Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

A random essay on notability and vehicles

Given discussion on the aircraft notability guidelines, I've drafted Wikipedia:Notability (vehicles), an essay that tries to expand on notability considerations for vehicles generally. Comments are invited, my distant hope is to propose this as a guideline some day, but it clearly needs work at this point. SDY (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Questions as to Speedy deletion criteria

A question has come up relating to articles on Masonic Grand Lodges. Some of them do not meet the criteria set out at WP:ORG (Note: some articles on Grand Lodges obviously meet the criteria, others obviously do not. I am purely talking about those that do not). The question is whether such articles can ever be speedy deleted under A7 or not. One side of the argument is that, because the organization calls itself a "Grand Lodge" (or "Grand Orient" which is essentially the same thing), the article automaticlally indicates "why its subject is important or significant" (to use the wording at A7). The other side of the argument is tht anyone can form an organization and call itself a "Grand Lodge"... it could be just three guys with fancy regalia... you should not judge the importance or significance of any organization purely on the fact that it has a fancy title.

To give you an idea of what I am talking about... Compare two stubs: Großorient von Österreich and Grand Lodge of Armenia.

I think The Großorient article is a good candidate for speedy under A7... the article gives no indication as to why the organization is important or significant. It simply states that it exists. The GL of Armenia article is, on the other, not an A7 candidate. The article does give a weak indication of its significance (the claim to be "the national body", for example).

Is my thinking on this off the mark, or correct? Can an article on an organization that calls itself a Grand Lodge ever be speedy deleted? Thoughts and advice are appreciated. Blueboar (talk) 20:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The article title doesn't seem to me to be the issue. The Grand Lodge of Armenia article clearly indicates some significance. The Osterreich one doesn't. That's a matter of article text, not of title. That said, the title is part of the article, and I can think of cases where the article title would at least give a good clue of notability. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It would have to be a pretty extreme case for a title alone to save it. Superlatives like "Grand", "Fantastic", or even "official" couldn't do it. If somone was foolish enough to name an article something like "The Official New York Times Guide to History of the Iraqi War", and then put essentially no content in it, I would have a hard time speedying it. That title alone conveys importance, by linking it to a notable publisher and a notable topic.
Kww (talk) 21:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

These are also almost without exception Grand Lodges that claim national status and are affiliated to the second largest masonic body. Let's not slant the question to get the answer we want. JASpencer (talk) 23:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

And another thing... shouldn't this be under CSD rather than notability? JASpencer (talk) 00:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If I am understanding Phil and Kww correctly... the key to this is that there isn't an indication of a claim to national status or important affiliation in the Austria article, while there is in the Armenia article. This is what I have been saying all along.... we can not assume notability... it actually has to be asserted it in the text of the article. Blueboar (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Close. To actually get the cigar, you would have to note that notability, or lack thereof, is not an issue for CSD. To be saved from CSD, the article has only to assert importance. This is intentionally looser than notability, in order to allow a gray area for articles that would meet the notability requirements given a little bit of time and discussion about sourcing. Failing WP:MUSIC, WP:ORG, or even WP:N is not a criteria for speedy deletion.
Kww (talk) 00:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly what I have been trying to say. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Pretty correct. Just calling something "Grand" isn't in and of itself an assertion of notability ("The Grand Pink Elephants have sent in their demo tape last week and played at a local school" will get speedied as quick as anything else). An assertion of importance, however, is not the same as an assertion of notability; since notability is only significant coverage in independent reliable sources, only the citation of such source material asserts notability. However, it is the assertion of importance that argues against speedy deletion. If, for example, that the article asserts that the given lodge is the largest in the world, or was instrumental in major events, this would show the article should not be speedied. (It doesn't show it shouldn't be deleted, only showing significant quantities of independent source material demonstrates that, but at least it should have an AfD debate.) The best policy is still to find sources before writing and cite them on the very first edit. No one's going to speedy, or likely even AfD nom, an article that cites several decent sources—and if you can't even find several decent sources, please think twice about writing the article at all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I have made some edits to the Großorient von Österreich article. Would I be correct in thinking that it now would no longer be a candidate for speedy, or is a more overt assertion needed? Blueboar (talk) 12:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Article vs. talk page

I'd like to get opinions about what suffices as documentation of notability. This question was prompted by some recent discussion at National Puzzlers' League, which I think may now be settled.

