Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Splitting off with a bare, accurate guideline or policy

Excellent idea. —Centrx→talk • 21:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Descriptiveness

That essay we've had here is very nice and all, but the term 'notability' is used frequently enough that it would be useful to have a concise guideline indicating the current practice, telling us how Wikipedia presently works with, and deals with, notability. After all, guidelines in Wikipedia are descriptive, not prescriptive.

I am aware that some people do not like the current practice. If people wish to change the status quo, they should by all means go ahead and create a proposal for it (in fact, several such exist already). But this page should serve to indicate our current practice, and should change if and when our current practice changes.

Please reflect a moment on this idea and help discuss a proper wording for the phenomenon. Thank you for your time. >Radiant< 21:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Trouble is, the practice varies from AfD to AfD... it tends to depend on who shows up to vote. --EngineerScotty 21:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • There still exists some minimum threshhold; it may vary depending on the AfD, but it is still there and for many cases and most AfDs, it is rather clear where it is. —Centrx→talk • 22:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually I don't think the practice varies that much. In heated debates someone is bound to use the argument that "guidelines are not policies" which I always found was a rather strange way of ignoring the consensus that the guidelines are based on. Pascal.Tesson 22:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The practice varies according to who want to bother with endless discussions where people just refer to non-notable as if they are experts in th particular field and they know exactly how notable something is. The entire definition of notability needs to be made up before votes on afd referencing this concept will convince me that any of the people have a common idea in mind. Ansell 11:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
      • The common idea in mind is that all topics exist on a gradual scale of notability. The discussions on AFD are about where to draw the line for inclusion, and that's precisely why we make notability guidelines in several fields. Btw, AFD is not a vote. >Radiant< 13:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not sure too many people will be happy about the move of the essay though. It might have been more prudent to have your proposed guideline on a subpage or under a different name. That being said I am all for a concise guideline that indicates how to proceed. I think it should include as key points the fact that guidelines are on one hand subject to change and not set in stone but, on the other hand, reflect a wide consensus that should generally be respected. Pascal.Tesson 22:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ansell and EngineerScotty. Notability is much more personal than verifiability or NPOV. Fresheneesz 04:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Differences between this and past proposals

I'm wondering what the differences between this proposal, and older ones will be? Where will this succeed where older proposals have failed? Fresheneesz 07:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Older proposals have sought to amend the status quo. This page seeks to document it. Any description of frequent results of an oft-used process, makes for a good guideline. >Radiant< 09:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Why don't we just scrap notability and redirect the page to WP:V? They mean the same thing. Attempting to make a distinction between the two doesn't sound like the status quo to me. Can someone please tell me why we need to form consensus if this is status quo? --DavidHOzAu 12:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
    • WP:V is something related, but different; see User:Uncle G/On notability for some explanation. This page represents status quo; you can easily verify that by checking our deletion pages and logs. You are quite right that we need not form consensus since we already have (the status quo of a well-frequented process, by definition, has consensus). People who do not like the status quo are welcome to try and change it, and if they succeed we shall update this page accordingly. >Radiant< 19:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

To DavidHOzAu: I think you might be interested in looking at Wikipedia:Non-Notability (if you haven't already), a proposal that does exactly what you say.

To Radient: Guidelines are not simply to document how wikipedia works. I've mentioned this before. Guidelines are for the future - to help future editors shape their actions. Future actions stem from past actions, and thus I can see partially why you are making the assumption that guidelines are simply a documentation for how people do things. Fresheneesz 20:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

So you think the purpose of guidelines is to change the way future editors do things in a way that directly contradicts the way current editors do things by giving new editors a false description of way things are done? —Centrx→talk • 21:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The current editors are not going to change their practice without being given convincing reasons. Future editors are not going to follow guidelines if they seem unreasonable for an encyclopedia and if the guidelines patently contradict what they see being done. —Centrx→talk • 21:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth. If thats the way you understand me, you are not understanding me at all. Guidelines are to guide future editors. Obviously these guidelines are based on consensus. However, it needs not be how things are currently done. If an engineer builds a better lightbulb, people aren't going to object saying "well thats not how we currently do it". Fresheneesz 04:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Ultimately, Wikipedia is not a lightbulb and policy and guidance is descriptive. Guidelines aren't to guide future editors, guidelines offer guidance to all to apply in specific circumstances. Hiding Talk 12:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Radiant, you misunderstood me. Wikipedia:Consensus is policy for a reason. Proposals need consensus in a specific place. Also, simply stating "notability is status quo" comes across as "because I say so" and lacks authority. I'm not buying it. For all I know it could be only a small group of vocal editors who bring up the general concept of notability at AfD. I believe that WP:N is consistently treated as if it were a guideline outside of its jurisdiction for far too long. Essays and proposals aren't actionable or instructive, regardless of whether it's authorized by consensus. Pretending that the essay was actionable and that the status quo of treating it as such is breaking the rules and in Australia we call that rorting the system. When it comes to a vote I will be voting against this proposal because I don't think we should endorse bad behavior. --DavidHOzAu 10:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You've lost me here. Sticking a proposal tag on something and inviting discussion to work out the consensus is bad behaviour? I'm not clear what you assume is being created here, but it's not a mandate for the wholesale deletion of articles which someone feels lack notability without discussion at any point. You have indicate there's consensus for the notion, and also claim it's a vocal minority. I'm unclear how to reconcile your views. Hiding Talk 10:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Umm, no. Making it a proposal is not bad behavior. I said that making it a proposal is endorsing the bad behavior of citing essays as guidelines/policies.
• If it is not a mandate for the wholesale deletion of articles which someone feels lack notability, then I must ask why the need for a proposal has been identified. There must be some intrinsic addition to existing policy that is being proposed. The only thing that comes to mind is that "most topics must exceed a certain threshold of notability in order to have an article in Wikipedia." It's a rewording of WP:V#Verifiability, not truth with "notability" substituted in over "verifiability"; an obvious misquote I'm surprised no one has picked up earlier.
• I did not state that there is any clear-cut consensus for the notion. I indicated that there is a lack of consensus.

--DavidHOzAu 11:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• David, you said "WP:N is consistently treated as if it were a guideline". I appreciate you qualified that with a subjective opinion about where it should apply, but you certainly agreed that it is applied consistently as if it is a guideline. To me that indicates you agree that there is consensus that it is a guideline. And that's how we decided upon guidelines. We work out what people do, and describe it. Your point about verifiability has been made many times before, I've made it myself. The problem is, Notability is now an accepted term on Wikipedia, and we need to decide what it means. So we work out what people mean when they use it, and then write that down, because that's what it means. The usage of the term may be bad behaviour in your book, but that's how Wikipedia, well blimey, that's how language evolves. Hiding Talk 16:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• David, the statement "notability is status quo" is easily verifiable if you look across the relevant areas of the wiki, and certainly does not equate to "because I say so". I have already pointed out to you that notability does not equate to verifiability. >Radiant< 17:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I know it is status quo, it doesn't mean that I have to like it or think that current practice is justifiable by accepted policy. (Didn't the article use to say that "this is what certain editors understand WP:V to mean"...?) Regardless, the many times that the essay previously at this page was cited as if it were guideline does not mean that WP:N should be guideline, it means that people should pay more attention to article notices. Treating the concept behind several rejected proposals as a guideline is wrong, period, even if doing so is the status quo. The fact remains that status quo hasn't been endorsed yet, and not endorsed = no consensus by definition.
  • Tell you what, let's list this on {{Announcements/Community bulletin board}}, get people involved, and actually start a formal debate about it. Let's get this page to be recognized as a proposal instead of an essay by all of wikipedia. I doubt the average Wikipedian has had any reason to visit this page in the last week; I only noticed what was happening because I had this page on my watchlist. If indeed there is to be consensus of any kind the approval process has to be open to everyone. Wikipedia is free.

