have been using this with great success at Kanpur, an article that contains several lists. There are still problems with some of them, but my "eligibility requirements" editorial note has weeded out the worst problems in the lists using wikilinked entries:

• <!--- ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS: If they aren't notable enough to have an article here at Wikipedia, they aren't eligible for inclusion here. Only include those with articles, so write the article first. Wikipedia is not to be used for promotion or advertising. -->

Other lists there are an abominable mess. I explain my reasoning in a reply to a question on my talk page:

• .... The purpose of limiting inclusion only to notable persons, institutions, or whatever.... is a matter of principle. That article was at one time filled with numerous listings of unknown persons, businesses, my aunt and her grand-uncle and their pet dogs, etc.... There was absolutely no control over whether the additions were nonsense, vandalism or were worthy and Wiki-legitimate candidates for inclusion. Since Wikipedia forbids such indiscriminate lists (we are being lenient and "looking through our fingers" already), this is the only way to ensure that Wikipedia's list notability requirement for inclusion is met. Even if the article is a stub, the subject can be included. Just do that and there will be no problem. If we once again start allowing red links and unreferenced additions, then we will quickly be back to the chaotic days where this article was as reliable and safe a place as the worst back alley in a Bombay slum market place. Kanpur deserves better and this article is an important "face" for Kanpur to the world.

Can we make an addition to the guideline? My proposal:

• ... lists should only include notable entries; for example, only notable writers should be in List of English writers. The eligibility requirement for inclusion in a list is that the subject has already passed Wikipedia's Notability requirement and has an article here, even if it is just a stub.

How's that sound? -- Fyslee/talk 09:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense to me... there are still a lot of articles that we should have but don't, and one of the great merits of lists is that they can point out where such gaps exist. -- Visviva 10:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand the point, but it ignores the very real problem where lists are abused as repositories for spamming, vandalizing, and promoting. Wikipedia needs to be protected from this, since it is virtually impossible to patrol all these lists and their numerous entries. Do you have a better proposition to prevent abuse of lists? -- Fyslee/talk 10:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The lists of redlinks are very useful for creating articles, so what you propose has unintended consequences, which in my opinion hurts WP more than it helps. In addition to losing the redlinks, this will only encourage people to create more stubs, which will then be nominated for deletion. Unfortunately, there is no substitute for patrolling WP for vandalism and spamming. One thing we can do it to make sure lists have clear guidelines for what gets listed, and where a list entry is controversial, a citation can be added. Dhaluza 10:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh well. We can always require a reference from a V & RS. -- Fyslee/talk 11:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I would only ask for that where a list entry is disputed or likely to be so. To expand on the former point, the number of articles we could or should have far exceeds the number we have, as evidenced by the continued rapid growth in article content (if we were approaching the theoretical maximum, you would expect the growth rate to slow down). We delete articles for reasons other than NN, including WP:COPYVIO and WP:BLP. And of course we have articles we should not, which keeps AfD busy. So, the presence or absence of an article is not a good indicator of the suitability of a subject for a list entry. Also, requiring a reference does not prevent link spam, since the cite can still link to a spam site. Dhaluza 13:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Not only can we require them, but note the existing Wikipedia:List guideline language:

as Wikipedia is optimized for readers over editors, any lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes (such as a list of red link articles needed) should be in project or user space not the main space...Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources.

It goes on to talk about the requirements of NPOV, no original research, verifiability and the necessity of citing to reliable sources.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit, if I understand you correctly, you support the requirement for (at the very least, and probably more...!) proper sourcing of list entries, in keeping with the sourcing requirements for many other bits of information here. I believe that is a sound application of policies and guidelines. In this situation the burden of proof is on the one making the entry, and they should be required to provide proper references when making the entry, not after their possibly dubious entry or spam has wasted the efforts of other editors who finally get around to questioning the legitimacy of their entry.

We can, at the least, make it work by putting teeth into it, and that is done best by including this or similar wording:

• ... lists should only include notable entries; for example, only notable writers should be in List of English writers. The minimum eligibility requirement for inclusion in a list is that the entry be accompanied with a reference from a verifiable and reliable source at the time of submission. Entries lacking references may be deleted on sight. The burden of proof for the legitimacy of an inclusion is always on the one making the submission. Initial fact checking is not the duty of other editors.

This will indeed allow red links, but will prevent additions of frivolous or wishful thinking on the spur of the moment. The one submitting it will have had to check that there is a real chance that their submission really is notable. At present the current wording is little more than so many words; a statement with no consequences or real effect. At present lists are being used as wish lists, rough drafts, scribbling pads, and repositories for spam, promotion, and free advertising. This has got to stop. I believe the proposed wording is in harmony with similar requirements elsewhere. What say ye? -- Fyslee/talk 21:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Obviously have a wikipedia article will be enough. It would be good if having an adequate stub were enough, but these days one can't count on it, stubs being apparently deleted on sight. DGG 23:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Having an article would be good enough, unless of course it is subsequently deleted. The problem of spamming and "everyone and his dog" on lists is indeed a major one. If a sourced article does not exist on the subject already, the addition on the list should be sourced to a reliable source that shows the subject, first, does indeed meet the criteria for being on the list, and second, is very likely to have an article written about it someday even if it doesn't now. We don't need a bunch of "lol sounds like my cousin George I'll put him on the list too." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

And so I think we all agree. There are some very heavily spammed pages where the consensus seems to be that only those with an article go on a list. That may be a practical solution when desperate. DGG 03:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I like Fyslee's proposed language, which is nicely consistent with WP:LIST. There are certainly some lists that should be limited to those with an article. However, many lists also work nicely as collections of blurbs/stubs that may or may not be sufficiently independently notable for a separate article. I've also seen several AfDs end with merges to a list. In such cases, the list serves as a good holding place for the information, which may ultimately be spun off into an article if there is sufficient content and notability.--Kubigula (talk) 04:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Responding to Fyslee, indeed, I do. However, I don't know that notability as we use it here works well with lists and I think existing policies and guidelines may be enough, though tightening up the language may be in order. Many list entries may well not be notable enough for an article, or otherwise are inappropriate for an article but still work when they are source(ed/able) and thus verifiable entries.

Take as an example List of words having different meanings in British and American English. We don't want articles ever on many of these (dicdefs), but they are perfectly fine as list items (though that article needs sourcing). Or take one of the many "lists of minor/major character in _____." Consensus at afd is often to merge articles on characters into such lists (as recommended at WP:FICTION). We thus treat lists as notable articles as they exist in indivisible form; it is the list, as a whole, that is notable, and we implicitly sanction entries to that list that we feel are not notable enough for an autonomous article. We cannot then say that each entry to a list must be notable without making a qualified definition of notability for purposes of list items—what a slippery slope that would be.

The problem comes when entries which are fine as list items but should never have articles or it is very unlikely that a solo article could be notable, are inappropriately red-linked, thus inviting creation of the article we don't want. That distinction should be made crystal clear. So while I agree that items should be sourced, that they can be removed if not, burden of proof..., verifiability, reliable sources, etc. I do not think we can apply notability to determine inclusion of a list's constituent elements, and for that very reason, i.e. that lists often contain proper entries that are not notable enough for stand alone articles, we need to make it clear that if that is the case, a red link should not be made. Some language that could be modified to wrok with this issue is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages):

Links to non-existent articles ("redlinks") may be included only when an editor is confident that an encyclopedia article could be written on the subject...Adding links to articles not yet written should be done with care. There is no need to brainstorm all occurrences of the page title and create redlinks to articles that are unlikely ever to be written, or likely to be removed as insufficiently notable topics.

--Fuhghettaboutit 04:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Why this request?

My original concerns still stand (and seem to be even more endangered now):

1. How do we tighten up security on lists?
2. How to we remove the current responsibility for fact checking placed on the shoulders of innocent Wikipedians by idiots and vandals?
3. How do we make sure that we don't waste anymore time on these matters?

We do it by ensuring that the default guideline places the burden of proof squarely on the one making the entry.

The removal of the original wording (see below) now creates an even worse situation which could create so many more and greater problems that a total ban on many lists may be the only way to prevent wasting thousands of manhours. We are dealing with public trash receptacles with large openings. We need to keep them, but put a lid on them, and only allow their opening when they are opened with a key (referenced reliable sources) that is available to anyone. Then anyone who looks at the list and sees an entry that is not accompanied with a ref can immediately delete it without having to fact check.

There are certainly lists that are exceptions to the above situation, but let's define the differences and make provisions for protecting the majority of lists which are so vulnerable.

To see what type of problem I'm talking about, take a look at Kanpur. It has lists with wikilinks to articles. It also has a list without wikilinks that is practically impossible to fact check, and is obviously a mixed bag of good and bad. -- Fyslee/talk 18:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability in embedded lists

Partially crossposted from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists#Inclusion in embedded lists: notability

The discussion here seems to concern stand-alone lists. Wikipedia also has scores of embedded lists that include a criterion, implicitly or explicitly, of notability. "Notable residents", "notable alumni", and "notable contributors" are typical examples. My feeling with these is that they should mostly be limited to links to existing articles because those have proven notability. Red links should be to topics that meet our criteria for notability and that "should" exist. In those instances an additional external link to a reliable source establishing notability is helpful and may prevent an otherwise obscure name from being deleted. However if an editor objects to the inclusion of a red link then the best answer is to create an article on the topic rather than to keep re-inserting a red link that goes nowhere. I suppose that on lists where notability is not even implictly one of the criteria then simply including the name without linking it would be the best approach. For example, a list of schools in a school district might list, but not link, elementary schools while red-linking high schools (assuming one believes high schools are notable while elementary schools are not). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

As a practical matter I agree here. This is by far the best way to avoid continual fighting over individual edits. Telling someone to go write an article is the way. (I see that many people when deleting an article also remove the name from such lists, & I follow their example) This should be the standard definition of notable in such embedded lists. DGG 00:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Lists

By contrast, lists should only include notable entries; for example, only notable writers should be in List of English writers.