Suppose a topic is completely unreferenced, and someone puts a {{notability}} tag on it. Sources are then given in the article talk page; and let's say for the sake of argument that these clearly make the subject notable. (I say "for the sake of argument" to avoid making this dependent on the National Puzzlers' League example, for which someone might still disagree with notability.) So the article is clearly on a notable topic, but the sources are only listed on the talk page, because the article editors are working on something else and don't want to take time to integrate the sources into the article. Does this meet the spirit of WP:N? WP:N never actually says "notability established on the talk page doesn't count", but it refers several times to the article itself establishing notability; e.g. "articles should demonstrate the notability of their topics". So technically it can be read as asserting that the talk page doesn't suffice. However, it seems to me that once notability is established, it's established; a notability tag, which is something of a preliminary to an AfD, is really unnecessary and perhaps even inappropriate at that point. I'd be interested in other opinions. Mike Christie (talk) 11:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You are correct in saying that the sources need to actually be in the article, not on the talk page. However, if good reliable sources are discussed on the talk page, the correct way to deal with the situation is to put them in the article (Don't worry about formatting or attributing them to specific satements... that can be done later). Taking an article to AfD, when reliable sources are discussed on the talk page, would probably be a waste of time... I certainly would vote KEEP if I knew such sources existed. Blueboar (talk) 12:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Although placing the sources into the article is the best solution, another option is to replace the notability tag with {{unreferenced}} or {{refimprove}} and add a hidden comment (<!-- Comment -->) explaining that sources are available on the talk page. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the best answer is to just put the sources in a section in the article, without trying to attribute specific statements to them; if I'd done that in the example I think it would have settled it. In that particular case there was also a {{refimprove}} tag, which I thought sufficient but another editor did not. So in the future I think a sources section is the way to go. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 17:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Guideline: NOTED PLAYER

See Wikipedia:NOTED PLAYER. MickMacNee (talk) 01:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for new section

I would like to propose a new section (this is separate from the current RFC on GNG) that states (to some degree):

While a topic/article should be notable, a notable topic does not necessarily require its own article. In many cases, topics that have limited notability may be better covered as part of a larger, more notable topic instead of coverage through several smaller article, using redirects to guide readers to the smaller topic's discussion in the larger article. Such an approach also allows expansion of a topic should more details emerge to fill out a larger article.

The wording can be fixed, but I hope the intent is there. This is not meant to be a content limitation, but instead striving to improve the encyclopedia that topics that barely meet notability guidelines can sometimes be covered better in a larger work without losing any coverage of the barely notable topics. --MASEM 04:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a vital counterpart to the observation that coverage of a notable topic will sometimes expand beyond the article size limits imposed - that sometimes notable topics are best covered as part of larger topics. Notability is a huge factor in what we cover, but it should not be the be all and end all, forcing us into full article coverage of permastub topics and into no coverage at all of important aspects of notable topics. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this addition is necessary: it seems very obvious. Can you show a case where someone made the opposite argument? ("this topic MUST be broken out into its own article because it is notable.") I think it distracting from the core of this guideline, which is:

• Why is notability important in WP? and
• What is notability in WP? UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the basic idea Masem describes here, but also with US that it's not clear we even need to say it.--Father Goose (talk) 10:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• It's a problem area with some classes of article. Small settlements tend to get their own, nearly empty article when it would be better to have an article about, say, the Zucchini growing region of Nazgolia with a small entry about each of the dozen farming communities. Try to take one of those little permastubs away, and the wailing and gnashing of teeth goes on for months. Singles are another case: 99% of the time, the discussion of a single belongs as a part of the album it's from. WP:MUSIC even says so. Trying to get a single article deleted is pretty difficult, and you will always find a fan that tries to get around it. Look at Sneakernight, Sneakernight(song), Sneakernight (Single), Sneakernight (Identified single), Sneakernight (Vanessa Hudgens song), and Sneakernight (Vanessa Hudegns song).
  Kww (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Kww has some aspects of it right; the same is often true in articles on fiction particularly for characters. An explicit example is Stilwater (now a redirect) a fictional setting for a game that just barely met notability requirements but really is better discussed in the context of the game.
  • Basically, without this aspect, and the current misconception that "two reliable sources" is the same as notability, notability can be gamed; find two third-party sources, even a passing mention, and you can suddenly justify any article. Technically that's fine, but that's not the point of notability, just to make sure a topic has two sources; we should be striving to provide information in the best possible encyclopedic manner, and in cases where topics just meet the notability threshhold, one should consider if a much more cohesive article could be written when combined elsewhere possibly with other related but barely notable topics. Now, exact how and what and why things can be combined, that's not a matter for notability - part of that falls to Summary style and other MOS and I don't propose that we expand that here. And I would want to make sure we have the right pointers to policy/guidelines to spell out how this can be considered, but just a short statement to make sure that it is clear to all that this is truly the case. --MASEM 13:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
    • That's not entirely accurate. Notability requires significant coverage in reliable sources; finding passing mentions in two third-party sources will generally not be enough to justify keeping an article. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I completely agree with that; I'm pointing out that there are other editors that take the mantra of "2RS = Notable" which is not always true. --MASEM 20:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
      • BF, I wish that what you say were true; the problem is that the subguidelines completely gut the "significant coverage" requirement, particularly in WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO and WP:NB. (and it is no accident the examples cited in this thread are from the areas covered by those subguidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with the idea, but the wording will have to be very careful indeed. I can see AfD arguments that will come down to 'delete: while meets GNG, this isn't important and should be a redirect to "bob"' This makes me nervous. Certainly any addition like this should make it plain this isn't an AfD argument for anything. Add in the "episodes" problem a few months back, and I can see people merging huge swaths of land into one article and justify it by the changes made here. So while I think the statement is both true and obvious, I think it's a really bad idea right now. Hobit (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