  --DavidHOzAu 23:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Ah, now we get to the crux of the issue. Since you don't like the status quo, you are welcome to try and change it (e.g. per the NNOT proposal). But the common outcome of a common process is a de facto guideline; this essay gives a decent explanation why this is so. I do not mean the times that this is cited as a guideline, I mean that what this page describes is what happens. You say you want a formal debate... unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't do formal debates, because we're not a bureaucracy. I'm afraid that you are unfamiliar with how our process for creating guidelines works - generally we do write down what already happens. The status quo is, by definition, consensual. >Radiant< 15:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read past the first sentence in my reply. Thanks. --DavidHOzAu 01:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Move this proposal

I propose that we move this page to something like Wikipedia:Notability/Proposal, and move the essay back here. Radiant unconsentually moved the essay to a backally, and failed to correct the myriad of links to it. Now many guideline and policy pages link back to this half-baked proposal. Fresheneesz 20:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite happy for this proposal to stay here. It makes sense to see where the consensus is, and it makes sense to do it from here. There's precedent on doing it this way. Hiding Talk 21:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Also, I feel that we should make more effort to point out why notability is so widely considered a valid concept: having had many discussions with others about this it seems to me that a notable subject is likely to gain sufficient ongoing coverage in reliable secondary sources for us to be able to verify the article and, more importantly, verify its neutrality. There are subjects which are verifiable, but which are not sufficiently widely discussed outside of their own closed circle for us to be able to write a balanced article without straying into original research (one which I remember vividly is Aetherometry - verifiable, but the scientific establishment simply refused to give it house room, so that any criticism or context was necessarily OR; so, a verifiable but non-notable crank theory). So for me notability goes right back to policy: WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, much more than just WP:NOT indiscriminate. Notability is a handy shortcut, and some rough and ready rules can be drawn up for subject areas, so it's useful in and of itself, but in the end the real authority comes from policy. And as pointed out above, consensus is established by more than polling on guideline pages (polling is evil). Consensus represents what the community as a whole feels. At present the community as a whole by and large has no problem with trivial subjects being removed; WP:PROD has shown that many insignificant subjects are quietly removed without any challenge at all. Guy 21:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I must disagree with Guy and Hiding. Why is a proposal at the head of {{IncGuide}}? (Note: this placement is reflected all over Wikipedia.) The guidelines WP:WEB and WP:BIO should not appear as sub-articles of a proposal, unless they are also proposals. Wikipedia:Notability criteria and its shortcut WP:N need to be restored, and quick. --DavidHOzAu 23:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The move will have to be to Wikipedia:Notability/2nd nomination or similar... Wikipedia:Notability/Proposal is already taken. --DavidHOzAu 09:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Radiant is absolutely right that as it stands this documents precedent and existing guidelines and is not, in itself, a guideline, proposed or otherwise. In as much as there is long-standing precedent of deleting articles which fail to establish any claim of encyclopaedic notability, even to the extent of having lack of a claim to notability as a speedy deletion criterion (and the speedy criteria are deliberately restrictive), I would say that no further process is necessary, as long as nobody tries to turn this into an inclusion guideline. Right now it documents how things actually work and fulfils a valuable role. In fact I think the three links at the end should go. Actually it's quite an elegant solution to the problem of a widespread consensus with a few vociferous dissenters, which is what has prevented previous proposals being adopted. Guy 10:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the point we should move to discussing is what's wrong with the page as it reads, not what's wrong with where it links. Let's not get too hung up on process, let's address the contents of the page. I'm unclear how a page tagged as proposal or essay holds any impact on separate guidance. Hiding Talk 12:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Guy that this page should outline notability guidelines using summary style. I suggest tagging it with a new box stating that it "is an index to some official policies and inclusion guidelines and should not be construed as the policies or guidelines themselves. Do not refer to this page in deletion discussions; refer to the specific policy or guideline itself." etc. or something of that nature that separates the content from the rules.

With that in mind, this really should not have been made into a proposal, which IMHO was jumping the gun a wee bit too early. Sorry, Radiant, but AfDs are evaluated on a case-by-case basis specific to its area or subject; the same goes for CSDs. The problem with this proposal is that it says or implies that deletion for notability alone is standard practice for every article. Now while making a cannon to level all the wheat in a field might be nice but it is certainly not necessary; what is needed are more niche-proposals about notability for each subject area. Notability is not a universal requirement, as is naturally the case for Math articles. Importance? Always. Notability? Sometimes. Creating an article that can survive AfD? Priceless. --DavidHOzAu 04:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not clear that your points actually address the content of the page as it is. The notability versus importance argument is a semantic one. I'd say the two ideas are readily conflated on Wikipedia now. Your other points already seem addressed in the page as it reads. I don't take from it the implication that deletion for notability alone is standard practice. This page does not exist in isolation, and the nature of our deletion processes make it clear that the only deletions occur through consensus, derived either at afd or drv. Hiding Talk 10:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Semantics are important; ask a dev. Clouding out the different meanings of notability and importance isn't helpful; I do think it is deceptive, but I don't think any one person is at fault for that here. Per WP:AGF, notability has to be an obsessive extrapolation of WP:NOT that was allowed to reach insane levels. Can't we just stop the insanity here?

I'll only agree with Guy if and only if this page is an index and makes it perfectly clear that this page is not policy or guideline in and of itself; it's too easy to edit this page to make it say anything one likes as recently evidenced by the whole it's-a-guideline-no-it's-policy-no-it's-a-proposal-no-it's-neither-rinse-repeat-etc debacle. I've seen perfectly verifiable information removed on AfDs due to WP:WEB and its similar requirements, which are not official inclusion guidelines. (with the exception of WP:BIO per csd a7.) I admit there seems to be a recent long-running campaign to emphasize notability in deletion policy pages so that it looks like it is an official guideline, but I do remember how they used to look like. --DavidHOzAu 11:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I honestly can't see how a topic can be important to its field without being notable within its field. The importance makes it notable, the concepts are equatable. I can't see what a developer has to do with this issue, either. You seem to be clouding the issue by asserting there are different meanings for the two words, when both are defined similarly, [1], [2].

I'm also unclear as to why you think WP:WEB is not an official guideline, when it is clearly tagged as such. I'd like to see examples of articles deleted which were verifiable, but that isn't an issue with any guidance, that's an issue with a consensus decision formed at an afd debate. You seem to be stating that the existence of this page would mandate deletion, when the only thing that mandates deletion is a consensual decision. Guidance on notability exists only to aid discussion, not trump it. I can remember a time when we did not have notability guidance at all, but I also remember Wikipedia was a lot smaller then. Hiding Talk 11:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

And on the rinse repeat cycle, that's pretty much how we decide stuff regarding guidance and policy on Wikipedia. It is circular, it isn't pretty, but eventually we work out what's important and get the job done. Many pages which get tagged as a guideline are subject to instant reversion warring until consensus is reached. Hiding Talk 11:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Developers are, like myself, programmers. We understand the need for semantics because semantics are important to us. I see a difference between asserting importance (article content) and notability (article subject). Hence, my point that while a synonym is similar, it is not the same. For example, a biography article may have to state importance, but a math/science/logic/language/philosophy/etc article certainly doesn't. Some subjects are important and notable by definition even when the article, strictly speaking, doesn't assert it.
• WP:WEB referred back to WP:N as a basis when WP:N was still an essay. In fact, it still does via {{Wikipedia subcat guideline|notability criteria}}. Hence the reason for understanding WP:WEB to be a subpage of the proposal/essay and not being actual policy per se.
• At the moment notability as a formal policy really only applies to people and groups of people per csd a7; the proposal is trying it apply to everything. (Aside: I like to contribute to articles where notability is not an issue. However, if notability is made an issue for every article, then Wikipedia does have a problem.)
• I know that guidance on notability exists only to aid discussion, but the sad fact is that notability has been used to trump it. Much of my dislike of this proposal stems from this practice. Calling it a guideline will just make this problem worse.
• If this is the way things are done, I have nothing wrong with it. I do however object to any old person (even if they are an admin) coming along and asserting that this is a guideline and that we don't need to make any attempt at gathering consensus. I like the way of doing things as you said, but calling it an official guideline at this early stage is not wikipedia.

--DavidHOzAu 23:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not saying that notability equals importance in all cases in real life, but it is clear that on Wikipedia the two words have become mixed up enough that they should be treated similarly.
• Your argumentation on the guideline-status of WP:WEB is mostly correct, only it works exactly the other way around: WP:WEB relies on this page, and WP:WEB is a guideline. Hence, this is too.
• Nobody is talking about notability as a formal policy. This is a guideline page, and this page clearly states that articles are to be evaluated (and discussed) on their merit.
• Please point me to where notability has been used to trump a discussion?
• >Radiant< 15:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

By "trumping" I was referring to the general practice on WP:AfD of referring to notability more often than other relevant policies, especially during nomination; that isn't a well rounded critique IMHO, and there has to be a Better Way. Note: it may have changed recently, as I tend to keep more of an eye on TfD rather than AfD. (It's probably just an artifact from when a lot of "nn" articles were nominated a while back; wasn't that in June sometime?) If I'm wrong, ignore that point. Please.