This sentence is somewhat problematic. It's true in most instances, but there are exceptions where non-notable items are appropriately listed—for example a list of the tallest buildings in a city that includes a few anonymous office blocks around the bottom. Can anyone think of a better way to qualify this?--Pharos 06:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

This line has had me thinking further on the subject, and I believe we are really dealing with two types of lists. Please see Wikipedia talk:List guideline#Two types of lists. Thanks.--Pharos 22:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

There is some thoughtful discussion of the issues higher up on this talk page in this section and its subsections: Lists require notable entries. Please see also the top sections of my user page: User:Timeshifter. --Timeshifter 10:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Lists removed

I didn't realize it had been actually added; thought it was under discussion. Please see what I wrote above. In short, the following is is a non sequitur: "entries in List of minor characters in Judge Dredd must be notable." Any other minor character list results in the same absurdity. None of the minor character in Judge Dredd are notable by themselves. Similiar problems appear for other types of lists: List of Airwolf episodes (I doubt any episode has enough reliable sources significantly treating it to write a stand alone article, much less reach a notability benchmark; doesn't the proposed entry perforce mean every episode list itself must be deleted?). There are many other examples. List of Ben & Jerry's flavors? You see what I mean.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Your deletion of long-standing content is problematic as it has been applied many times in practice, and it is under discussion above because it is too weak (not too strong). Please restore it while we discuss whether to strengthen it or leave it as it is. -- Fyslee/talk 18:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Practically speaking, the statement that Fuhgettaboutit removed has never been followed in practice. I think the thing to do is to follow the language of WP:LIST, and I have added a blurb to that effect.--Kubigula (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed it because it is only tangentially related to the subject at hand, and does not belong here. If we added redundant notes about every related thing, this guideline would become hopelessly bloated. WP:LIST can stand on its own, without being propped up here. Dhaluza 01:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, and it's always a bit dangerous to paraphrase a guideline as that content could change. However, I think the notability of items on a list comes up often enough that we can at least name drop it along with RS and TRIVIA. Frankly, I think it's a more common issue than trivia.--Kubigula (talk) 03:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Responding to Fyslee. First, it is not long standing content. It was added on April 17 2007 by one user, as far as I can tell without discussion [6]. More importantly, when something simply does not make sense, its immediate removal is not only warranted but necessary. I have yet to hear anyone address the issues I have raised and, at least as the overarching language existed, I think my reasoning is well nigh unassailable. I hate repeating but given the lack of discussion, to sum up:

• It is long-standing practice to treat list articles as notable as they exist in indivisible form, but specifically sanction entries that are not notable as we define it here, i.e., significant coverage in reliable sources (personally, I still object to the removal of "multiple" from that standard but that's another topic). Note that this does not mean the content is exempt from the requirement that it be verified through reliable sources, that it must not be original research, etc., as all content is subject to and as is already explained at WP:LIST).
• In this regard, it is long-standing and common practice at afd to merge content that is verifiable but not notable enough for a stand alone article into a list entry.
• There are broad classes of lists, encompassing numerous articles the sole content of which is of this nature. To wit, every or most articles in the class "list of minor characters in _____"; by this Google search, about 100 articles[7] presently.
• The same is true of many articles in the form "list of characters in ___", "list of major characters in ____" as well as the numerous television episode list articles and a bit of searching and reflection would turn up other article "classes";
• There are also numerous sui generis articles which result in an absurdity when we attempt to apply the language I removed (I previously mentioned List of Ben & Jerry's flavors as an example of this).
• While I understand that this is a more prominent place to list list standards, the real problem is in enforcement; the problems identified thus far for lists are covered by WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NOT etc. While I hate when that same argument is made against notability in general and I see the flaw, we can't go ahead with trying to throw in lists, when it's pretty clear we have a round peg, square hole problem in doing so.
• I am not discounting that it's possible notability can be made to cover some classes of lists, but we would need to carefully draft narrowly-tailored language so that it only covers relevant lists and does not rope in all the articles I have (and have not) mentioned for which it doesn't work; List of English writers should only include notable writers—that is not a license to leave in what was an absurdly overbroad one-liner that worked for that article but did not and could not work across countless list articles to which it was also made applicable.

So, can you address the issue head on instead of posting prescriptive pronunciamentos?--Fuhghettaboutit 00:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Visual Arts Notability

This seems to be the only category of creative individuals missing. It would be nice to have a guideline regarding print, paint, sculpture, mixed media, and digital visual arts. William (Bill) Bean 16:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point. And especially for contemporary artists, since there we have the significant issue of vanity articles.--Pharos 01:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Reliable or Reputable

from www.m-w.com

reputable

1 : enjoying good repute : held in esteem

2 : employed widely or sanctioned by good writers

reliable

1 : suitable or fit to be relied on : DEPENDABLE

2 : giving the same result on successive trials

Regarding suitable sources for demonstrating notability, WP:N has an overemphasis on “reliable” versus “reputable”. “Reliable” is a good quality for a primary source, whereas “reputable” is a better quality for a secondary source. Reliability is important for verifiability, for establishing the truth of a fact. I see WP:N as relying less on WP:V and more on WP:NOR, where a reputable source is more important than a reliable source. Note the prominence given to reputable sources at WP:NOR.

Notability is established by commentary, or coverage, from a reputable source, such as an independently published book or a competitive newspaper. Notability is not established by commentary, or coverage, from a non-reputable source, such as a blog, a self published book, or volunteer run student newspaper. --SmokeyJoe 01:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability as encyclopedic

The 5 pillars starts with "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs". It seems to me that we do not give anything like enough emphasis to this and as result keep trying to reinvent the wheel. Notability should start with the view that anything that is in a general encyclopedia, a specialized encyclopedia or an almanac could have an article in Wikipedia. Furthermore, we should be able to argue that where a topic is too new to appear in a particular encyclopedia (I'm thinking of specialist ones here) it should be notable if it meets any stated guidelines of inclusion for that encyclopedia. We may not have experts to decide inclusion of topics, but there is no reason why we should not take advantage of them in other projects. Of course, this will not answer all questions about inclusion, but it will answer a lot. Why do we not see arguments at AfD like "This topic has an article in Encyclopedia XYZ" or "This topic would meet the guidelines for inclusion in Encyclopedia XYZ, but is too recent for it to have been included there". I think something on this should be right near the top of this guideline. --Bduke 01:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree. I daresay that anything covered by a (another) reputable encyclopaedia should be covered by wikipedia. --SmokeyJoe 01:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems perfectly obvious to me as well. Unfortunately our definition of notability is still based on sourcing, and we cannot copy or even base our articles on these sources. But if someone tries to make an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument cloaked in a robe of Notability, this is a completely valid way to strip it away. Dhaluza 02:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I agree in principle but isn't this a solution in search of a problem? I'm wondering because I can't remember the last afd where this could have spoken to the issue. I would dare say that a good percentage of the articles in other encyclopediae are already represented in Wikipedia and very few have been taken to afd because most traditional encyclopedia topics are no-brainers when it comes to notability. I'm not sure of this but that's my feeling (I think it would be very interesting to actually do such a topic coverage comparison against a well known encyclopedia).--Fuhghettaboutit 02:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the quote I started with included "specialised encyclopedias" as well. Some of these are very specialised indeed (and certainly not well known although reputable), such as the Encyclopedia of Computational Chemistry that I would use as a guide for articles, but it is far too expensive to buy and most libraries do not have it either for that reason. I do not think we cover all of the topics in specialised encyclopedias although we might cover all the topics now in Britanica. --Bduke 12:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I remember this AfD where a 19th century Encyclopedia was used to shoot down a foolish nomination. Dhaluza 12:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

And similarly we have been accepting publication in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography as notable. We could certainly say that being the subject of an article in the Brittanica, the DONB, and similar encyclopedia is conclusive evidence for notability, and that specialized encyclopedias might be depending on the situation. I'm not sure what other encyclopedias need to be written in as automatic--I would oppose making a long list , because then it might be implied: only these. DGG 19:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The quote I started this off with, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs", does not pick and choose which encyclopedias, although it does say "incorporating elements of". If we need to pick and choose, then I think that phrase in Wikipedia:Five pillars needs modification. However, I would prefer to use all encyclopedias as a starting point for determining inclusion of a topic, until such time as someone challenges one at AfD and a consensus agrees with the challenge. Consider also that this is only saying the topic could have an article. To write it we need verifiable reliable sources, and if the encyclopedia is not worthy we might find difficulty in finding such sources and that would lead to deletion of the article. --Bduke 23:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales' claimed goal contradicted by this page

"The sum of all human knowledge" includes, by definition, all knowledge both notable and non-notable that our race has compiled, defined, understood, etc. Deletion of a page due to it not being notable enough is therefore contradicted by Wales' statement. Therefore, either he needs to change what he claims he wants, or the focus of the site needs to come into line with it, in turn. --Chr.K. 20:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that's a simplification, right? Unorganized, unfiltered, data is just noise. Knowledge is more than data. There are a few organizations that do their best to gather all the world's web pages in one form or another; one is called Google, another is called the Internet Archive, there are probably more. That's certainly part of "all human knowledge" by your definition, but not by ours: we aren't going to put every scrap into the Wikipedia, we are going to be selective. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Indiscriminate information does not equate to knowledge. Moreschi ^Talk 21:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The information is organize and filtered, and if it were not deleted by [...] it would be organized even more.Litch 16:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Chr.K. said we should set the bar lower than "knowledge" which is what the two replies refer to. He specifically addressed "non-notable knowledge" which may seem like an oxymoron, but it does raise a valid point. What should we do with knowledge of questionable notablity? Should we delete or keep in case of reasonable doubt? Dhaluza 22:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

We discuss it. Sometimes it turns out that the subject really is a notable and appropriate one, and we keep it. Sometimes it turns out it's not notable, and there's little or no source material available for an article, so we can't have that article. That doesn't always work (I've seen some pretty crufty, unsourceable stuff kept and some that I thought were pretty valid deleted), but I know of no better way to do it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be it wasn't knowledge of questionable notability Chr.K. was referring to, but knowledge of no notability. IvoShandor 22:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

How does The Simpsons contribute to "The sum of all human knowledge"? Notable yes, Knowledge... Probably not. Jeepday (talk) 23:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I rarely see notability discossed or if discussed, discussed for more than a day or two when it gets delete and then all discussion of notability is also erasedLitch 16:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

For the definition of WP:NOTE<-- click here.