  Yes, very important point. I've seen a lot of "mergers" that were identical to deletions. This is the kind of area one has to tread very lightly. At the very most, I could support a sentence that said "sometimes related subjects are better bundled into a single page, for organizational purposes, even if they could be given independent articles by the terms outlined above" and little more.--Father Goose (talk) 00:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• While I support the content of the proposed addition, I agree with UnitedStatesian that its inclusion is likely to be distracting and to make "notability" even harder to understand and interpret. I also think that Hobit raises a valid concern: while the intent of the proposed addition is to encourage merging, it may be interpreted as a justification for deletion. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• To comment on some of the above, I don't want what I proposed to be a "strong" statement that should have any enforceability at AFD; it should merely be a suggestion (and thus have no problem with any wording changes to weaken it to such a point); there I'd recommend linking to WP:MERGE and other routes to help here. I do think, however, that if this is buried near the end (after going through the GNG and the like), this helps to remind editors that we're trying to write a high quality encyclopedia here, and this suggestion is one step that can improve it. (and for a current case where I suggest this is occurring, see Mortimer Goth and its current AFD - this is the type of article that would fall into this area.
• (which also leads to the fact that this step when it comes to many contemporary topics means that we will also likely see a reduction of non-free media use, which doesn't need to be mentioned here but is a good side effect of getting more people to follow it.) --MASEM 12:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

To that extent, I'd support an addition that was short and hard to wikilawyer, like the one I suggested above: "Sometimes related subjects are better bundled into a single page, for organizational purposes, even if they could be given independent articles by the terms outlined above."--Father Goose (talk) 19:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem reducing it to a single statement (and keeping a careful eye that it is not wrongly used to take articles to AFD), and think it can be added at the very end of the current WP:N#General notability guideline section, as this aligns well with the current very last sentence about other facts being put into larger articles. --MASEM 19:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm good with the wording Father Goose has proposed. Something about "standard editorial process" might be a good idea too... Hobit (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• I'm also good with what Father Goose proposed... but I think it might help to frame it in terms of [[WP:SIZE]. Too many small stubs leads to a lot of clutter, even if they're all technically notable. Randomran (talk) 21:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Require?

While a topic/article should be notable, a notable topic does not necessarily require its own article.

• In what sense is any article "required"? Guidelines apply to the editing process not articles.
• Stripped of a few adjectives, this reads "an [...] article does not necessarily require its own article". The question of who or what is notable enough to be written as a Wikipedia article is simply rephrasing the question "who or what is notable?" What specific problem with the current guidelines is this proposal intended to solve? Is it another variation of sources are necessary but not sufficient for notability? patsw (talk) 13:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Require might be too strong a word, agreed. But this is not a question of what is notable, more a general application of various guidelines and policies (such as WP:SS, WP:UNDUE and so forth), stating that while you could have a notable topic, even if it is well sourced, editors should consider all other factors and consider condensing notable topics into a broader category if the overall presentation and comprehension of material is improved. A case in point is commonly fictional characters; individual fictional characters may be shown to be notable, but often these articles rehash the plot of the work of fiction and character information in other character articles if there is some relation between characters. Merging characters to a single list is often a better treatment of all aspects involved. --MASEM 13:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

While this may work well for some subjects (e.g. fictional characters in a series, subspecies or cultivars, songs on an album, subsidiaries of a company), it may not work as well for others (e.g. real people, settlements). Can a single statement (or short paragraph) capture all of these nuances? If not, it would be better to avoid potential confusion and to simply point out the other guidelines when necessary, or to incorporate more specialised statements into the notability sub-guidelines. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 13:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, as suggested by Father Goose: Sometimes related subjects are better bundled into a single page, for organizational purposes, even if they could be given independent articles by the terms outlined above. as the only statement to this fact (allowing other guidelines and subs explain away the details) is sufficient to capture the spirit that (I think) is needed. --MASEM 14:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