I largely agree with you on your points, except that:

• I still think that the hierarchy for WP:WEB is the other way around, in that it relies firstly on WP:N (the essay, not the guideline), then WP:V, WP:NOT and WP:OR, giving the problem of questionable inheritance, if you'll excuse the analogy of articles to computer code. IMHO, WP:WEB needs rewriting without a dependence on WP:N, replacing "notability criteria" with "verifiability inclusion" or another phrase that eliminates the dependence. It reflects badly on that semi-official guideline and those like it for people to think that they are sub-articles of something that isn't even official yet.
• Content is different from subject (see below); all concepts really should be clearly defined because we don't want to leave policies or guidelines up for loosest possible interpretation.

If we stressed that notability has a strict and concise definition instead of leaving the portholes open, I'd be all for this proposal! We need a notability criteria in some form, but leaving the door open for it be used as a catch-all on AfD or elsewhere is not acceptable. This article needs much expansion if that is to be the case; we can't rely on the template at the right to do all the talking for us.

--DavidHOzAu 03:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• That dependency argument of yours is kind of bureaucratic, and if that's the problem it would be better solved by marking this page as "official" (and please note that guidelines really aren't all that official in the first place). Other than that, I would be happy with a strict and concise definition of notability. I'm not at all convinced it is being used (or about to be used) as a "catch-all" - for instance, it's generally accepted that villages deserve an article regardless of size or "interestingness". Oh, and I agree that content differs from subject. It's just that articles on certain subjects will never have any encyclopedic content (e.g. my neighbor's cat). >Radiant< 23:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• I think it's a problem based on definitions rather than the bureaucratic kind. But you right, I'm probably imagining it.
• I'm not fully convinced that it is being used as a catch all either, but my point was that it could happen in its current state: we must fix it and tread carefully.
• If we can strike the right balance between inclusion and non-inclusion, I will support this proposal whole heartedly.
• Please, not the cat... I'm getting bleeding of the eyes just thinking about it. :)

--DavidHOzAu 06:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Rigorous definition?

In order to have this as a workable policy there should be a RIGOROUS definition of EXACTLY and PRECISELY what makes something "notable", for the purposes of Wikipedia. Don't you think? 70.101.147.60 22:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

That's impossible, and pretending otherwise is unnecessary. Notability is workable as long as people use common sense, and realise that material needs to be verifiable and significant enough that it will be worth maintaining the article. We cannot focus on the quality of our articles, which is what we are doing now, if we are afraid to quickly and efficiently remove those that aren't worth our time. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

And actually it's precisely this fuzzy definition of notability that most Wikipedians have in mind: a subject which is rich enough and has been researched sufficiently by outside sources that we can realistically hope to build a reasonnably long article (or at least non-stub) with significant content which goes beyond what a dictionnary or a database would provide. Unfortunately, a lot of people continue to add stubs for people/bands/characters/websites and whatnot which cannot fulfill that hope. And that's why we have guidelines. They're not set in stone but for any subject failing these guidelines one needs to convince the community that the article can result in an encyclopedic article. Pascal.Tesson 23:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so you sre saying then that the "notability" is therefore decided by consensus instead of a set of spelled-out rules? But what is "significant enough" anyway? Singificant enough to be verifiable? Or more? 70.101.147.60 02:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

This is the point I raised above. Guidelines have to be actionable. I'll watch this discussion; it looks interesting. --DavidHOzAu 06:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I think so too. It can't be *purely* subjective, as then why bother even having a "policy" at all?! 70.101.147.60 23:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• I think it's quite ok to have a policy (well, guideline in this case) that is partially subjective. For instance, our blocking policy says we can block people for "disruption" without specifying exactly what disruption is. Regardless of the definition we employ, there will always be borderline cases, which are to be discussed by the community. One of the actionable parts of this page on notability calls for the creation of guidelines (several of which already exist on {{IncGuide}}) to clarify what community consensus is on the borderline. >Radiant< 15:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I am among those who think that the obsession with objectivity is a nuisance. We can and should try to avoid unnecessary subjectivity but refusing to judge the relative value of subjects and articles is a slippery slope. We cannot constantly adopt a relativist stance and repeat "who am I to say what's notable or important?" like it was a mantra. I know that there are quite a few people who wished we only chose content based on the five pillars but the existing notability guidelines and their frequent use show that most editors believe in threshold criteria for inclusion. As for the concern of systemic bias, my experience (and my stance on many occasions) is that AfD about topics from other cultures tend to be treated with far more care and the "no consensus means keep" avoids a lot of incorrect deletions. Pascal.Tesson 16:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

This can be summed up as: you can't legislate Clue. And thank God we don't try, that way lies madness. Guy 22:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

So are you saying then that it should be decided via consensus instead of a strict "1 2 3 check this check that" ruleset, via a set of "unwritten rules" or "innate senses" of what is "notable" and isn't? I guess I sort of like the idea of basing what can be included only on the basic policies: WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR, and what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. If one wants to add in a "notability" criterion then I really really do suggest that it be given at least some sort of definition just a LITTLE more rigorous then "if it's notable", because everyone has differing ideas. I might consider an article about one person's theory positied in the latest scientific journal "notable" but someone else might not (and I would not have known since there was no definition, not even a loose one, of what "notability" means), and thus the article might get disqualified and deleted even if it was verifiable (because the journal article would be the source for the WP article), neutral point of view, not "original" research (it was in a journal and peer-reviewed), etc. 70.101.147.60 08:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• We do have more rigorous definitions - please see {{IncGuide}} for a comprehensive list. >Radiant< 08:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Search Engine

The WP Policies are now becoming quite extensive and it is increasingly difficult to track down policies pertaining to certain areas. For example if someone wanted to check the policy about advertising products it's quite a lengthy process. Perhaps the whole WP sections could have their own search engine and be catalogged independantly of Wikipedia's Encyclopedia articles.

Guideline?

Radiant, I find it very obvious that notability is not an uncontroversial issue. This runs to the very heart of the deletionism/inclusionism conflict, and the activity on the counter-proposal, Wikipedia:Non-notability, should attest to the fact that this is far from settled yet. Whether notability is a relevent factor when deciding when to keep or delete an article is something that comes up time and time again in AfD discussions. As such, I am going to change the boilerplate from Guideline back to Proposal. arj 20:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

So do you mean that there does not exist some lower bound for an article to be significant enough for Wikipedia? The "counter-proposal" is nothing of the sort; it is a novel new proposal that is similar to many failed proposals in the past, and its activity is confined to two users who are very interested in it. There are valuable things in it, but as a "counter-proposal" opposite this page, it is nowhere near equal to this guideline in history, common use, etc. Usually what comes up in AfDs is the peculiar argument by the vanity poster that "Notability is only an essay!" and that their article is special enough to be included. —Centrx→talk • 21:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

There really are 100 AfDs deleting a non-notable article and 1000 comments citing notability for every one comment that protests notability guidelines. —Centrx→talk • 21:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The existence of notability is fact. The threshold of notability is subjective and up to debate. That is why this guideline calls for discussion to forming consensus on such thresholds by subject matter. That, by the way, is already an established process since several such discussions have already been succesful. >Radiant< 21:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The existence of notability as a separate issue from verifiability is not actually fact as you state. Also, claiming a 100 AfD + 1000 comments for to 1 against ratio is pure speculation at best. Unless anyone has actual numbers, using random numbers is not very convincing. Ansell 02:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The existence of notability is fact. - which is not reflected by the existence of an article about notability. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 07:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You may have missed Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. —Centrx→talk • 23:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

100 AfDs is actually a rather conservative number; there are days on end, each with 100+ AfDs, in which the vast majority are considered and deleted based in whole or in part on notability. Some of them are kept because they are "notable enough", but notability is still considered and the topics kept are not incontrovertibly non-notable. Seriously, just pick a day and look through it; or look at the top 2 AfDs for September 10-20; or randomly click on ones listed in the Prefix index. However you slice it, I cannot find a single one, but I do find 100s where notability is considered and articles deleted based on it. —Centrx→talk • 02:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Uh, who changed it to guideline again? How can you gather the consensus of 5? We know that things are deleted because of notability, that doesn't make it a guideline. -- Chris chat edits essays 12:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• A good description of actual practice (which you just agreed that this is) is by definition a guideline. Wikipedia does not (presently) have more formal systems for creating guidelines than that. If you disagree with current practice (as you seem to), you are welcome to change the practice; if you succeed, the guideline will follow suit. >Radiant< 13:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Centrx, to clarify: no, I do not believe that there does not exist a lower bound for an article to be significant enough for Wikipedia. But I do believe that there is no lower bound for a subject to be significant enough for Wikipedia.