Seraphimblade said it best:

   I've seen some pretty crufty, unsourceable stuff kept and some that I 
   thought were pretty valid deleted 

Sure, that's not the complete quote, but the point is: so have I. So have several journalists, commentators, and WP pundits. WP:Note is indeed the source of much ridicule and inconsistency, at least in its application. I and others have lamented this easily-recognized fact.

Even though Seraphimblade disagreed with me (and others) (see e.g., Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_14#Notability_Should_Be_Removed see also Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_14#Wikipedia:Notability_.2AAbolish_It.2A), even he acknowledges there are flaws. Given that even very credible proponents of this policy readily acknowledge this undesirable circumstance, it's definitely pause for thought. dr.ef.tymac 01:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems I'm not the only person to argue that "notability" is a card that should be used very infrequently -- if at all. In particular, it seems to be a "shadow tool" used by people who desire power to limit knowledge flows.134.53.222.210 23:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Abolish the Notability Guidline

There is no justification for continually and repeatedly deleting attempted contributions to this body of knowledge on subjects that some small minority consider insignificant. It is inherently contradictory to the spirit of wikipedia & makes no sense in a world where longterm memory is as cheap as it is. The ONLY downside to having material that isn't absolutely essential is that it increases search time and that's rectifiable without destroying knowledge.

Particularly when the subject of an article is an individual, claiming they are insignificant is simply insulting and plays entirely into celebrity culture. Litch 16:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly concur and agree 100% - nay, 1,000,000%. This whole guideline is insane! Angie Y. 19:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

"There is no justification for continually and repeatedly deleting attempted contributions to this body of knowledge on subjects that some small minority consider insignificant." Have you actually read the guideline? It wouldn't seem so if you can say this. This is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source which synthesizes primary and secondary sources; the dictionary entry for encyclopedia really doesn't mention myspace. "It is inherently contradictory to the spirit of wikipedia" May I assume you are then pounding that tired, superficial argument that the sum of human knowledge must perforce include anything anyone wants to write down? "the ONLY downside to having material that isn't absolutely essential is that it increases search time and that's rectifiable without destroying knowledge." Please read WP:NOT WP:V, WP:NOR for a start. I continue to be amazed that people have the balls to post screeds on a topic when it is clear they have done little or no reading and analysis of the topic they are attacking.--Fuhghettaboutit 20:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Quite right. I can think of several "downsides" to having unchecked contributions of dubious merit...the policies linked to by Fuhghettaboutit (plus WP:BLP) make the case clear that not everything is encylopedically relevant. This guideline provides a high-pass filter of sorts to deal with such issues. — Scientizzle 20:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Well said. Inclusionism is just as dangeorus as deletionism; both are simpleton extremes (just like real-life politics). — Deckiller 21:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I continue to be amazed that people have the balls to post screeds on a topic when it is clear they have done little or no reading ... the same holds for people who have done little or no reading of the numerous well-reasoned and logically consistent criticisms of WP:NOTE, (both in terms of the fundamental policy, and in terms of its practical application) by people who are very familiar with the precise terms of WP policy (and even contributed to and corrected mistakes in therein, in some cases). Sure, there are some people who comment without a detailed understanding of the issues, but if anyone asserts that all people who have spoken unfavorably of WP:NOTE are ill-informed and ignorant, or indiscriminate inclusionists, that's just intellectually naive and a gross oversimplification. dr.ef.tymac 00:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be responding to a comment that does not exist. We do not have here a well-reasoned criticism of this guideline; no one was responding to a well-reasoned criticism of this guideline; your comment is not relevant. —Centrx→talk • 05:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. The fact is that Notability is objective, not subjective. I don't get how it could be subjective, because we are a tertiary source, so secondary sources are important in some way or another. Notability is necessary, especially for main articles (and a similar standard should be given to subarticles, namely for fiction). — Deckiller 05:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, nail on head. I said and implied no such thing and while it is clear that that comment comes from someone who hasn't read policy or arguments both pro and con, you have no such indication that I am on the flip side of that coin. In fact I have read a great deal of the [reasoned] arguments against notability and reject them as unsound, unpracticle and at this point, unrealistic given the reality on the ground.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

@Centrx "You seem to be responding to a comment that does not exist" ... And you seem to be *ignoring* numerous comments that *do* exist. That's precisely my point. The discussion of this policy extends far beyond the confines of this individual discussion thread. Indeed, this very policy (at least in its application) has been trounced repeatedly under mainstream scholarly and journalistic critique. Even respectable and experienced proponents of this policy acknowledge there are critical flaws. I won't bother to cite them all here, since there's reason to believe the people who want to ignore certain points will ignore them regardless of how many times they are repeated, copied, pasted and reiterated. dr.ef.tymac 17:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the person talking about posting an uninformed screed was talking about the original post in this section, not about weeks- or months-old comments elsewhere that merely "exist" and happen to hold the same conclusion. —Centrx→talk • 17:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, there's more to the matter than this single discussion thread. 1 + 1 = 2. It's a well-established conclusion of basic arithmetic. Just because it's a conclusion not mentioned in this thread, and just because it's a conclusion older than a "few months" does not render it "irrelevant" or "invalid" ... you and others are free to ignore it or deny it ... but that's a matter of personal preference. Some people prefer expressions of historical context, logical consistency, and thorough research over statements of purely personal preference. Some don't, but others do. dr.ef.tymac 18:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Libraries are filled with esoteric books no one has ever read. Many of them will probably never be read. Certainly, most of them that will be read will only be read by a very small number of people. We don't toss them about because of this. Libraries are depositories of knowledge and knowledge has a psuedo-sacred status among intellectuals. To argue that non-notable articles are just noise and useless data creates an artificial dichotomy. Especially in light of the apparent hypocrisy in deletion. Many widely read webcomics have had their articles deleted because of a lack of secondary sources writing about them. At the same time we have a complete list of Star Trek episodes which are referenced in many places. Certainly not all articles are appropriate for Wikipedia. No one is here to argue there should endless articles containing only statistics and survey results. This is an encyclopedia and that kind of content is not relevant for an encyclopedia. However, many appropriate articles are being deleted because they do not meet notability requirements despite meeting every other guideline. --Eli Bronson 9:18, 4 July 2007 PST

Which articles meet "every other guideline", but fail Notability? I'm curious as to which articles meet every policy, but fail the notability guideline.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with your question is that it assumes that WP:NOTE (at least in its application, if not its express terms) is logically consistent to begin with. As Eli Bronson and numerous others have already said, there is a gaping deficiency in the area of logical consistency ... there's an artificial dichotomy here because the "rules" keep changing based on whim and speculation, all under the guise of WP:NOTE enforcement. As another WP contributor once opined:

   I've seen some pretty crufty, unsourceable stuff kept and some that I 
   thought were pretty valid deleted 

That's the sad fact in a nutshell. dr.ef.tymac 17:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no problem with the question, it's quite basic. Please don't put words in my mouth, that isn't very nice. I never made any form of assumption to that degree, I just asked a question. The opinion was that there are articles that fail the notability guideline, but none others. So I asked which ones they were, as I'd like to see them. The second part of my question is, what about ones that fail notability, but pass all policies, as I'd like to see that as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not putting words in your mouth (or your keyboard). The concept of "meeting the notability guideline" is either well-defined and falsifiable or it isn't. If it is, then your question is indeed very basic. If it isn't (and there is credible evidence supporting that it isn't) then the question is (IMHO) not as simple as it seems. If you think the question is as easy as falling off a log, you're free to go on thinking that. I have my opinions, other people have theirs, you're entitled to yours. I never claimed to represent your viewpoints, only my own. dr.ef.tymac 22:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No, what you are missing is the point of the question. If, by answering my simple question one cannot provide an article that meets all other guidelines and all policies (it was a two part question, because if you fail policy then you have a bigger issue at hand), then it shows there is nothing wrong with the notability guideline. If, one can provide those things, then it shows the problems with this guideline. Simple as that. If you meet every other guideline and policy, you are surely going to establish some form of notability doing so. The truth is, when you fail notability guidelines, you are probably going to fail other guidelines and policies.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, you've yet to assert any point subtle enough to be missed. The logical progression of your statements seems to presume that "meeting a policy or guideline" is some kind of unambiguous diagnostic test that can resolved and universally agreed-upon by direct experimentation. The bottom line is, if someone wants to contest an article on the grounds of WP:NOTE, nothing is to prevent them from asserting it is also deficient on the grounds of WP:RS, WP:SOAP, WP:NOT, or any of various other policies or guidelines they may want to invoke to bolster their viewpoint. People can dispute content for all sorts of reasons, many of which can even be contradictory and logically inconsistent.