While it's certainly a statement I can agree with, it's also a very general statement that does not tell us when related subjects are better bundled together. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 14:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be hesitant to apply specific cases (as many many editors take WP:N to be immutable, and I don't want to see either side misuse this advice), but we can state (in a following sentence) that In such cases, notable topics can be combined to avoid the creation of several small pages or the duplication of content between topics, or simply to help reader comprehensive of a larger topic as a whole. as a general statement of when, but leaving specific cases to any other guidelines. --MASEM 14:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a reasonable statement, to be sure, but it's still (perhaps necessarily?) quite general. My personal preference would still be to have this type of statement incorporated into notability sub-guidelines (such as the one for fiction), where specific cases can and should be identified. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 14:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It is necessarily general, as it does apply to any kind of notable topic; only in specific cases such as fictional elements or towns/villages do we have established approaches for handling such topics and thus they can be outlined in the appropriate subguidelines (or better still, in MOS's for those types as we don't want to mix how notability is defined for these elements with how to deal with the organization of these elements). I should emphasis that this statement does not change how notability should be approached or any other aspect of WP's policies or guidelines; it is simply a logical follow-through when considering all other policies and guidelines at a glance, and only needs to be explicitly stated as a helpful consideration in considering notability and article organization once to combine all these established practices. --MASEM 15:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This kind of thing is useful across many topics, and isn't just suitable for one or two subguidelines. Wording tweaks aside, this is something that needs to be made clear in the notability guidelines: you could carve literally any article into 12 articles if you have enough appropriate references. It doesn't mean we should do it. Randomran (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. I basically agree with the principle of the statement, so I suppose it's just a matter of perfecting the wording. If given proper context, the text proposed by Father Goose and Masem accurately reflects common practice and consensus. Cheers, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If the proposed article topic is one of a collection of related topics, there typically is a WikiProject which assists editors by providing some objective inclusion/exclusion criteria to a topic with respect to that domain. Some of the items mentioned already are well-covered in one of Category:Culture WikiProjects projects. The discussion doesn't convince me that there's a need to modify the notability guideline. It sounds like a redundant variation of sources are necessary but not sufficient. patsw (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Time to compromise

To avoid spliting this discussion up, I have copied all the replies below to Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#Time to compromise. All further comments on this point should be replied to there (where there has been more discussion, though issues with Notability still apply). --MASEM 15:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Let us finally put an end to the back and forth in these debates and see where we can actually agree to something. I have faith that on the inclusionist side DGG and I are ready to do that, and I think Judgesurreal777 and Protonk and possibly EEMIV can do so on the deletion side. Here is what I propose as my threshold for notability. It is fait accompli that a large segment of our community comes here for articles on fictional characters, locations, and weapons. A sizable segment of these readers also create and contribute to these articles. Therefore, a fictional topic (character, location, weapon, etc.) is notable and at least worthy of a redirect without deleting the edit history if it meets under any of the following:

1. Appears in multiple major works of fiction, i.e. a character, location, or weapon that appears in a game, comic, film, television series, novel, and/or toy is notable as of the millions of fictional characters, locations, and weapons only a fraction also appear in other adaptations of the story. Only so many video game characters have been made into action figures; only so many video game weapons have been made into life size replicas.

2. Is a main protagonist or antagonist or is titular in nature, i.e. Soul Calibur the sword in the game Soul Calbur or Mad Max the character in the movie Mad Max.

3. Appears in a published encyclopedia. Only a handful of fictional franchises have achieved such a degree of notability that published encyclopedias exist specific to those franchises, although general fictional character encyclopedias also exist for the really notable fictional characters. Anything suitable for a paper encyclopedia, even if technically a primary source is technically encyclopedic and therefore suitable for the paperless encyclopedia that purports to be the ultimate general encyclopedia, specialized encyclopedia, and almanac.

4. Lists of characters, locations, and weapons for which the individual characters and weapons may not be notable enough for their own articles but provide collective notability and serve as a compromise for those who want articles on these characters and those who do not should be acceptable as lists of characters, locations, and weapons are to fiction articles what the periodic table of elements is to the article on elements or a list of Academy Award winners is to an article on the Oscars.

5. Lists, including the "in popular culture" ones, provide a navigational function similar to a category.

6. In all of the above, so long as the material is verifiable in either although preferably both reliable primary and secondary sources, the topic is worthy of inclusion in some capacity if even only as a redirect. Multiple novels and published encyclopedias constitute considerable coverage in reliable primary sources. Usually reviews exist for such works that contain at least some mention of the fictional characters, locations, and weapons. As spinoff or sub-articles, dissertations need not be written on these specific aspects of the work of fiction to justify inclusion. Blogs and web-forums do NOT constitute reliable sources.