I would not describe the application of notability as an "actual practice", but rather a very widespread form of sloppy thought. Let me explain. If you look at AfD on any given day, you will see that the problem with the vast majority of these articles is not that their subjects are too unimportant, but that they lack credible sources, and/or that they are written by someone that is associated with the subject matter itself. Few would object to the removal of the articles on these grounds, yet editors cite "nn" as a reason for deletion. It seems to me that every proposal and guideline currently in Template:IncGuide that has any merit could easily be subsumed into one or more of the above guidelines.

I think the concept of notability should better be abandoned, but if that is not going to happen, we need to define the guideline very specifically as following directly from, and adding nothing on top of, the policies of verifiability and NPOV. There is a very real danger that the scope of non-notability will extend itself, so that editors will be able short-circuit deletion debates by saying "I don't know what this is, let's delete it".

Also, please do not upgrade this page to a guideline while there is still active discussion about its merits. arj 14:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Your assertion that pages can be "upgraded" to a guideline belies a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. Simply put, an accurate description of common practice is a guideline - regardless of whether or not you like that practice. As you yourself suggest, NN is a common reason on AFD. You are welcome to your opinion that all those AFD contributors are sloppy, but that doesn't make it any less common practice. You are welcome to try and change their mind; make a proposal; discuss on WT:AFD; or talk to them personally. If and when you succeed in changing what practice actually is, this guideline will follow suit. >Radiant< 15:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Tagging this page as an essay only means that newbies are confused when their non-notable article gets deleted—and it invariably does get deleted—after they spent time on it because 'it can't be deleted based on a mere essay!'. Not tagging this as a guideline is a thoroughly backward understanding of Wikipedia, and the only objections to it seem to be along the lines of "why wasn't there a vote!?". —Centrx→talk • 23:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not backward, its the process. We don't make guidelines whenever one editor feels like it. This page is not a guideline simply because some one or two editors want to edit war over it. Go through the proper process. Wjhonson 16:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Already done. —Centrx→talk • 19:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Rationale

Guidelines are supposed to help enforce policy. I've started a section on the policies notability can help enforce. Stephen B Streater 21:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the rationale put down. Infact, I propose that the entire page be focused on the objective criteria that are in the section. Then there will be no need for people to criticise the concept based on its subjectivity and it may actually become a full guideline in its own right.

There is a subtle distinction however between simply putting the rationale on the page, and having people use the term as if it actually follows the policies, as opposed to their preconceived notions on what notability is. If those points are cleared up I would be supportive of this page becoming a guideline. Ansell 05:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

This notability essay/proposal has disruptive effects

...should it be deleted? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 04:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well it's not disruptive, it's controversial which isn't quite the same thing. This is an issue that comes up all the time and must certainly be adressed. Deleting it means burying our heads in the sand. That can't be good. Pascal.Tesson 04:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not a fan of deletion. But deleting this crap which is used to support a lot of other deletions e.g. Tango.info, might improve the situation here. In a next step the abusive use of admin tools by some admins and the repeated out of process deletions should be addressed. But even pages collecting evidence of abuses get deleted (and in this case the deletion was out of process as well, deletion occured after 36 hours, not 8 days): Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tobias Conradi/admin right abuse Tobias Conradi (Talk) 05:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen your article on Admin deletion abuses, but this guideline is designed to tighten up procedures surrounding deletion on the grounds of notability. Stephen B Streater 06:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

There should be a software to calculate notability (which by the way still has no article in WP - is this concept itself not notable?). Until we have the software, deletions based on it should be suspended. Please developpe this software first. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 07:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Feature requests go on bugzilla, complaints about admins go on WP:RFC. >Radiant< 07:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Software that evaluates notability will not exist for another 10 years at least. A bug titled "notability assessment software missing" will be tagged with WONTFIX very quickly, me thinks. There is currently no known algorithm that can evaluate common sense. --DavidHOzAu 08:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Food

I'm starting to see an increasing number of articles pop up about people's favorite food dishes / menu items (see: Category:Chicken, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicken Bog). Has anyone yet attempted any kind of Wikipedia:Notability (food) guideline, or where would I look for such a thing? --Elonka 18:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

There isn't a separate guideline, but the general history of such things seems to be that some food is notable, and some isn't, basically based on "have people written non-trivial works specifically about the food". In other words, articles or books that are more than just recipes. Take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Fashioned for a specific debate, and watch how the arguments moved from "delete" to "keep" when specific notability info was found. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• It is, however, established that Wikipedia is not a cookbook. Recipes go in Wikibooks. My first impression would be to list all but the most famous chicken-based dishes simply under Chicken. But if it comes up a lot, it wouldn't hurt to create a notability page on food that tells us when to merge or transwiki or anything. >Radiant< 19:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Accurate description?

Following on from the section above, I don't think that this page accurately describes the situation on Wikipedia regarding notability right now. The amount of argument that takes place, and has been taking place for (literally) years now, demonstrates that notability is a contentious issue. Stating that "it is generally agreed that topics in most areas must exceed a certain threshhold of notability in order to have an article in Wikipedia" is flat-out wrong, as any consideration of the talk pages of the notability pages would illustrate. The original wording (now moved to Wikipedia:Notability/Arguments) describes the current situation much better than this page, which seems to whitewash over the significant contention that this term produces:

There is no official policy on notability. However, there are a number of consensus guidelines regarding notability within a limited subject field, such as for musicians, for characters from fiction, and for websites – and some others are under development. See the template to the right. An article's failure to meet these suggested requirements is frequently used as an argument to delete said article on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.

Although notability is not formal policy (and indeed the whole concept of notability is contentious), it is the opinion of some editors that this is what is meant by Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (which is a formal policy). Many editors also believe that it is a fair test of whether a subject has achieved sufficient external notice to ensure that it can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research.

If this page is a description of current practice (i.e. a guideline), it needs to highlight that a significant portion of Wikipedians disagree on how notability should be applied (it is, after all, the truth). Ziggurat 00:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

People disagree on how it should be applied, but few think that there does not exist some lower bound on notability. If you look at AfDs, etc., it is clear that some notability is a requirement for topics to be included on Wikipedia. What change do you propose? —Centrx→talk • 00:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the original wording I've mentioned above, or some derivation of it - it describes what the situation is concisely and fairly. The fact that some people use the term does not mean that it is a general standard, and to be honest this is obviously a controversial issue for many. That a page which purports to describe current practice does not mention the controversial nature of notability is a strong disservice to accurate reporting. Ziggurat 00:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• The phrase "there is no official policy on..." is a vacuous truth. It is misleading because it implies we should only work by official policy (which by the way is an oxymoron) and there is no official policy on many things that we do anyway. That's what we have guidelines and consensus for. >Radiant< 08:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm happy to talk about what form the description should take (always room for improvement), I just don't want the current page to be inaccurate. Ziggurat 08:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree to that. From the original wording you give, the first paragraph is already there. Some paraphrase of the second paragraph would be useful, I suppose. >Radiant< 08:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Consensus