Indeed, as I've repeated numerous times now, that's the very reason why WP:NOTE (at least in its practical application) is so critically flawed and easily discredited. Because:

   I've seen some pretty crufty, unsourceable stuff kept and some that I 
   thought were pretty valid deleted 

Many impartial and experienced WP contributors can relate to this statement. No amount of over-simplified questioning will ever dispel this fact. dr.ef.tymac 22:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It's called correlation. I didn't say it was causation. I didn't say that one causes the other, I simply said that when you find one that doesn't meet WP:NOTE, you usually find that it fails others. You still haven't done what I've asked, and that was provide me with articles that do the things that were said. You are mistaking a flaw in the guideline for what is really a flaw in the actions against articles. This, "I've seen some pretty crufty, unsourceable stuff kept and some that I thought were pretty valid deleted" is in the handling. There is what, almost 2 million articles on Wikipedia. I watch maybe 100. That's .005% of all articles. You better believe there is going to be some (probably many) articles that are still around, that are unsourced and crufty and need to go. Here's a thought, if you come across them, prod them, or AfD them, or clean them up. Complaining that the guideline is flawed because the article exists is just not even right. It's the lax efforts of editors not taking care of the articles (whether that's clean/delete/merge or whatever) that is the problem. I agree, we have a lot of hypocritical editors out there who will nominate one thing for deletion, but turn around and vote to keep something completely different but in the same boat as the other article when it comes to notability, or sourcing or whatever the case may be. The flaw is in the "open encyclopedia" system. I'm not advocating the change there, because it's as much a gift as it is a curse.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

when you find one that doesn't meet WP:NOTE, you usually find that it fails others

When you find that someone is a victim of violent crime, you usually find that the perpetrator has some excuse or justification for why the victim deserved what he or she got anyway. Sometimes it might actually be true, but then again, there just *might* be some bias.

This doesn't even make sense. What that should say is, "when you find someone that has committed one violent crime, you can usually find that they have committed other violent crimes". Which, you run the risk of finding that person that commits their first truly violent crime, thus the analogy kind of doesn't work at all.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The analogy works just dandy for me: 1) Perpetrator = person who unjustifiably AfD's an article using WP:N as the primary excuse. 2) Victim = the article itself and anyone who could have used it. 3) Perpetrator rationalization = The article was bad for other reasons as well anyway. ... This kind of thing happens all-the-time. Of course, no one can force something to make sense to someone if they simply refuse to admit there are alternate ways of interpreting things. dr.ef.tymac 03:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Complaining that the guideline is flawed because the article exists is just not even right

Well, looks like we agree on that. The problem is, some people don't even recognize there is a disease or a "flaw" to begin with. Sometimes you have to point to the symptoms before people will even want to talk about a "cure".

I have already discussed elsewhere (in laborious detail) why some criticism of WP:N (both in terms of the policy itself, and its inconsistent application) has merit. Sure, people should chip in and help out instead of solely complaining about the problems. I'm not perfect, but I try to do just that. I don't even really mind the so-called "hypocrites" out there, because people are people. The point is, a thorough and well-reasoned critique is sometimes appropriate to get people thinking. Many have offered such critiques against WP:N. All I hope is for people to come to the table with their thinking caps on and to consider, to the extent they can, new ways of considering things. That way, everybody has an opportunity to learn. dr.ef.tymac 00:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

What are the criticisms of WP:NOTE? That someone's articles was deleted because they didn't provide the requisite information? OK. Um, that's happened to me before (currently happening again to 5 film articles I created about a year ago and never came back to, I'm not fighting it..I know where the real world info is, I just don't have time to work on it at the moment). That idea seems more like people are taking Wikipedia a bit too seriously. No one owns any article. At least, that seems to be the "critique" that I most commonly come across when it is in regards to any policy or guideline, that is usually starts with someone who feels insulted because their "hard work" was deleted. The other "criticisms" that you linked to above, occurred about a month ago, and appears to be more of people who didn't think the discussion was closed and decided to continue it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty simple, assume for a moment that it is possible to consider WP:N and all other WP policy and guidelines without reference to any pre-existing or pending dispute ... it can be demonstrated that WP:N (in fundamental terms) is superfluous. One problem is, very few people have the time and the inclination to read through all the explanation and discussion. It gets difficult to distinguish the "well-reasoned critique" from the "personal views" ... there are plenty 'non-emotional' criticisms, however, forwarded by people who had no stake in any pending or pre-existing dispute over any specific article. dr.ef.tymac 00:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

In what ways? Eventually, you could boil every policy and guideline down to some basic elements. They are there because people would take advantage of them, because of their lack of explaination. Someone says "what should be an article?"...well there isn't a policy that explains that. There are policies about what Wiki is not, but not "What can be on Wiki" (er...if you are going on the reasoning that WP:NOTE doesn't exist). The idea of NOTE is about explaining what should and should not be in an encyclopedia. It's impossible to "list" everything, so that someone could go check a list and see if it's ok for them to create an article on something. That is the principle of the guideline. To try and help give an understanding of how one should tackle the idea of "What should have an article". Otherwise, one would assume that if you had some sources, you could write about anything. For instances, I could create an article about myself by just following RS and V policies. I can find newspaper articles that mentioned me. Those are reliable sources. Should I have my own article? No, because there isn't significant coverage of me beyond some silly mentioning in local newspapers. So, fundamentally, WP:N isn't superfluous. It's fundamentals are based on the idea that Wikipedia needs to have some form of guideline for articles to prove they deserve to be mentioned in an encyclopedia.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Specify an example of something that should not be in WP that cannot already be adequately handled by WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:SOAP and core policy. I've already heard the example you just gave (numerous times), and no one needs to rely on WP:N for that. The cookie-cutter justifications simply don't stand up to serious scrutiny. This seems to be one reason why people chime in with glib and painfully obvious aphorisms like "WP is not the internet!" ... as if that's contributing a "noteworthy" viewpoint the discussion ... *oy* the irony ... dr.ef.tymac 03:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I believe the burden of proof lies with those that wish to denounce something. I'm not going to go searching through 2 million articles to find an article that way, because I've already stated previously, that if it doesn't meet notability requirements then it probably fails others. But, there is a difference between failing many guidelines and policies, and satisfying everything but the notability guideline. You are trying to take something and invert the meaning to apply it to your argument, when it isn't equivalent. The reason it doesn't work is because articles that do not assert notability generally have other problems, but articles that meet every guideline and policy that is not the notability guideline, will in effect "meet" the notability guideline. But, just to humor you any film article that is nothing but a plot. Now, here's the catch. The information that is in the plot is very limited, limited to the point that there it is in no way near what would be considered part of the "Wiki is not a plot summary" or come close to breaking copyright laws. The articles has an infobox, with no image (to avoid copyright laws again) but has the information about the cast and crew filled out. That would would be verifiable in the idea that everything on it would be based on the primary source, which is the film itself (i.e. one can easily verify an actor in a film). Now, there is nothing else on the page. It meets the verifiability policy, and doesn't venture into "What Wiki is not" territory, but it hasn't established any form of notability either. It's just a film title, a synopsis and the crew members' names. Basically what one could find on IMDb.com. Now, it fails other guidelines, but generally the manual of style guidelines and nothing says it should be removed from Wikipedia, except of course the notability guideline. Why? Because at the moment it would contain no encyclopedic information, at least not anything more than can be found on IMDb.com or a fansite. So what would be the point of having that article? You could say "someone could expand it," but what if the film could never be expanded. What if the film was never written about. It went straight to DVD, and no one could tell you that it ever existed (beyond IMDb, which seems to keep track of every lowrent movie that ever came to be), no third party reliable sources that is.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• There is already a resource for articles without notability, it is called the internet you can search it with Google and find pretty much any unreferenced and un-notable topic you would like. I beleive Wikipedia is attempting to provide a slightly different resources. Jeepday (talk) 02:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Intersting case for WP:N: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Knight

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Knight in my opinion is an interesting borderline case of whether an event is notable, or whether all the sources are just a “burst of news reports”. Is this an article that fails no wikipedia policy/guideline other than WP:N? Should it fail WP:N? What do others think? --SmokeyJoe 06:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Personally, I think Notability is not temporary pretty much sums it up. Wikipedia isn't a source for hot news topics (while Wikinews is). When I consider an article for deletion about a recent event, I ask myself a few questions:

1. What is the likelihood that someone would want to look $TOPIC up in an encyclopedia?
2. What is that same likelihood, but ten years from now?
3. Is the news coverage, however currently vast and reliable, likely to persist beyond one year?

This gives me a good gauge. Remember that a topic might achieve notability from another angle independently of its current news coverage. I'm only talking about "is the current coverage sufficient to establish notability". — Coren ^(talk) 22:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"I ask myself a few questions" ... and people wonder why WP:NOTE is roundly ridiculed and so quickly discredited by informed and astute commentators. This kind of "personal inquiry" may be a "good gauge" for someone personally ... but how is this approach *not* a violation of WP:OR? It seems to be *exactly* the kind of speculation and conjecture that WP contributors are not supposed to be engaging in. Not a single one of these questions can be conclusively answered without a crystal ball (which is well-known to be prohibited under WP:NOT#CBALL).