7. If a fictional topic is in an article title for which something with greater real world notability exists, rather than deletion editors should boldly write an article on the subject with greater real world notability and possibly move/merge the fictional content elsewhere, i.e. the example of Arathi, Abhuman, and Commander Dante.

The above would mean that Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Horus_Heresy would be kept, but Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/High_Lords_of_Terra would not be. I would be amendable to a compromise whereby something like Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_minor_characters_in_Xenosaga_(2nd_nomination) is kept as it is covered in published strategy guides, the first discussion closed as "keep," the characters are mentioned in reviews, and the characters appear in games, anime, and manga, but something like Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marneus_Calgar is not as I cannot make such claims for that article. So, any wording that would allow for the above would be acceptable to me. So, I will see if I can get anywhere with A Man In Black, if I can't so be it, but otherwise, it is time we all sit down and see if we can come to a real and honest consensus regarding these fiction articles. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

As I replied in FICT, we need to determine exactly how strong the GNG is to be taken, and for that we really should present the RFC that we have been working to the community so we can establish that. But as also noted by someone else at FICT, talking about redirects and notability together is not a good approach, as redirects are cheap and we want to support those as much as possible; topics that aren't notable can be redirected freely. We need to talk about what articles should legitimately remain as articles pending policy/guideline/consensus of Wikipedia. --MASEM 21:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

As a precisionist, I have two concerns. One is that these lead to imprecise rule where virtually anything can be considered notable, and the other is that this leads to articles that don't meet the WP:PROVEIT section of our policy on Wikipedia:Verifiability.

• An article "trees in final fantasy" would become notable by your first criteria, since they appear in multiple final fantasy games. "Superman's boots" would be considered notable too, by the same rationale. Yet most people wouldn't consider that an encyclopedic article for inclusion in Wikipedia, even if someone engaged in extremely detailed descriptions of them (e.g.: the boots are about 75% of the size of Superman's head, which is abnormally large for a human being. They are blue, but in issues X and Y they appear as black).
• Trivial coverage isn't enough to satisfy notability. That's because notability isn't about "GameSpy mentioned it, therefore it's important!" Notability is "we can actually write something about this topic that can be verified in reliable third-party sources". You can't write a whole article about "the back of the Inn in Final Fantasy 6.5 Japan re-release" just because one (good) article said "if you go to the back of the Inn, you can find a lot of treasure". You need much more research, or else you end up with a stub, or a ton of original research from fan-made observations.
• A licenced encyclopedia on a fictional topic is nothing more than a fanguide. There's no criticism or objectivity. There is actually an official business relationship between the maker of the encyclopedia and the original maker of the work. It may as well be the back of the DVD, or an instruction manual. This is the exact same danger in writing an article about the government by only using research generated by the government itself: that's not an encyclopedia, it's propaganda. It's advertising. Vanity. Spam. Primary/affiliated sources can be used to fill in certain gaps in an article, but you *need* those reliable secondary sources to be able to give real context and perspective.
• In these days of cheap mass production, literally anyone can have an action figure made. And looking at the action figure still doesn't give you anything to write about.
• If "X" is the name of two topics, one notable and the other non-notable... we write about the notable one, and drop the non-notable one. Let's not complicate that, lest we start cluttering up well-written articles with a ton of original research.