There are a significant number of established Wikipedians who disagree with the supposed "consensus" that this guideline purportedly describes. The promotion of this article to a guideline has received at least some resistance on this talk page and other "notability guideline" talk pages. Users posting here and elsewhere are correct that the existence of this page as a guideline goes to the heart of the deletionist/inclusionist debate. If it truly is consensus, I will disagree with it, but I will respect it. However, I've yet to see solid evidence that it is, in fact, consensus. Perhaps I've missed something? I suspect that this request will be met with something along the lines of "take a look at Afd yourself". Well, it seems to me that notability is not commonly invoked in Afd discussion as a sole criterion for deletion. When it is, "keep" votes pointing out that notability is not a deletion criterion (or even "delete" votes pointing out that actual policy, such as NOR, applies), are sometimes forthcoming. So basically, I'd like to see evidence of the consensus. Thanks. · j e r s y k o talk · 13:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• First, there is no such thing as "promotion to a guideline". Second, notability guidelines have been in existence for at least a year, and their existence is not controversial. Third, I fail to see how this goes to the heart of the deletionist/inclusionist debate (as a side question, what debate?). And fourth, analysis at Wikipedia talk:AfD categories shows that about 68% of deletion debates is about notability. >Radiant< 14:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, notability's not controversial at all. It's perfectly standard precendent, and eveyone's definition of notability is the same. Everyone agrees, because everyone with an opinion votes on most AFDs all the time, boradcasting their opinion. I, for exampl, don't think I've ever tried to delete something by claiming its not notable. Don't make up consensus. -- Chris chat edits essays 14:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
    • This guideline does not say that everyone agrees on precisely the same threshhold for a subject to be notable. Straw man arguments and sarcastic tangents are irrelevant to whether this is a guideline. —Centrx→talk • 21:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I admit that notability has been discussed at Afd and is invoked at Afd. My question, however, is whether this article accurately describes said "consensus" on the propriety of invoking notability. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, it's proper, although of course the standards of notability are subjective and up to debate. If someone claims "foo isn't notable" the proper answer is not "notability is not policy", but "foo is notable because so-and-so". For instance, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Campzone. The reason is that the former invokes a principle, and the latter is about the actual content of the article. We are an encyclopedia, and the actual content of the article is what matters. It's the position of the borderline that's controversial, not its existence. >Radiant< 15:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
      • But one's response to a claim that something is "non-notable" is a matter of personal preference that is not really relevant to whether this guideline reflects consensus. The guideline now says "it is generally agreed that topics in most areas must exceed a certain threshhold of notability in order to have an article in Wikipedia." My question is whether this general agreement (i.e. consensus) actually exists. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
        • That statement is based on the existence of a substantial number of consensual, and frequently-used, guidelines in Category:Wikipedia notability criteria. >Radiant< 15:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Perhaps I'm not being clear. There are a significant number of established Wikipedians who disagree with the supposed "consensus" that this guideline purportedly describes. This is evidenced, in part, by resistance on this talk page and other "notability guideline" talk pages. What I'm really looking for is evidence that there is consensus on the propriety of invoking notability at all. I'm not saying it is not invoked, I'm saying that merely referring to the number of times it has been invoked at Afd is a somewhat dubious way to prove consensus. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
            • That resistance appears to be confined to a couple of new users who opposed on spurious procedural grounds, rather than describing a) how this guideline does not accurate describe current practice or b) why articles on Wikipedia must not meet a certain minimum threshhold of notability. —Centrx→talk • 21:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• I have looked at the talk pages of the ten guidelines listed on {{IncGuide}} and frankly I don't see any real resistance to most of them; please point out what you mean? I'm not sure what you mean by propriety, or what evidence you want; does this page help? Something that is heavily in use is obviously accepted and therefore has a de facto consensus. Furthermore, notability is a corollary of one of our oldest policies, WP:NOT. >Radiant< 15:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Jersyko is correct. While there are a large number of people who support this idea, there are also a large number of people who do not. I do not understand while the neutral article explaining both views was moved to "Arguments". — Reinyday, 16:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The sheer number of people who support or do not support is not especially relevant, but the number is rather small. A mere essay with a canonical name was displaced by a proposed guideline that plainly describes current practice on Wikipedia and recieved no substantial objections. If you think this page is inaccurate, propose a change. —Centrx→talk • 21:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not this "plainly describes current practice" needs to be decided by more than two people. There really needs to be more people involved with this if this can be a guideline. Sheer number might not neccessarily be relevant, but number of people is part of what consensus is. Why not get more people to support this proposal before labeling it a guideline? Why be presumptuous in thinking that you know what current practice is? Fresheneesz 02:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It already has been decided by more than two people. There are established content-specific notability guidelines, a policy (WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information), interpretations of other policy (notability equates to the existence of sufficient reliable sources to allow a verifiably neutral article), long-standing comunity consensus (per approximately 2/3 of successful AfD nominations). Just how much evidence do you need that the community consensus is solidly behind having some kind of notability bar to inclusion, and always has been? Guy 13:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, theres no clear consensus to keep as guideline *this* specific page, with its *specific* information. Notability in general is a different issue. There are many people who use the word notability, however *this* page is not what most people are refering to. They're refering to a word used in english - and while this page is related, it is not what they're talking about. Fresheneesz 20:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The word used in English is an even higher bar than this guideline sets. This is not about some notions about consensus procedures you might have; why do you think it does not accurately describe current practice? —Centrx→talk • 22:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Restoring previous content

How do people feel about restoring the version of this page at Wikipedia:Notability/Arguments, which clearly describes both sides of the issue instead of stating one side, as there is clearly no consensus on this issue. — Reinyday, 17:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. There is no consensus on this issue. · j e r s y k o talk · 17:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • See thread above about merging the two. The old page has a number of associated problems. I should add that while the aforementioned essay attempts to describe both sides of the issue, this guideline in fact describes neither side. This guideline is not based on any particular point of view, but on what actually happens in Wikipedia. Guidelines should be descriptive, not prescriptive. >Radiant< 18:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The guideline does not describe actual consensus, because there is none. Or, at least, no convincing evidence of it has been presented. · j e r s y k o talk · 18:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
      • You can keep saying that but it just isn't true. This guideline describes what happens on Wikipedia. Please point out any particular phrase in the guideline that is not an accurate description of what happens on Wikipedia. >Radiant< 19:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
        • "it is generally agreed that topics in most areas must exceed a certain threshhold of notability in order to have an article in Wikipedia" · j e r s y k o talk · 19:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Remember, I'm not denying that notability is invoked in Afd and elsewhere. This page goes beyond merely describing how things are, however, by stating that there is "general agreement" (which I read to mean consensus, and since this is a guideline, it must mean consensus) that articles must have a certain degree of notability. There are certainly a number of editors who feel that way, but there are a large number who disagree, as well. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't really chime in with much more than a "me too" comment - there are a set of notability guidelines that some people use, but that a significant proportion of editors do not and are opposed to. Personally, I think they're all redundant instruction bloat (and contributing to the perception that Wikipedia is a hopelessly tangled bureaucracy), but I accept the fact that some people choose to use them. This page should therefore describe the truth of what's going on. I'd also like to point out that Radiant made a similar change, and was met with similar resistance, last year (as seen in the archive of this page), and the same requests for consensus were made then. I fail to see what has changed since that time. Ziggurat 21:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there really a significant number? What are the reasons they are opposed to it? Does their principled opposition result in articles on purely non-notable subjects being preserved? Can you point to any example at all at AfD that is totally non-notable yet remains on Wikipedia? —Centrx→talk • 21:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, there are a significant number. You are welcome to read the comments at:

• Wikipedia:Non-notability
• Wikipedia:Non-notability/Essay
• Wikipedia:Deletion reform/Brainstorming#Remove notable requirement

As for your question about AfD, you open up all the issues that people who oppose notability refer to, namely that verifiability prevents inappropriate articles from being kept, and that people cannot decide what the definition of notability is. I can, if you would like, point to numerous articles on AfD that were kept despite someone thinking they were non-notable because their subject is considered inherently notable, i.e. schools, small villages, fraternities, etc. Such subjects invariably get a WikiProject that prevents them from being deleted no matter how non-notable the nominator considers them. — Reinyday, 17:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-notability/Essay has only one non-trivial contributor. Wikipedia:Deletion reform/Brainstorming#Remove notable requirement was a year ago and the vast majority who commented there thought keeping notability as a requirement is good. Wikipedia:Non-notability has a handful of active editors, but what has come out of that is not that non-notable articles should be kept, but begins with a misconception about what notability is, then has ways to improve non-notable articles and ends with the odd double-negative of "what non-notability is not". This guideline actually has the basic ideas of that essay; notability is a way of ensuring that the other content policies are met. I don't doubt that you can find AfDs where people disagreed about whether something was notable or not, but the fact remains they were arguing over whether it was notable or not. They kept the school because thousands of people interact with the school and there are numerous newspaper articles in local newspapers about schools. They did not keep the school despite it being not notable, they kept it because they thought it met a minimum threshhold of notability. —Centrx→talk • 22:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