The same kind of "good gauge" approach was applied to James Kim ... leading some to propose its deletion. Then, lo and behold, the news coverage won a Pulitzer Prize[8] ... is there a "good gauge" that WP contributors can apply to predict something like that? Obviously, no. Is there a reason to question the credibility of "good gauge rule-of-thumb off-the-cuff speculation"? ... equally obviously, YES. This is why the application of WP:NOTE is so throroughly and clearly discredited time after time after time. dr.ef.tymac 17:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually, that pretty much is my point. Whether something will become notable or not cannot be guessed, so it has to be judged on its current merits alone. James Kim is a very good example of what I was saying. Notability can be established by other means than direct news coverage of the moment. — Coren ^(talk) 19:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you not see the logical flaw in the reasoning you've forwarded here? If something is the subject of "direct news coverage of the moment" AND that "direct news coverage" is of such sterling quality as to merit a Pulitzer Prize (to be awarded at some later date) then what you are implying is that even topics of Pulitzer-quality journalism can be removed from WP on the grounds of WP:NOTE, simply if the prize itself has not yet been awarded. Considering that the *vast* majority of WP articles do not even reach "good article" status (let alone touch on matters that gain the most prestigious form of recognition available outside WP) this haphazard, inconsistent and capricious pattern of "guesswork" (Hmmm ... will people care ten years from now? Will a meteor fall out of the sky? ... Is this truly quality content that I simply cannot recognize because I am not a professional journalist?) is absurd, profoundly and deplorably absurd, and a serious detriment to the credibility of WP. dr.ef.tymac 21:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This S*xx!

OK, I've been nagging against WP:TRIVIA as a negative criterion, while i instead propone coherency as a positive criterion which will achieve about the same thing, when combined with some garbage collection, but this policy is much worse than TRIVIA. Who decides non-notability? The despisers of a genre? OK, then we can have a war between the affiniados of punk v.s the affiniados of synth music. This idiotic (impoliteness intended!) policy is a flame bait for conflicts! Do we actually need wiki-wars?? Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 09:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Read it over. Notability, basically, is mostly objective. It's all about reliable and independent secondary sources. Individual editors sometimes do let personal preference color their judgment (especially when the sources are just borderline enough, or just few enough), but that's why we have a process of consensus. There's always going to be a fuzzy gray area of marginal notability that ends up swinging one way or another more or less subjectively, but without the policy we'd end up with articles on every flavor of ice cream, every single wannabe author, musician or performer singing their own praise, and marketeers churning out page after page of crap on every single product, dream or entrepreneur out there. — Coren ^(talk) 22:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"Notability, basically, is mostly objective. It's all about reliable and independent secondary sources" ... respectfully, this just gets more and more surreal. The very reason WP:RS has not been elevated to the status of "policy" (instead of just "guideline") is because what constitutes a "reliable source" is subject to considerable dispute. Calling notability "mostly objective" (especially as it is substantiated in the AfD discussions) is beyond surreal. dr.ef.tymac 17:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way:

• every single wannabe author;
• musician or performer singing their own praise;
• all marketeers churning out page after page of crap; and
• every single product, dream or entrepreneur out there ...

Can *all* be readily (and more objectively) dismissed on the grounds of WP:NOT#PUBLISHER, WP:SOAP, WP:NOT#MYSPACE, and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Moreover, *all* of these point to official policy (not just "guideline"). Also, WP:COI helps round out the bunch quite nicely. Not a single reference to WP:NOTE is required to effectively deal with the situations you've enumerated. dr.ef.tymac 18:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Software

Is there a notability guideline for software? Corvus cornix 17:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOFTWARE is tagged historical. — Scientizzle 18:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, that sucks.  :) thanks, tizzle. Corvus cornix 18:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Towards a definition of notability, for Wikipedia purposes

Given that notability is presently part of Wikipedia (referenced in policy, used in debate), this is a move towards attempting a better description of what we mean by the concept (at least, in the manner used in Wikipedia discussions). I've approached this question as follows:

Overview of notability Notability is a subjective decision formed by consensus of editors when they try to characterize human knowledge and history of a subject or field, in a balanced manner. A view or fact is generally considered notable if it is potentially information of value or interest in some way to a significant number of people, or to some perspective, or its omission would leave a significant gap in historical human knowledge of a subject. Even minority, controversial and discredited views are often notable. Often it is valuable to see how people thought, or competing views of the time. By contrast many fringe views are not notable by this definition, because they are not sufficiently significant or had little or minor impact in their field as a whole. For information to be included in Wikipedia, it should at a minimum be both notable and verifiable. If it is verifiable but not notable, it is by definition below a certain threshold of importance, and will not usually merit recording, no matter how true. If it is notable but not verifiable, it is effectively hearsay. Unimportant matters or hearsay are usually outside the scope of Wikipedia. If a view or fact is both notable and verifiable, and not original research, then it may be appropriate to record it in Wikipedia.

Summarized:

• Notability is subjective (stated up-front). Editors determine subjectively whether something is notable by seeking to characterize the relevant topic, in context, and in a balanced manner. (This reflects how notability is in fact determined for Wikipedia purposes, eg, in talk page debates and AFD's)

• Notability is defined in terms of having significant value, whether positively (it's interesting/useful) or negatively (its omission would leave a 'hole' in knowledge).

• The use of "significant" (significant number of people" ... "significant gap") implies a limit, but WP:N does not enforce where that limit is placed. This is again according with communal practice, where it is editors and not guidelines that determine whether a fact or subject is notable. An example is given, that broadly accords with current approaches (eg in AFD).

• Inclusion criteria: facts must be notable and verifiable. To be notable but not verifiable is hearsay, to be verifiable but not notable is to be non-notable from insignificance anyway (regardless if true or not). Again, this is how it presently works.

• Given that a fact or subject is both judged 'significant' by editors (whatever that means) and verifiable, and not OR, then it can be included. (At that point, if those criteria are met, the fact has a legitimate case for inclusion.)

This seems a good structure and context for notability, that explains it well, without straightjacketing editors.

Given that a cutoff for "non-mention" exists (which isn't the subject of this section), is the above a sane-ish summary that explains notability roughly, gives it balance and direction, and leaves appropriate leeway for judgement and reasonable flexibility? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that's bad for lots of reasons. First, you'll notice that it is only the opponents of notability at all that claim it is any more subjective than any of the other policies and guidelines we have here. Then the proposal, it merely shifts the debate from the word notable to the word significant, which is a step sideways at best. Then changing the basic definition from "secondary sources wrote about it" to "potentially of value or interest in some way" is a major loss. I disagree with nearly every sentence of the proposal. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This proposal would make WP:ILIKEIT and WP:USEFUL inoperative. It also seems to violate WP:V in some way I have yet to think through. Corvus cornix 20:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with most of the replies above. The proposed change seems to completely alter the current meaning of "notability". Whereas currently notability is supposed to reflect that "the topic has been sufficiently noted in prior reliable publications", the propsed change would make notability synonymous with "useful". But whether or not something is considered useful or trivial isn't the focus of the discussion. Rather, the purpose of the notability guideline is to help avoid situations where you are relying on insufficient sources to meet all the other policies like reliability and lack of bias. So therefore I don't support the suggested revision. Dugwiki 20:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The above are good points. Note that there is already the slippage described in the guideline. When we say "significant coverage" ("A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage") we're looking at the identical word-shift you picked up on, AnonEMouse. The guideline contines "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources", but doesn't say with any kind of helpful detail how to judge that (saying "significant" means more than trivial, less than all, isn't especially informative :) ). In other words the flaw you picked up on, is already within WP:N at present - there needs to be "enough significance" and WP:N can only outline it and leave the rest to editors to subjectively review in each case. What notability is trying to capture is that the subject matters somehow. It's had significant commentary by reliable sources, it's made a significant presence in its field, something is significant about it, or something significant would be lost if omitted. The key part is "how to assess significance". There are reference points - verifiable reliable evidence, coverage in reliable independent sources - but notability itself is about trying to exclude some kinds of fact, set a 'bar' (or content standard), and provide a way to determine which facts to include.

So notability is quite subjective - editors form decisions, and unless specific guidelines are agreed (themselves subjective) it's always a subjective decision formed by editors' consensus. Wikipedia's notability criteria for musicians, or software, are subjective - there's no clause in those two which was not arrived at via subjective debate and consensus. (Once established, they then function fairly objectively of course.) In the majority of cases, provided reliable verifiable sources are available, notability is judged subjectively, and reached by editors' consensus. The catch is, that does not mean it's arbitrary. WP:N discussion has often deadlocked around trying to make notability objective, when it's inherently subjective. It's easier handled if the subjectivity is admitted up-front. So that was my thinking. Be honest, it's not the end of the world to admit to having a subjective core standard that's set by consensus.

That said......... that wasn't the important point after all, I think I've realised. I think the difference is that one definition is functional, the other conceptual. Conceptually, notable things are notable because they are (treated as) significant to their context (ie field) (by others evidenced as being considered reliable formers of authoritative views). Functionally, notable things are notable because they are measurably treated as worthy of comment (by others evidenced as being considered reliable formers of authoritative views). Does that help at all?