I'm glad you've finally opened up to a compromise, instead of calling for a ban on a central guideline or turning it into a vote. But this isn't really the right place or the right time to propose a compromise. You're proposing a new subguideline, rather than a change to notability. Also, we're in the process of trying to figure out the actual relationship between the GNG and specific notability guidelines, and it is unclear that specific guidelines can wholesale rewrite or ignore basic notability requirements. We need to answer that question first, because the past attempt at compromise failed when nobody really even knew how far the WP:FICT guideline could deviate from the main WP:GNG. Masem is right, and any other discussion is kind of moot at this point. Randomran (talk) 21:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with the above - I do not think that adding in a new subguideline, particularly with the ongoing discussion regarding how subguidelines related to the GNG, is really the way to go. I'd elaborate further but I think that Randomran got it about right. Shereth 22:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree as well. As for the GNG - subguideline debate: subguidelines can only be more strict than the GNG, not more lenient. Fram (talk) 08:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It might be generally true that context-specific guideline is intended to be more restrictive than a general notability guideline, but as a matter of past and current practice it is not always true, and I don't believe it should be so. There are many good articles where a consensus of editors accepts content which would fail a GNG scrutiny. patsw (talk) 13:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Before this gets into a lengthy debate, the question of whether subguidelines are more or less strict than the GNG is one to be discussed in the RFC; it would not be a good idea to get into a long discussion about it now. --MASEM 13:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm being dense here, but which Wikipedia:RFC/POLICY would that be? Fram (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not yet a full RFC; Randorman has been finalizing a draft that will be presented to the WP world at large (we'll watchlist-notice, for example, to get the input). It should be close to being ready to go. --MASEM 15:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that instead of following the general practice of starting a conversation in one place, and then point people on other discussion pages to it, the lead post on this section was posted verbatim at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#Time_to_compromise, thus causing two completely parallel discussions on the same topic.Kww (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have an idea: let's only have articles on which there are multiple non-trivial reliable independent sources. That way we can ensure we stick within policy - WP:V and WP:NPOV plus of course WP:BLP where applicable. That is, after all, what guidelines are for. You can't use a guideline to subvert a core policy, and I am sure nobody would want to do that, canning WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV would be a disaster and would destroy precisely the thing that brings the various fans here in the first place. We've had long discussions about fictional topics which result in every case I can remember in a consensus that major elements which have good sources stay, and minor elements that don't, go (or get merged to lists). If people who are obsessed with certain fictional genres don't like that, then they are probably looking for a fan-wiki, which Wikipedia is not, so going back to core policy looks like a great idea to me. Guy (Help!) 14:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

  So simple Guy... which means it'll never fly ;) Sceptre ^(talk) 15:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

more of less strict

The correct approach to the question of whether the subguidelines are more or less strict than the GNG is that they can be either, depending on what the community wants to do with that class of article. The GNG should be renamed the Default Notability Guideline, and used only when no other guideline applies. We do not need this as a guideline to make exceptions one way or another, because all the subguidelines are guidlines themseselves, andf intrinsically allow for exceptions in cases where individual articles needs to be considered notable or not and the subguidelines gives the wrong result. DGG (talk) 03:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid doing this will only encourage the continued proliferation of dozens of subguideline proposals with arbitrarily-defined notability standards for every minor class of topics. A core principle is necessary to unify all of these subguidelines. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Slight revamp of CSD for athletes needed?

The foregone Summer Olympic Games has just brought to the fore a possible need for the alteration of the CSD for notable athletes. There are a lot of athletes that only have a claim to an article because they have just competed at the Olympics (ie: at the top of the amateur sports game). Since quite a few of these folks don't have reference'able (new word) achievements other than competing in the games and most probably won't have greatly expanded articles later on in life; would it not be a better idea to include only those who have won medals at Olympic games or who also have other known credits to their names besides "just" competing in the Olympics? I know that to get to the Olympics you have to be at the top in your country and most will have won major national, if not international, awards but with out evidence of those should we allow the articles? I'm just worried we'll get lots of articles that end up as permanent stubs. Discussion? :-) fr33kman (talk) 03:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Competing in the Olympics without winning a medal is definitely not enough 'proof' of notability, but I don't think that this is a matter for speedy deletion. A statement to the effect that the subject competed in the Olympics qualifies, in my opinion, as an assertion of importance/significance. However, articles about Olympic competitors can and should be deleted (via PROD or AFD) if the competitors did not receive substantial coverage in reliable sources. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, clearer now. You never want to take anything away from someone, especially not competing in the Olympics. The notability guidelines could be a bit clear perhaps because they state that if a person has competed at the top level in amateur athletics then they qualify. To me, clearly being in the Olympics is evidence of top amateur achievements, but it just didn't seem enough for an article on its own. :-) fr33kman (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Bristol Palin

I believe Bristol Palin has now become notable and an article should be created about her. Her pregnancy is currently a top news story in multiple independent and reliable sources and substantial information is available without relying on original research. Articles exist on such people as Jenna Bush, Amy Carter, and Chelsea Clinton, who would also not be notable if not for their parents' statures. Resistance to the article creation exists, so I am soliciting opinions here about whether she meets the notability criteria.--Appraiser (talk) 14:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There have been several threads about this over at WP:AN or WP:ANI (I forget which). I think the short answer is per BLP, attempts to create such an article is inappropriate at this time and admins are watching the situation carefully due to the issues around the Palins. Yes, she may be notable in the general sense, but BLP is overriding here. --MASEM 15:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there more to say about her than fits cleanly in Sarah Palin? Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No. She is only noteworthy inasmuch as people can attack her mother through her pregnancy. Name one other 17 year old that has an article simply because she is pregnant and unmarried? padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 17:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Everything that can be said about her is already said in the parent article with no issues. Shereth 17:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree! - She is not notable, her mother is. Relationship to a notable person does not make for notability. If her mother gets elected (or if news focus becomes greater on Bristol, in her own right) then fine. Until then, redirect! Jenna Bush, Amy Carter and Chelsea Clinton are all first daughters, not merely the daughters of a possible US Vice President. Also, being a teenage mother is not notable (at least these days), if it were, Wikipedia would have millions of these articles. She belongs in her mother's article until she passes WP:BLP in her own right. fr33kman (talk) 22:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Notability compromise - scope creep