There always seems to be opposition to it, yes; there was last year, the last time this was tried. I suppose it's possible to ask at the Village Pump what the general populace think? As for my argument, I actually lean towards being a deletionist (although I don't like factionalism), I just think that the notability guidelines are completely redundant (as I said, instruction bloat). I've yet to see an article that should be deleted that needed notability to be deleted; if something is non-notable it always also seems to fall down on one of the core policies (most often WP:V). They're also used far too subjectively, and that's a potential cause for bias. I've seen this happen personally, where a large Indian IT company was deleted on the basis of 'non-notability', only for it later to be established that it was certainly deserving of an article. I'm not sure what you're asking in the last two questions - how does that affect the consensus (or lack of it) on this page? Ziggurat 21:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Notability is a way of deciding whether something should be included without waiting 6 months to see if a neutral, verifiable article can be written about it, and without wasting the time of editor's who might try in vain to make it so. —Centrx→talk • 22:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• I've reworded the phrase Jersyko objected to. I should note that this effort is different from a year ago, and the wiki has evolved (in particular, we have a lot more editors and a far greater influx of articles that are below the bar). >Radiant< 23:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Since guidelines are supposed to reflect consensus, it seems to me that the very fact that there is an ongoing dispute as to whether consensus exists would tend to suggest that, at the very least, a consensus is not strong. Consensus should be demonstrated -- a contested guideline makes mockery of what a guideline is. Wikipedia:Notability/Arguments seems to describe the current "consensus" better -- that there is none. --Zantastik talk 23:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • This guideline reflects actual practice. There are several people that do not like actual practice, though, but the point is that guidelines are descriptive. >Radiant< 23:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
    • With respect, Radiant, I think the most important aspect of a guideline is that it "reflects consensus", not that it describes actual practice. · j e r s y k o talk · 23:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Current practice by definition reflects consensus. >Radiant< 00:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thats not true. People can think that another way would be better, but are forced to do things the way everyone else around them does it - thats just one example. Another example is that you don't know consensus, or current practice radiant. You just think you know, from where *you've* been. Other people have been to other places, and have seen different "current practice". Once you demonstrate to us that there is consensus for this proposal, we will have no choice but to accept it. Until then, this simply doesn't have support. Fresheneesz 01:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• People who think another way is better than what everybody else does are welcome to try and convince everybody else. Obviously, what everybody does is the consensus, and what these lone people do is not. That is why we have proposals, and that is also why 90% of all proposals fail. >Radiant< 11:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the old guideline is much too long. I would even trim the new one quite a bit, keeping the connection with policy and a mention of how people claim notability to support deletion. Stephen B Streater 11:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a danger trying to shove this proposal down everyone's throat. In principle I agree with Radiant on a number of issues: the overwhelming common practice is to use the notability guidelines as valuable tools when deciding whether or not to keep an article. I don't think anyone can dispute that and while it's true that a fair number of editors oppose this whole idea they constitute a small, if vocal, minority. But certainly the way to consensus is not to dismiss them as people that get in the way of others and refuse to accept the proposal as a guideline. I strongly believe that there is a need for a page that explains how and why notability is used on Wikipedia because I can attest to the fact it's all pretty darn confusing when you get involved in AfDs and try to reconcile the CSD criteria with the "[[WP::NN]] is just an essay!" mantra. But I also understand that inclusionists are very concerned with this page becoming a Trojan horse for a widespread discounting of their views. The only way to deal with this is with more patience, not less. Pascal.Tesson 17:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Television

Has there been any discussion about notability guidelines for television programs? For example, a mini-series on a minor cable channel, or if a stand-up comedian has a major special showcasing his work, what are the guidelines for whether or not that mini-series or special should have their own articles? Thanks. --Elonka 21:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• The closest we have so far are WP:FICT (guideline) and Wikipedia:Notability (TV and radio stations) (proposal with lack of interest so far). I recall some precedent in deleting articles on individual sketches from a comedy show, as well as precedent for having articles on individual episodes of famous shows. Some discussion on the subject would be good, preferably on a new page. >Radiant< 22:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Compromise?

How about we decide what to do with a consensus poll!

Are you joking? —Centrx→talk • 19:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on, you can be more constructive than that. Pascal.Tesson 20:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Consensus is not established by polling. >Radiant< 20:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it then established by your sort of process abuse? I don't think so. Wjhonson 20:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Revert warring is not going to solve anything. Shall we please leave the article alone for now? · j e r s y k o talk · 20:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• It would help if you familiarized yourself with the earlier discussion on this page before you yell 'abuse'. It appears you are confused as to how Wikipedia guidelines are defined, created and maintained. Please read WP:PPP and WP:POL for details. >Radiant< 20:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Radiant, I might not have your experience around here but I can tell you're bullying people. This is a straw poll, meant to give everyone around here a rough idea of what people think. Whether you feel that you're on the right side of this revert war is irrelevant. There's a conflict and we should deal with it. Basically, you are proposing that this conflict be resolved by having everyone agree with you. Well don't be surprised if this isn't too well received. For the record, you should go back to WP:PPP and WP:POL yourself and explain to me where you find any rule that says that straw polls can't help. There's also this little quote "A guideline is made by listening to objections and resolving them." This means a guideline needs time. This one is what a month old? A straw poll can be useful in clarifying the support this has among people currently involved in this discussion. Why is that such a scary thing? Pascal.Tesson 21:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

A straw poll is not going to be constructive with regard to this page. It is not going to lead to its improvement, and it is not going to cause it to be rejected or accepted. More likely, it may bring people who have been canvassed to vote in it. At the moment, it is in the ridiculous state of people voting on whether there is a consensus or not—almost like a vote on whether there was a valid vote or not; no one seems to be providing any reasons of what is wrong with the page. —Centrx→talk • 21:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Changing the tags on this page is not going to prevent articles on non-notable subjects from being deleted. —Centrx→talk • 21:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• What Centrx said. There are two convoluted issues here, the first being whether this page accurately describes common practice, and the second whether people actually like that common practice. The first cannot be resolved by a poll, only by looking at the evidence; the second cannot be resolved by a poll either, since knowing how many people dislike common practice does not actually resolve anything. Changing a tag on a page does not change practice; guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive. >Radiant< 22:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

True, consensus is established not by polling. It's established by discussion leading to general agreement. Clearly there is not general agreement here. Therefore, the discussion is not finished. Therefore, there is no consensus. End of story. I also don't agree that this should be more than a proposal right now. Derex 01:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• There is general agreement that this is existing practice. There is not general agreement whether this should remain practice. >Radiant< 09:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

What should happen to the status of this page?

• Change back to {{Proposed}}
• I'd be willing to compromise to this option, but it's not the best option in my opinion. -- Chris chat edits essays 14:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• I think that making it a guideline is unnecessarily controversial right now. But I do think that this page is way more instructive than the old notability essay. It's pretty confusing for new editors to have all these notability guidelines (and the speedy deletion policies refering to them) while having on the other hand a confusing compromise-essay that basically says nothing about how notability is applied every day. Pascal.Tesson 16:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• I am opposed only to this proposal being labeled a "guideline," which denotes that it is supported by consensus. I rest on my previous comments on this talk page as evidence that it is, perhaps, not representative of consensus. While I believe the Notability/Arguments page accurately reflects the current consensus, it exists independently of this page. The proponents of this page, I imagine, would like it to be a guideline or policy either now or later. Labeling it a proposed guideline seems the most constructive outcome. · j e r s y k o talk · 17:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Restore the Wikipedia:Notability/Arguments page.
• I believe that this page is probably the best description of what's going on in Wikipedia right now. -- Chris chat edits essays 14:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• The "Arguments" page reflects both side of the issue, and should thus be restored. — Reinyday, 15:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Agree with above, and it's certainly 150% inappropriate to edit-war over establishing a "guideline" without even any discussion. Proper process please.Wjhonson 20:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Please explain what is wrong with this page in how it describes current, long-standing practice and how it proceeds directly from fundamental Wikipedia policies. —Centrx→talk • 19:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• We do not vote on proposals. This describes existing practice, and as such it is a guideline. That is proper process. If you do not like existing practice, propose a change somewhere. >Radiant< 20:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• It's not simply the voting, it's the going around voting and decrying some lack of consensus but without explaining what is wrong with the guideline. —Centrx→talk • 20:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I still have yet to see a single AfD that kept an article on a patently non-notable subject. —Centrx→talk • 20:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The article is a clear, concise and fairly accurate description of current practice and how it relates to policy. Whether people like this practice is a separate issue. Stephen B Streater 21:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
      • And enough people disagree with this, to make it an issue obviously. Wjhonson 22:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Oh, it most definitely is an issue - but that issue is unrelated to the tag on this page, and cannot be resolved by changing said tag. Instead, people should (and have) create a proposal to change the way we currently do things. If that proposal passes, I'd be the first to amend this guideline to match the new way of doing things. >Radiant< 22:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Here is my concern: when something becomes a guideline, people start referring to it as if it were policy, and what we wind up with is dangerously circular: guidelines are created without consensus because "that's the way things work"; then, once the guideline is created, it's wielded like a policy to quash remaining opposition to the practice. Radiant himself (or herself?) is guilty of this on ANI where he uses WP:DDV to justify removing a talk page straw poll by Fresheneesz. Now, removing talk page content is almost always considered vandalism - this is policy - and here we had Radiant using a guideline that (s)he was active in creating (against other users' objections, no less) to justify an act of talk page vandalism. So I think we should all be very careful in promoting guidelines to policies unless there is a true consensus; if no consensus can be achieved, then perhaps it shouldn't be a guideline at all. ATren 03:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
            • Nobody is arguing that this should be promoted to policy, and people in general aren't referring to guidelines as policy. It would help if you stuck to constructive discussion instead of arbitrary accusations of vandalism that have nothing to do with the issue at hand. See also ad hominem. And by the way I'm male. >Radiant< 09:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
              • Re-read my comment - I am saying that a guideline is often wielded like policy, and I pointed to an example where you used a newly promoted guideline to justify an action that would otherwise be considered vandalism. This is my concern - that promoting a controversial proposal to guideline without clear consensus gives undue validation to that position, by giving the appearance that it is a settled issue. And, please don't take this personally. I am not calling you a vandal (that would be a ridiculous accusation given your history) - but I do believe one of your edits was vandalism. ATren 13:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
                • So you make a blanket assertion based upon an interpretation that has already been pointed out to be erroneous several times. Sorry, but that doesn't cut it. Also, there is no such thing as "promoting" pages to a new "status". >Radiant< 13:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
                  • Please clarify: are you implying that it is OK to remove someone's talk page comment, an act which is considered vandalism in almost every scenario except for blatant personal attacks? ATren 14:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
                  • Tell me, ATren, have you stopped beating your wife? >Radiant< 14:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
                    • I have no idea what you're talking about here, but I suspect you are trying to make a WP:POINT with this edit. Please retract it or remove it, as it is a blatant personal attack. ATren 15:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
                      • He is referring to Fallacy of many questions (which is redirected from Have you stopped beating your wife). —Centrx→talk • 20:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
                        • OK, thank you for the clarification. It would have been advisable for him to include the link himself to avoid this misunderstanding. In any event I fail to see how that logic fallacy applies here. ATren 23:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
                • Conversely, people use the argument on AfD that "Notability is only an essay, it is not relevant here"; people will use the tag to justify what they want either way. That does not mean the proper tag should not be used. —Centrx→talk • 14:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - this tag-switching has got to stop. I'm not able to contribute to this issue today (real life concerns take precendence!), but it seems clear that this page should be a guideline describing current practice, including the very controversial nature of current practice (and the use or not of notability / importance / significance seems to be perhaps the most controversial issue in Wikipedia) and the fact that many people disregard arguments of notability. WP:NNOT, while a different matter, is still in the state of a proposal, and I think User:Cfp's compromise notice was an excellent (and non-confrontational) one. Ziggurat 00:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Poll you may be interested in...