I think on reflection, the functional definition that's there is probably better. Both are standards people might refer to, but measurability is more relevant in the context of the encyclopedia (compare to "truth v. verifiability" in WP:NPOV). This has probably helped me see a subtle difference I wasn't aware of before. For which - thanks :) Thoughts welcomed :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Notability is not temporary -> reword this

This header should be re-worded. Why? Because a reasonably informed reader could interpret this to mean:

• 1) The concept of "notability", once established for a particular subject, permanently adheres to that subject forever, regardless of intervening or subsequent events;

OR

• 2) It is not sufficient to establish "notability" strictly by demonstrating that the subject has received a momentary flurry of attention.

Under interpretation 1), notability is like a tattoo, once you get it, it's yours for life (yeah, yeah, just ignore Tattoo_removal#Tattoo_removal for now). Under interpretation 2), notability is like a diagnosis, it's not enough to show a few minor symptoms to establish it's a full-blown case.

A better formulation would be "Notability is not established by transitory coverage", or something similar ... since the text clearly asserts meaning (2), yet is silent on meaning (1). Alternatively, the text itself should be clarified. As much as I lament the glaring problems with WP:NOTE, its terms should at least be clearly stated. dr.ef.tymac 21:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way: The mere fact that there is a Pulitzer Prize for Breaking News Reporting should be enough proof by itself that random WP contributors are *not* well-placed to determine that a subject is non-notable, solely on the grounds that it is a topic of "transitory news coverage". Go look at the list of winners, then ask yourself how many of these underlying topics would be AfD'd as "non-notable" by WP:N zealots. Probably a lot, if not *all* of them, and that's a shame and a stunning and unequivocal proof of the glaring defects at issue here. dr.ef.tymac 21:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'can you explain a bit more what you mean by that last comment? I've looked at the award page linked. Several would probably be covered, judging by current articles, and not AFD'ed, I'd have thought. Quite a number are not notable because the matters were local issues, such as the "coverage of a botched bank robbery" or not visibly encyclopedic, such as a (tragic) crash where 27 died. Some, like wildfires 2004, have a general wildfires article; each specific wildfire is not especially suitable for an article, perhaps. This is an award related to skill and capability of reporting news... it doesn't by itself indicate the news broken was due a new article in an encyclopedia. We've got 2 different sets of criteria going here. Not every cult, every robbery, every news story or group death or exposee, is appropriate for an article. Those that do acquire significant note and mention in the media often (not always) will get articles. Several have. Most of the ones that don't, it's hard to see that an article should exist. But using an award for media responsiveness and handling, to gauge suitability of incident for an encyclopedia... could you explain a bit more, what you're trying to use this example to show? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you showed it yourself by your very response, and from your earlier remarks on this discussion page. In fact, your earlier remark summed it up very well:

   the flaw you picked up on ... WP:N can only outline (significance) and leave 
   the rest to editors to subjectively review in each case.

The crux of the problem is there is no non-arbitrary way to define significance. I can see how someone might indeed want a separate article for every topic that was ever covered in Pulitzer prize winning journalism. They may be trying to estimate what kinds of stories are likely to win the award, or uncover trends. What further complicates the matter is that there's lots of "Pulitzer-caliber" content that never gets recognized as such, because only so many awards can be given out.

WP should play to its strengths and acknowledge its weaknesses. One strength is breadth, one weakness is consistency. WP claims "access to the sum of human knowledge" as a core driving principle. For that reason alone WP:N deletions should be subject to the *highest* degree of scrutiny and caution (especially since the other policies and guidelines are more than adequate to keep out the Unverifiable, COI, POV, SpamFanCruft, and other patently frivolous crap already).

Every time some article topic is derided as "fifteen minutes of fame" by some random WP contributors, and then later goes on to win a Pulitzer, that should be seen as proof positive that WP:N deletions are far too arbitrary to sustain any kind of confidence or credibility for WP in the long term.(see also here,see also here). dr.ef.tymac 00:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The quest for quality

There is a point for publication & web sites that try to cover everything, and a place for those which filter the material a little. We are an encyclopedia, not a universal compendium of everything, so we filter--we write for the users, and the users expect that--the idea is to not detract from the importance of what we do include,

But there is another reason--its to cope with the mechanics. Since WP isnt paper, it needs links and organization and cross references, and we have more than we can deal with properly even now. The expectations for this are higher online, and our standards of hypertext linking are much too low.

There's another point--we need quality in articles. We do not have it--about 90% of the material is poorly referenced, poorly organized, poorly written in detail, and poorly maintained. We have too few people interested and able to cope with this, and the sort of current interest articles are just the ones that lack it the most. We have a great number of 2006 events where there's important material to add, and except for a very few high profile pages, no one is doing it. DGG (talk) 04:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. Indeed, you've emphasized one of my main points. Quality is not only a function of what goes into WP, but it is also a function of the consistency and credibility of *deletions*. People are quick to lament poorly constructed WP content, because it is noticeable. What many do not realize, however, is that equally noticeable are all the instances where potential WP contributors (some of whom are highly qualified and respected in their fields) get rebuffed or even attacked for attempting to add or improve content.

Some of those attacks are (rather poorly) substantiated with this very policy. The problem is then exacerbated, because the people who are well-placed to actually improve the "quality gap" issue become dissuaded from actually doing so. Someone who knows a lot about nuclear physics may not know (or care) about the minutia of WP policy. If someone is forced to decide between reading up on WP policy in order to make a well-founded case for inclusion in an already-spurious AfD debate, or just giving up on WP altogether, many potential contributors will just give up and do something else with their limited free time.

There are *many* instances where proponents of WP:N deletion arguably go overboard, debating issues that are obviously outside their scope of individual experience or expertise, and injecting pure speculation and conjecture for why no one should care about a particular topic; despite the fact that the topic has been covered in the mainstream press, respected journals, or in other non-frivolous non-parochial channels of information relevant to more than just an isolated handful of devoted partisans.

There is a principle in criminal law that says it is better to let a guilty man go free than to unjustly convict an innocent. I'd rather go overboard in letting a few potentially frivolous articles remain, if it means putting an end to the clearly over-zealous refusal of potentially outstanding content by very well-qualified potential contributors. When quality is unjustifiably refused by those who are either incapable or unwilling to recognize it, people do notice. dr.ef.tymac 05:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

What is notability for an exercise?

I added an article for an exercise tool/technique (Shovelgloving) and had it deleted for lack of notability. How do I establish notability for an exercise? I can cite a number of bloggers that use it and an article on it at Lifehacker [9] but what else is needed to prove it's notability besides the fact that it's a unique form of exercise that a sizeable number of people seem to be using? Thanks. --Irrevenant [ talk ] 23:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

A good place to start is Google news and Google News Archive. Most (but not all) of their sources are not self-published, and many have some form of editorial control, which is an important factor in determining a source's reliability. Feezo (Talk) 23:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inherently notable

I started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John T. Walker and from the feedback it appears I have missed reading Wikipedia:Inherently notable. I am unable to locate this Wikipedia policy does anyone know where it is, or what it is called? Jeepday (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware there was such a policy, or a guideline for that matter, under that name.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I think some people who say "X is inherently notable" really mean "Because X is Y (in this case X=Walker, Y=Bishop of whatever), there must exist multiple non-trivial sources." This saves them from having to actually look for sources to prove that there actually are multiple non-trivial sources. On the other hand, there are other people who say "X is inherently notable" who really believe that some things are "inherently notable." Please refer those people to User:Uncle G/On notability#Notability is not a blanket. Pan Dan 19:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree on both those theories, and neither one is grounds to keep the information in my opinion. The burden of proof lies with the contributor, not with the person challenging it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Pan Dan, I needed that reference to User:Uncle G/On notability#Notability is not a blanket. Jeepday (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no inherent notability guideline, but there are the subject specific guidelines (the ones that Uncle G refers to as secondary criteria) that create presumptions of notability.--Kubigula (talk) 05:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

There's actually no such thing as "inherent notability". By definition notability refers to something being noted in prior reliable publications. If it hasn't been so noted, then it isn't notable, end of discussion. Now that being said, there can be exceptional cases where a subject doesn't actually have to be notable to have its own article. Those exceptions, though, aren't "inherently notable" - they're simply non-notable subjects that for some reason are allowed to have their own article despite a lack of published notability. Dugwiki 18:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

What articles would those be?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

One example that comes to mind is articles on geographic areas, towns and cities. There are also separate technical articles on things like specific chemicals and animal and plant species which have limited citations. Note that I'm not saying these articles aren't verified or unreferenced - I'm saying they don't meet the normal notability criteria of having multiple verified independent citations in their articles. I'm also not commenting for or against whether having these exceptions is a good idea. I'm just saying that they exist. Dugwiki 15:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I think most of those plants, chemicals, animal articles are there because they would under normal circumstances have articles in a paper encyclopedia. I think the reason we have notability guidelines for this encyclopedia is because we cannot possible have an article on everything in existence, and there needs to be some sort of cut-off for things that would not normally be found in a paper encyclopedia. I think notability concerns arise when you start dealing with subjects that wouldn't be considered encyclopedic in a paper source, but could be given an encyclopedic treatment in a non-paper source, if provided the right reason and reliable sources for information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this exact point is one of the better justifications for having subject specific guidelines - setting subject specific criteria for notability helps bring more consistent and uniform treatment of general classes of subjects.--Kubigula (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Whatever people basically ignore any requirement for verifiability and secondary sourcing and bloc-vote WP:ILIKEIT at AfD. I just recently had that experience with Meow Wars-the only "sources" available are Usenet archives, but people remember it and find it funny, so it ended up getting kept. Also, most articles on albums should be shitcanned or merged, but people like to write about them and have some strange thing that "XYZ was an album by the Barely Notables" must have its own article, even if that's all the verifiable information that's out there. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