<copied to Wikipedia talk:Notability/RFC:compromise to keep discussion about the RfC at the RfC talk page 18:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)>

Masem, forgive my revert of your last edit [1], but I have to ask the question, is this not an attempt to sabotage the RfC: Notability compromise by inviting additional, possibly conflicting, or even meaningless proposals to be added? I think the late additon by Kevin Murray illustrates this point: I don't believe there is widespread support for his proposal, and it just makes a long RFC longer. Surely it would be better to draft another, seperate RFC to cover addtional discussion points? --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

To avoid splitting discussion, please see this section on the RFC. --MASEM 15:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think this discussion falls outside the scope of the RFC, and the reason I say this is that this discussion, as well as the call for alternative proposals is sabotage in all but name, in the sense that you are attempting to slow or capsize the RFC by over burdening it with last minute additions and amendments, similar in a sense to overloading a boat or making it too big so that it will sink. Another way of look at it is that you are attempting to hijack the discussions to serve your own agenda. This is out of order. If it is any consolation to Phil Sandifer, my own proposals were discussed and rejected on the discussion page during the draft of RFC and the point I wish to make here is that there was ample time to discuss amendments. There was also time to table an RFC ahead of this one, and there will be time to table another RFC after this is finished. In fairness I think you should withdraw both your proposal and the related discussion, which is little more than thinly-veiled spoiling tactics.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If we want to delete the entire question A from the RFC, I have no objection whatsoever. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• I guess I see what you're saying, though I've seen other RFCs and similar discussions where new proposals were allowed. I don't want to dissuade Phil from not participating, either, and while Issue A (which, regardless of the branching article approach or not, is still important to consider the general case of spinouts on their own) may not accurately represent Phil's POV (or anyone else's for that matter), but still allow him to express his views somewhere in the discussion. --MASEM 16:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• I am not saying it is not allowed, I am saying that it is not good ettiquette to add last minute amendments for which there is not time to discuss, particularly in view of the fact that his proposal for sub-articles is central to the discussions, and I appeal to you again to withdraw your comments and withdraw the last section as soon as possible, before it growns to a size where it over extends and sinks the RFC. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's fairly obvious some mechanism is needed to add proposals and craft alternate versions. Phil's concerns about the wording choices and the like are entirely spot on IMO (and we do not see eye to eye on notability issues, particularly in regards to spin-offs). I almost opposed the version of my own proposal that made it into the RfC (only weakly supporting it), due to the horrendous wording and complete lack of connection to the underlying rationale accompanying the pre-RfC proposal. Other editors have also raised concerns about the wording and clarity of various options. When participants in notability discussions can barely recognize or support their own ideas because of wording issues and participants in the RfC note poor wording and/or a lack of clarity, it's readily apparent that the RfC needs adjusting either by adding alternate proposals and/or adding further proposals. In the absence of a means to address these shortcomings, the RfC will be essentially useless as a fair measure of consensus. (It should not be difficult to understand that if people fail to support or are reluctant to support proposals they otherwise would endorse because the proposals are poorly worded or unclear, then the RfC will be utterly inaccurate in measuring the actual opinions of the participants.) Vassyana (talk) 01:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(copy of comment in RFC) - Literally everyone has their own proposal. The idea is to present several overall "spirits" to pick from, rather than dozens of different rewordings of overall spirits (e.g.: "notability is inherited" versus "articles can be of endless size, and they are spread out over multiple branching sub-articles".) I suspect some people might feel strongly enough about wording issues that they would reject one proposal or another. But I doubt wording changes would result in a substantial change in support or opposition. Nothing would please me more than being proven wrong -- assuming that this RFC reaches no consensus. (Which would be a perfectly legitimate result: it reveals the nature of the dispute, and gives us evidence that the dispute needs a more authoritative resolution.) Randomran (talk) 04:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I will reply on the RfC talk page. Vassyana (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia General Notability Guideline and Sarah Palin

A controversy related to certain entities related to Sarah Palin has arisen in the Wikipedia community. This includes articles involving Ed Kalnins, Wasilla Assembly of God, Larry Kroon, and Wasilla Bible Church. Discussions are heated because of the political environment, and allegations of censorship.