There is a survey going on at Wikipedia talk:Non-notability#Information-gathering straw-poll that people editing this page may be interested in. Cheers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

One last attempt at cooling things down

Ok. Let me try one last time to make sure people cool down. This page has becoming a screaming match and that's not helping anyone. Before you read on, let me make a full disclosure if that has not been clear yet: I roughly support Radiant's aims and conclusions but not his means. Now that we've got that cleared out, I propose the following simple steps to bring everyone to their senses:

1. For now, the page is considered as a proposal. Even if one thinks that it should eventually become a guideline, it's reasonnable to assume that there is too much debate on this page even on the wording of the current practice. Guidelines should be a bit mor stable than that.
2. We halt this straw-poll that, in any case, has definitely had no positive effect.
3. Atren, Centrx, Jersyko, Radiant, Wjohnson (in alphabetical order) and anyone else who's been spending much time on this talk page (I guess that would include myself) all chill and take 48 hours off from it.
4. We try to broaden the discussion by making proper announcements at the Village Pump.
5. We calmly try to return to this discussion by first figuring out what we can agree on and move from there.

Cheers all. Pascal.Tesson 14:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

There has been no debate on wording or contents of the page itself for weeks. The objections are based on some vague notions of "following process to evaluate consensus". —Centrx→talk • 14:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Now, it does so happen that the people who are screaming here about process have all lined up over at Wikipedia talk:Non-notability in support of that essay opposing Notability, which is evidently their ulterior motive in the process complaints, but they should be addressing the issue directly rather than putting up these red herrings. —Centrx→talk • 15:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no "ulterior motive", please don't imply that I do. I disagree with notability as a guideline, as do many others, and I am participating in a debate the issue. Leave it at that. ATren 15:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The ulterior motive is opposing Notability, contrasted with the stated reason for opposing the tag, that process was not followed. —Centrx→talk • 20:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

There's no conflict between the stated complaint and the supposed "ulterior motive". The "process" complaint was directly related to our objections to the notability proposal - in that the "guideline" tag was applied before consensus had been reached. There's no "motive", ulterior or otherwise, just disagreement with the contents of the proposed guideline and the fact that the guideline tag has been applied without clear consensus. ATren 23:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

"Ulterior motive" does not imply that it is sinister. The point is that stated objections to Notability have been few, and most of the objectors have not discussed them, while the process complaints are repeated and presented as the primary objection to the tagging. —Centrx→talk • 23:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I just arrived here, so I was not part of the initial debate, but a quick look back on this talk page verifies that the issue was still being actively debated, despite the lack of activity in the article itself. The process complaints were tangential, when it seemed that several editors were applying the "guideline" tag while the debate was not yet settled. ATren 14:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Centrx, I like your "painstakingly created, non-tendentious message" and I hope that we can keep that version until consensus is reached. ATren 14:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Official policy?

Hi.

Since it seems that this "notability" thing seems to play a significant role in determining whether or not stuff should be included (although I might be wrong), should it be made official policy? Although I do think a little more rigor would be needed for that. Although there are a lot of guidelines it seems about notability for various topics, etc., shouldn't we also have a more general "overall" definition to supplement and complement that? 74.38.32.128 23:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Notability can't be policy, because there is no objective way to enforce it. -- Chris chat edits essays 00:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

How is it less objective than NPOV? —Centrx→talk • 01:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Centrx, I think you are being unnecessarily confrontational. You could also have said "I do not believe it's less objective than the NPOV policy". Same message, no agression. As for your point, I don't agree completely. Notability is trickier to define than verifiability or NPOV. Of course, the latter two are also hard to define objectively and so I don't think it's impossible to have a fairly objective policy on notability. The only way to do that, I think, is to not try to give too strict a definition of notability. I can imagine a policy saying something about a general concept and refers to the various guidelines for more precise discussions. However, I think the current absence of policy is part of the compromise status quo. Time will help to form a more widely acceptable practice which might in a few years' time result in a policy (if anyone feels it's still needed.) Pascal.Tesson 11:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Asking a question is not confrontational, and I do not know whether it is more or less objective than NPOV; it is simply a question and if I were not asking a question I would state an assertion. Assuming good faith is not simply to grease the wheels of communication, it is also because it can be easy to mistake the motivation behind a person's statements in text. —Centrx→talk • 16:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that notabilility is tricker than NPOV or verifiability. Verifiability is generally pretty straightforward - there's a source or there's not a source. Sometimes there may be a debate on the reliability of the source, but that debate is at least bounded by a more rigid, objective policy. NPOV is tricker than verifiability, much more subjective, but with NPOV there is usually a compromise position that can gain consensus. In other words, the subjective views can balance themselves to a position more or less acceptable to both sides. Not so with notability - this is both subjective and has generally has no compromise position, so there's always a "loser" in a notability debate. For this reason, I believe notability should be more rigidly defined - so that biases do not come into play when deciding something as all-or-nothing like deletion. That's why I feel that a strict definition of notability, e.g. based on verifiability and reliable sources, would be preferable. ATren 15:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Note the paradox though. If you define notability on verifiability and reliable sources, then you have both the "no compromise" problem from verifiability and the subjectivity problem from reliable sources. So you're back at square one: a definition of notability that is both subjective and has no compromise position. Pascal.Tesson 15:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

But I think reliable sources is significantly less subjective than notability in general. At least RS has some objective criteria of its own (i.e. peer reviewed journals, reputable news sources, no blogs). Yes, it's all subjective to a degree, but notability is more subjective than other guidelines, and is used to decide something with no middle ground (deletion) - this combination making notability particularly contentious. ATren 15:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV is not about picking the middle position between two opposing groups, one or both of which may be wildly wrong. Ideally it would be about an objective, universally neutral position, though it is in practice more the received position among experts. Still, this is not necessarily simple to determine; it is what is "neutral" and I know it when I see it but its application varies in particular cases. —Centrx→talk • 16:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Would an article made from as close to that "universally neutral position" as possible be acceptable on Wikipedia, even if that doesn't quite conform to the recieved position among "experts"? 74.38.32.128 05:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Any response?! 70.101.144.160 20:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It would depend on the particular case and the reliability of the different sources. Note that even if a position is not the dominant one among experts, there will still be many experts providing good arguments for that position. It's hard to make a general statement about this. —Centrx→talk • 21:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed, it does seem that notability is tough to define. I've juggled with some definitions myself and none seem to really cut it. But I don't think that that means a rigorous, formal, more objective, definition is impossible. It just needs work. 74.38.32.128 05:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you considered the definition given at User:Uncle G/On notability? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Read it just now. It looks pretty good, in fact. This is sort of what I had in mind for my "more rigorous" definition idea and what I thought notability would imply based on the various comments, discussions, etc. here. 74.38.32.128 06:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Restarting a calm discussion

First, I'd like to thank everyone for following my suggestion to calm down and take a short break from this discussion. In the hope that we can find some common ground for agreement, I'd like to explain my thoughts on the current page, its purpose and its value.