... and experienced researchers and scholars see this kind of nostalgia and fancruft taking root, while relevant, yet not-widely-known topics get quickly discarded or corrupted by cranks and "dabblers" ... Oy vey! dr.ef.tymac 02:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

And therein lies the problem that inclusionists don't realize. Crap lowers the overall quality of a work, and we're all called "editors" here. Part of the job of editing is to cut, and that is as necessary, valid, and beneficial a task as copyediting or any other. I don't get why "deletionist" is seen as such a bad thing to be-it would be like making an epithet out of "featuredarticlewriterist". Why is everyone so clear that the second is a good thing, but so resistant to the first? Why must we have thousands (probably hundreds of thousands) of stub articles that are impossible to expand, when we could work them well into a comprehensive treatment of the subject? Just because it's not paper doesn't mean it can't be well-written and well-organized, and cutting and consolidation are critical aims toward that goal. (Perhaps those get done better when there's a limited amount of space-when a newspaper writer has only one column of space, period, (s)he learns to keep the writing to the essentials and ruthlessly pare it down. But that increases, not decreases, the quality of the work.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You almost had me, but you re-introduced the (illusory) dichotomy [deletionist/inclusionist] and failed to define "crap" ... frankly, I don't think treatment of Meow Wars is any less relevant (as a topic) than Hardware Wars, Robot Wars, Geometry Wars, Star Wars kid, Style Wars, or Cola wars. Sure, a lot of this stuff could be consolidated and improved, but the mere fact that someone chose to write about Meow Wars does not (for me anyway) automatically raise the "crap danger alert" ...

What does, however, raise the alert is: 1) any article (of whatever topic, regardless of whether Joe Blow considers it "notable") that is not substantiated by either references or a well-informed contributor who knows their stuff and can back it up; 2) critical decisions made by contributors with *no* serious experience with the subject matter, and no willingness to research or learn it; and 3) inconsistent treatment of topics based on arbitrary, capricious notions of "notability" that seem just as unsubstantiated and ill-informed as some of the "crap" that manages to stay in.

If someone is really informed about the "Barely Notables" and is not just advertising some unpublished wanna-be garage band, and is prepared to prove it and substantiate the content with reliable sources, that may not be very important to you and me, but at least they're willing to go the distance. Heck, I might actually learn something from that article. I might actually learn something from that contributor through the mere process of putting him/her through his paces.

Whether someone wishes to wear the badge of "deletionist" is really irrelevant. The question is not whether WP is "including" or "deleting" enough 'stuff' . The question is, are there rational, consistent, and predictable standards for what gets included, and what gets removed; and do well-informed perspectives on content carry more weight than mere guesswork and speculation. Under the current circumstances, the answer seems to be "not always" . dr.ef.tymac 23:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll certainly go for your take on it, provided that "well-informed contributor" means "I have several references on my bookshelf that talk about this, I'll cite them", and not "Hey, I know this stuff, just trust me alright?" I know a lot of things, and so presumably do you, but neither you nor I is a reliable source. If someone can provide a decent amount of real reference material about the Barely Notables ("real" as in, does not have "myspace", "barelynotables.com" or "blogspot" anywhere to be seen in the URL), great, let's have an article about them! My trouble is more articles that solely cite primary and/or unreliable sources (Meow Wars being an example). On the other hand, Star Wars Kid cites quite a few reliable sources fully about the issue, even the BBC reported on it. It may seem a silly thing to me, but it really is sourced. If there were BBC and Globe and Mail reports on the Meow Wars, I never would've even considered nominating it for deletion.

Thing is-there aren't. It's just as non-notable and unverifiable as The Game (game) (primary and unreliable secondary sources abound, but reliable secondary ones are nowhere to be found). In examination of some of the rest, Robot Wars doesn't look to cite any secondary sources (though they may exist, I haven't conducted a detailed search), so that one may indeed need to go. Geometry Wars I find quite a bit on, looks like it even made Wired, so there's plenty of reliable secondary material there. Style Wars is poorly referenced, but I find several reviews and writeups, it could be well-referenced, even if it's not now. As to Hardware Wars...this speaks for itself, I don't think there'll be any referencing problem there.

But back to the main premise. I've seen a lot of criticism that whether an article remains on Wikipedia is whether our editing demographic a: knows about it, b: likes it (or at least doesn't hate it), and c: cares about it. Unfortunately, I think that's mainly correct. I wish we would take referencing more seriously, and "But I SAW it HAPPEN!" a lot less so. I've seen a lot of things happen. The vast majority of them are things I'd never even consider writing an article about. Just as we let the authors of reliable sources decide what we put into an article (by mirroring rather than interpreting such sources), we should let them decide what we have articles about (by looking at what they choose to write significant quantities of material about.) It isn't and shouldn't be our job to second-guess or "correct" reliable sources, and similarly, it isn't and shouldn't be our job to second-guess or "correct" a lack thereof. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Considering, Seraphimblade, that I agree *entirely* with a lot of your statements here, it's rather stunning how incompatible our conclusions seem to be on some issues.

"well-informed contributor" means "I have several references on my bookshelf"

That's certainly part of it, but let's get real here, assuming you and I are not of the same professional and educational background, there are certain concepts with which you are *well* familiar, that I and others (outside your area) would find puzzling solely based on the lack of familiarity with the subject ... now, I'm not just going to accept someone's vague "claim" that they always know what they are talking about, but similarly, it seems equally silly for me to demand rigorous citations for those aspects of their expertise that *no* competent practitioner in their field would ever seriously dispute. I should *at least* try to do some homework to be able to tell the difference. I should *at least* show respect for the knowledge domains that I presume to be "contributing to" as a WP volunteer. I think you (and some other contributors) do indeed demonstrate a great deal of diligence, but *many* simply do not.

My trouble is more articles that solely cite primary and/or unreliable sources

I could not agree with you more. The problem is, WP:N really isn't designed to help with that, is it? WP:OR and WP:V seem quite up to the task. Meow Wars as a topic may indeed have some sociological, historical or counter-cultural significance. It may seem 'unsourceable', but then again I may just be "out of the loop." It certainly seems to surpass the threshold of "My name is sally and my kitty-cat is puff-ball and we live on 2020 AnyStreet USA and I like barby dolls and riting Wikipedia articals. My kat makes meow wars!" There are many sub-cultures and sub-culture topics that legitimate researchers may want to investigate. They shouldn't have to rely solely on the likes of "UrbanDictionary.com". This is *precisely* one area where WP actually has potential to outshine even the highest-cost greediest for-fee research repositories.

If there were BBC and Globe and Mail reports on the Meow Wars

Are you suggesting that every material aspect of your cultural, societal, academic and professional experience can be neatly summarized in a major publication, treatise, journal, clinical study or other similar source? Sure, probably entire article topics should meet this (or a similar) test, but I don't see how this can apply to every material claim made *within* an article. Perhaps Meow wars merely merits a subsection in another article related to Usenet. I don't see how that automatically equals grounds for deletion.

whether our editing demographic a: knows about it, b: likes it , and c: cares about it

BINGO: It seems that this is the one truly credible and lasting critique that the WP naysayers have against the contribution dynamics (both article creation and article deletion) that (partially) result from mis-application of WP:N. You summed it up very well.

"But I SAW it HAPPEN!" (is not good enough)

Again, 100% agreement. I'd be willing to bet you and I both have withheld (potentially useful) contributions within the scope of our personal knowledge, simply for this very reason. However, I'd feel short-changed (as a WP reader) if you were not allowed to assert observations that no one in your area of expertise would seriously dispute simply because someone with an axe to grind decided to subject your contributions to a Regress argument in which every answer you supplied had to be referenced with a cite to the BBC ... yet this kind of thing happens over and over again on WP!

it isn't and shouldn't be our job to second-guess or "correct" a lack (of sources)

Yet in that little thought experiment where you critiqued the various "wars" articles (heh, I had a feeling you'd do that :) ... how many bound volumes or for-fee databases or reference libraries or professional symposia did you consult? Again, I do not attack your diligence here, your contributions speak well enough for themselves. The point is, there is a *lot* that gets missed from the customary "google trawling" strategy for WP:N tests; and with the "demographic cohort" problem, we begin to see why there are some quite legitimate misgivings about the criteria being applied to nearly all WP:N deletion reviews. dr.ef.tymac 02:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Almost everybody is both inclusionist & deletionist, but about different things, & thats the problem. I use those words too--perhaps it obscures things. Part of what Seraphimblade just said I see as inclusionist from my standpoint, & just a proposed reorganization of the content. I could gladly accept this--that we include the content we keep arguing about, but when practical add & integrate it into larger articles--and I mean add, not destroy and convert into a redirect. But decreasing the content is decreasing the content whether it's eliminating articles, or reducing them to stubs. I am not sure I want to reduce the trivial content, but I do want to make less of a fuss about it. I want to see information about individual episodes, but not as separate articles, and so on. I want to see information about individual academic departments, but again not as separate articles. There are two separate questions here, and we've been conflating them.DGG (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, to some extent, you're absolutely correct. I think they're more a convenient terminology than any concept that there is a black/white issue. At the extremes, an inclusionist would want us to keep every last edit anyone ever adds, even if that's "jack is a moron lololol", while a deletionist would want to delete everything right down to the main page! Obviously, neither extreme is reasonable or sustainable, and people are somewhere along a spectrum between those two. In some senses, I am what would commonly be called inclusionist. I generally prefer merging to deletion, provided that there is sourced content to merge. I have no problem with a "List of episodes of The Whatever Show" or "List of players on the 2000 Denver Broncos", even though I've got a significant problem with having an individual "article" (read: permastub) on every non-noted episode or third-string running back. On the other hand, I'm in many other senses what would be commonly called deletionist. If it's not sourced, wave goodbye. It's your job to source your edits, not mine! (I will still take some reasonable effort to try to do so, but I'll quickly grow weary of "Keep and source!" and only the first part actually getting done, or people insisting that sourcing must exist while steadfastly refusing to answer "So, well, where is it?"). And if you're pulling it from memory, it should get gone. You're not a reliable source. Neither am I. So cite something that is, and I will too.