1. Notability is widely used within Wikipedia's current deletion process. This is an undisputable fact. Whether or not it should be used and to what extent is an entirely different question and one which is the subject of a number of proposals and essays like Wikipedia:Notability/Arguments, Wikipedia:Non-notability, User:Uncle G/On notability.
2. Notability guidelines do exist. Many of them are reasonnably stable and are accepted and considered as helpful by a large majority of editors. Again, I believe that none of these statements can seriously be argued.
3. The current article's should not be aimed at strengthening the deletionists' position. I don't believe that it is but it's a natural concern to take into account. The article should not (and currently isn't) an attempt to close the book on the notability debate. That debate might survive as long as Wikipedia does.
4. The current article's aim should be to document how and why notability is used within the various deletion processes. More importantly, there exists a need for such a page. As the anon comment/question in the previous section just showed, inexperienced users have a hard time grasping what all these "NN" indicate and it's certainly well worth it to have a clear page on the subject.
5. In order to form a consensus on this page, we all have to argue in good faith and assume that others also will. Inclusionists should avoid a stance of "hey, I'm opposed to notability as a reason for deletion, so I don't want a guideline documenting its use in AfD because people will yield it as policy". Deletionists should avoid the "I think notability is a crucial concept for making Wikipedia better so I want to make sure this guideline explains this."

Pascal.Tesson 11:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• I concur with the above. >Radiant< 15:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Well said, Pascal.Tesson. Now, what can and should be argued, is whether this project page is a mere description of current practice, as has been repeatedly asserted by Centrx. I think there still are some sweeping generalisations in the current text that needs to be adressed. For instance, "Topics in most areas must meet a minimum threshold of notability" (my emphasis). The guidelines I've been able to find are not that many, and are often limited to very narrow field, such as companies, websites and neologisms. Might it not be more accurate to write "Topics in some areas" or something similar? arj 16:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • "Topics in certain areas", perhaps? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I think it's really nice that we can start being constructive again. Maybe we can rephrase the whole sentence so that it implicitly refers to the existing guidelines. How'bout "Since Wikipedia aims to be a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia, most subject articles have to attain some minimum threshold of notability to be considered as valid topics for articles about people, companies, bands, web sites and so on. The terms "importance" and, etc. ..." Meh, I guess that's not that much better but my point is: we can rephrase the whole paragraph, not just "most areas". Pascal.Tesson 17:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
        • It doesn't need to step all over itself rather than clear sentences to re-state the obvious, that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; the page already explains in what way it proceeds from other policies. —Centrx→talk • 18:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • What are the areas notability does not cover? The absence of one of the other pages does not mean that articles in a certain subject area are not based on notability. For example, even if we accept that all public high schools ought to have articles, it does not mean that notability does not apply to high schools, but instead that all public high schools are notable (and not random private organizations that call themselves "high schools" either). That historical articles on trivial subjects are not often deleted does not mean that non-notable historical topics are kept, but that no one cares about it as much as he cares about his best friend's band, and that the topic is so non-notable that there is little record of it after 5 years (That is, unlike for current things, the non-notability of past things means that there are few interested editors and few reliable sources, see Rationale). —Centrx→talk • 18:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

This sounds very sensible. Notability is a tool used to help choose articles for Wikipedia which can be made reliable and non-trivial. Additional guidelines in some areas are aimed at ensuring consistency across an area. Stephen B Streater 19:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think any of the proposed rewordings actually qualify as "stepping all over itself". I'll say that much once again: I happen to agree that notability is a concept that naturally follows from other policies but I am also aware that this is far from being an uncontroversial opinion. Pascal.Tesson 22:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• The current "guideline" does not address any of the problems with the concept of notability nor any of the objections to its use in deleting articles, which were clearly outlined in prvious versions. Notability is completely subjective, and obviously every subject is considered notable by the editor who creates the article about it. I would like to see this page at least state that some editors object to the deletion of articles based solely on perceived notability. — Reinyday, 06:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Churches, mosques, synagogues, etc

Every day many articles are started about individual churches and every day there are AFD discussions. I do not want to see all churches included, and I do not want to see all chrch articles deleted. I would appreciate some criteria for the sake of consistency and to reduce repetitious arguing.. The first criterion people cite is size. Megachurches with thousands of members are probably noteworthy but the biggest churches are not necessarily the most encyclopedic, any more than the largest colleges are. I am looking for criteria which would allow other churches to be included, just as smaller colleges have articles Princeton University. A church might be historic Old North Church or have a place in the civil rights struggle, or be the site where gospel music was first sung, or be the place where a President of the U.S. taught Sunday School. But how does one specify how historically important it must be? It could be architecturally or artistically important (designed by Frank Lloyd Wright, or with murals by Chagall). What are the criteria for such cultural importance? It might be religiously important (Here the doctrine of blah blah was first enunciated by Rev xxx in 1815, so it the birthplace of the xyz denomination). It could be a small church but still a noteworthy and notable one. How can this last categroy be delineated? Newspaper and magazine articles? Awards or recognition from the denomination or from nondenominational bodies? Distinguishing the building from the denomination, how large or important does a religious denomination have to be to merit an article?Edison 07:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that anything out of the ordinary would be interesting. Most churches don't have anything out of the ordinary about them. The key is for it to be reported independently by a reliable source. This means that we don't have to push our own point of view about notability - the independent sources have decided that it is notable. Stephen B Streater 08:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I think any Church with a congregation of a certain size or higher, is notable. Any church that has X number of viewers, subscribers, etc.. is notable. Any church that has spent X dollars on political actions, notable. Any church who's Minister is notable, is notable. I would use similar criteria for any company, but with different numbers. Mathiastck 17:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

This is arbitrary, and there's no reasonable way to decide what X should be. —Centrx→talk • 17:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Meaningful news coverage as always is the threshold, to determine whether or not we could actually write a useful article. A piece about the history of the church, it's role in the community and so on is a good start. Stuff announcing services or a wedding or whatever isn't. It's actually relatively rare that anything beyond an official church history is written by a member, and a few passing mentions are made in the paper about a new minister, a program the church offers, etc. Nothing that really makes an encyclopedia article. When there are actually real news articles being written about the church, that's a strong sign it's "notable" enough for an article. --W.marsh 20:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this position. What I look for before putting Churches (or pretty much anything else) up for AfD is two sources that look like they pass WP:RS and are either apparently independent of one another or are about different things. For instance, a newspaper article about the Church history and the inclusion of the Church in a book about Church architecture would be fine if you ask me. Erechtheus 00:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Unless there are clear references affirming notability, I'd say to merge churches to their local community article, per WP:LOCAL. --Elonka 02:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hiways

I see articles appearing on every numbered state hiway in the U.S. I can see the notability of historic hiways (Route 66) or interstates, but there seems to be little more than a stub to be had about numbered state or even county roads: Are they all considered inherently notable, or should they stand out in some way to have an article? Is there such a thing as a non-notable state hiway? Edison 07:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to include only those roads which have been written about outside the minimal list-of-roads type places. For example, in England, the A5 was a Roman road, so has 2,000 years of history. But my road was made a hundred years ago as part of the expansion of London, and has very little unusual about it. There's no point in a stub which can't be expanded. Stephen B Streater 08:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Consensus on AFD is that any numbered state highway is notable. Personally however, I'd like to see published information about more than just terminus information and route length before we include an article. I was trying to flesh out a state route article recently and that was literally all the information I could find. --W.marsh 20:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

And we have Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways, WP:CASH, WP:WASH, WP:USRD, WP:KYSH, WP:ILSH, WP:NYSH, WP:FLSH, etc. because? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

For some reason certain editors are really interested in roads, bridges, etc. —Centrx→talk • 01:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah... SPUI was too but unfortunately he left. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

To improve the alphabet soup quality of Wikipedia? --W.marsh 01:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Now we need the chicken. ;) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe we should merge the lot of them. Including the chicken. >Radiant< 08:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)