But rather than calling it "deletionist", we can simply say that it's an editor. Well, every editor I know of in the world cuts material. It's part of the normal editing process. Sometimes they throw a whole piece out, sometimes they just trim around the edges. But that is part of what any good editor does, and I wish people would quit disparaging it as "deletionism" or "destructive" or whatever the epithet of the day is. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

How can I disagree? On an article level, that's the first thing I usually do when I first look at an article, especially a new one: what is there that ought to be cut? Next step is what is there that should be kept, but needs a source? DGG (talk) 02:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Weaken the Notability policy

Abolishing it would probably be going to far, but it isn't something that should be enforced to tightly. In my opinion the requirements for notability should be weak, or in other words a subject should not have to be very notable to be included. A site like Wikipedia doesn't have the limits that a paper encyclopedia faces. In particular I think website notability shouldn't have to be too high. In particular I think the notability requirement imposed on web sites is too strict. I understand that most wikipedians would not want to allow articles on most small personal websites (and I would agree with them), but showing evidence of a large number of users/viewers, or a very high number of hits, or (for sites that allow user posts or articles) a large number of contributors, should be enough to meet the requirement. I created an article on a web site with close to 24 million posts from thousands of users and it was deleted. It wasn't even deleted after a discussion but was given a speedy deletion. Web sites can be quite popular without getting much mention in the news or in major published secondary sources. Twfowler 22:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't conflate the notability guidelines with the Criteria for speedy deletion, which your article clearly met--it's contents consisted entirely of:

Silicon Investor is a web site based stock discussion bulletin board.
The site was recently purchased by Advanced Financial Networks.
External Link
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/

You should just try again, this time asserting the site's notability within your first edit. After that, it will no longer meet speedy deletion criteria. Other deletion avenues may still be pursued, and those will be based up on the quality of the article, its sources and the the relevance of the topic. — Scientizzle 22:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) But this is an encyclopedia in all sense of that word that happens to be online; a tertiary source that synthesizes other sources (and what worth are those sources unless they are reliable). Forget the dictionary definition of the word notability; we have redefined it, and while I would in a heartbeat change the word to something else if we could figure out a suitable alternative, for the moment we're stuck with it. All content that is unsourced is an unreliable placeholder for encyclopedic content. If it can't be sourced (and that doesn't include hypothetical sourcing), it has no place here, by virtue of what this place is. Subjects don't "merit" articles; they can or cannot have articles based on the ability to write a tertiary source entry.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Community or centralized media?

Who can determine whether a subject is notable? Society? Or the people who control our "respected" media? ^{Fox_news#Controversies}

I would say: society itsself determines notability, and mainstream coverage is good proof of that. So, it is a sufficient, but not a necessary prerequisite for notability. In particular, I would say that a large number of editors involved in a deletion debate, even if they all vote delete, is a strong indication of notability.

Let's polish this guideline. &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 10:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That's kind of flawed, because a large number of relatively new editors, who do not understand guidelines and policies, and are simply fans of a television show will vote "oppose". Let's look at television shows. If a show is viewed by millions, how is the "oppose" vote by a few people proof of notability? Ever hear of canvassing? Significant coverage means professionals are talking about it. The show is viewed by millions, an episode of a show is merely a small part of that. It would be like picking out a stage prop of a very notable play and saying that millions have viewed the stage prop, so we should write about it. Unless someone else has written about the stage prop, then it should really only be mentioned in the larger topic of the play itself (or in this case, the episode should be mentioned in the larger topic of the season or main article). 11:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Primary notability criterion - where is it?

I've had a ~monthlong absence, and the primary notability criterion seems to be gone from this article. Have I lost my mind and it was never here, or was consensus somehow found for its removal recently? (n.b. the primary notability criterion was the one about having verifiable references in multiple non-trivial sources) A Train^talk 22:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You missed many months worth of wrangling. The cretierion is still there, but it's now called the general notability guideline.--Kubigula (talk) 22:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) To summarize: non-trivial was changed to "significant" (I still think it should be "substantive") and multiple was gotten rid of entirely (which I oppose). Editors railed against calling it the "primary" notability (see here, for example) and template:PNC was tfd'd.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. My heart, it breaks. Oh well, roll with the punches. Thanks for the update, guys. A Train^talk 02:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

A question from Retrev

I have a question about notability references. I would assume that professional publication dealing with the subject in question can be used as a notability reference. The question I have...how do I cite that if it is not generally available to the world but is available to a large audience. Specifically, I'm trying to establish notability of a software product that is very recently available to the general public (it's open source). I feel the notability of it's predecessor (the closed source version) is established but only in us military publications which are only available to us citizens or in some cases, persons with us dod security clearance. I can not cite them in the article but they are generally available to us government and military persons. retrev 19:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

A professional publication dealing with the subject in question can be used as a notability reference. Yes. But make sure it is a secondary source, it should talk abut the subject, not just report the subject.

Generally available references are preferable. If the reference is difficult to obtain (eg subscription required, or only viewable in limited release print format), I would suggest very specific referencing, including quotes and page numbers so that we believe the reference really exists. The existence of the publication should be readily verifiable.

If the references CANNOT be obtained by the general public, then I would say that as far as wikipedia is concerned, the references don’t exist. --SmokeyJoe 01:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The reference has to not only be to a reliable source, it has to be verifiable. I suggest you are looking for a bar by which to measure verifiability, try going to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Examples.Garrie 01:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually if a source is reliable then that is the verification. IvoShandor 11:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

"sufficiently notable"

I've seen a number of conversations of the form:

Editor: We should remove the article on X, as it is not notable.

Newcomer: It is notable! I noted it!

Editor: It fails WP:N, so it is not notable.

Newcomer: But lots of people have noted it. How can it not be notable?

Editor: It doesn't meet the guidelines for notability.

Newcomer: Then the guidelines suck, because it's definately notable.

Solution: there are things that are completely un-notable, things that are notable, but not sufficiently to be covered in Wikipedia, and things that are sufficiently notable. Only the last category - things that are worthy of serious notice - are to be covered. Martin 14:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

There's another category: things that are "worthy of notice" (in my point of view) and thus "notable", but which have not been noted or noticed. These are also not suitable for wikipedia. Not sure how to put this. Martin

I find it to be part of WP:DEADLINE (which is just an essay). If it's notable, but people have not "noted it" (that's so funny to say) then it doesn't warrant an article right now. The great thing about notability is that is never disappears, but...over time, things there were once not notable, or at least never covered, may get that coverage they need to become notable, or just to warrant articles on Wikipedia. There should not be a rush to create an article just because.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

And the wheel goes round and round: Martin, the sample discussion you've written up here summarizes the most persistent controversy of WP:N. As soon as you define "categories" for inclusion, you pretty much guarantee these kinds of disputes, as there is no non-arbitrary way to define the categories to begin with.

As far as "notable, but not noticed" ... you might want to take a look at User:Dcoetzee/Named topic bias for a similar example based on this general concept. dr.ef.tymac 16:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

MyRedDice [10] and Martin (above) are pushing “sufficiently notable”, reminding me of my previous suggestion on 3 May 2007: Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 12#A topic is (sufficiently?) notable if. Radiant reverted the addition of “sufficient” as too convoluted, and I failed to get sufficient support from the talk page. However, I still think WP:N should be worded throughout in terms of “sufficiently notable” because notability has degrees, and this guideline roughly specifies a threshold, and I think it better if the guideline is clear to a casual reader that WP:N requires the specified threshold of notability and not any real-world usage of the word. --SmokeyJoe 03:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see the prior discussion. In my view, since we send newcomers here to explain why their pet topic isn't suitable, the language needs to be accessible to those newcomers, explaining that Wikipedia-sufficient-notability is different and harder to achieve than layperson-notability. However, I do understand the concerns about instruction creep.

I have left my change in, but I won't object if it is reverted. Martin

Notability and Muds

So I've noticed a couple of MUD articles have been marked as needing more third party references in order to prove their notability. To expect that from MUD is a wee bit absurd. MUDs are small massively multiplayer computer games generally developed and run by very small teams of coders and builders in their free time. Excluding MUD listing sites, where the listings are posted by players or the building teams themselves, there are no third party references that generally mention them to speak of. Some of the largest MUDs have fan pages or references to them made outside the MUDding community, but the vast majority of MUDs have only their own main pages and a few listings on MUDding community sites. So unless we're gonna make the listings in MUDding community sites sufficient third party references, we're gonna have to just go through and clean out all the MUD articles. -Alcon

If what you say is correct, it seems a cleanup is needed. Fansites and self-published sources aren't reliable, nor are forums, blogs, or the like. As below, we reflect reliable sources. If no reliable source finds a MUD worth mentioning, we reflect that by not mentioning it here either. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Alcon, I invite you to help us out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games/MU*. We need to establish which MUD community sites are reliable and try and find good sources. We also have a shortlist of MUD articles we feel have sufficiently established notability and verifiability. Marašmusïne_Talk 08:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)