I argue as follows for inclusion of articles on some of her former teachers, pastors, churches, and schools, but not inclusion of others.

Wikipedia:Notability The Wikipedia general notability guideline policy allows for articles on persons or entities known only because they are related to major historical figures in some circumstances.

The teachers of historical figures, thinkers, mathematicians, painters, scientists, etc., are all notable for their relation to the ideas or actions of the historical figure. This is especially true if the teacher made controversial statements, and the same kind of controversial statements are what made the historical figure notable.

For example, suppose writings of the philosophy teacher of Socrates were discovered. The teacher would be known only for their relation to Socrates. But no one would argue that verifiable information about “the philosophy teacher of Socrates” would be of intense intellectual interest, and if anything, would be valid for a Wikipedia article. In fact, if you noticed the link for philosophy teacher of Socrates, you likely would want to see who it is and what their ideas are.

If Sarah Palin had a meteorology teacher who teaches the controversial idea that carbon dioxide does not cause global warming. Since Palin is notable for her controversial position on global warming, that teacher and their ideas would become notable.

But Palin’s high school astronomy teacher, even if he or she had controversial views, would not be noteworthy, as Palin is not known for her astronomy policy.

Arguments for The Alaska Pipeline put forth by Governor Palin, and for the War in Iraq by Vice Presidential Candidate Palin, explicitly included both being God’s Will. The former is consistent with the ideas of Larry Kroon. The later are explicitly the stated controversial ideas of her teacher in this area, Ed Kalnins. Ed Kalnins thereby becomes notable by his relationship to the controversial ideas of Palin, not just by his relation to Palin. This makes Kalnins notable in itself, while a former pastor of Palin who did not teach this would not be notable.

All of the teachers, schools, churches, or theories that teach controversial ideas, if they are the same as controversial ideas by which Palin has become notable, are thus notable.

They are notable for their relationship, not just to Palin, but to the policies and ideas by which Palin has become noteworthy.

Churches and pastors of Palin that are not linked to controversial policies of Palin are not notable.

Ed Kalnins, Wasilla Assembly of God, Larry Kroon, and Wasilla Bible Church have been the subject of controversy in The Atlantic Monthly, Newsweek, the Chicago Tribune, New Jersey Times of Trenton, ABC News, MSNBC, and other news sources. But suppose they were not. 76.167.163.164 (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

WT:N is really for discussion about the general notability guidelines, it isn't a place to discuss the notability of specific topics - perhaps this should be elucidated upon. Shereth 23:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah this is a far removed place to discuss the notability of specific articles. If frequenters of this talk page think that this is a problem, consider adding the following ambox or one like it to the top of this page:

I am not sure if this is necessary, but it would be a good response if it is a problem. On the other hand, the {{talkheader}} already makes this warning in simple language... —Kanodin 12:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to undermine the concept that notabililty is not inherited. In the example that User:76.167.163.164 gives, that of Socrates teacher, there would be no need to make such an exception. In the event of such a discovery there would clearly be significant coverage, the teacher's writings would be studied and analyzed, and books would be written. The teacher would clearly pass the guideline himself. While it may take a few years for the sources to be available for a complete article, that's ok because there is no deadline. I see no good justification for changing the standards based on this argument, and if these subjects prove to be truly notable, we can wait for as long as it takes. There is no pressing need for them to be in the encyclopedia right now. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 12:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

See also: User talk:EricDiesel (same user), WP:ANI#Palin edit warrior spamming talk pages. seicer | talk | contribs 12:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree with people who say this is the wrong venue for this discussion. It's definitely a good question: do other people become notable because they are related to a notable figure? The answer, as far as I know, is no. Notability isn't about importance. It's about sources: is there enough research out there in reliable third-party sources that we can write a non-stub article? The resources have to be reliable so that it's accurate. But they also have to be third-party sources to show that this isn't a mere vanity page. Socrates' philosophy teacher wouldn't be notable because of his relationship to Socrates. He'd be notable because dozens of reliable third-party historians would analyze, discuss, and translate everything they could find about him. Randomran (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Were the question one of merely wishing to clarify the concept of inherited notability then I would agree. However, this user has been spamming a relatively identical section into numerous talk pages and it's a little difficult for me to WP:AGF any longer and believe that they have any sincere desire to engage in discourse over whether notability is inherited. Shereth 22:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Ah, I see. Then maybe this is the wrong venue, as it is never appropriate to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a single point. Randomran (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
      • This seems to be an enduring issue. I added an ambox to the top of the page. As always, feel free to tweak the wording, horizontal position (tell me how if you know!), and its ordinal placement on the page. —Kanodin 05:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
        • See {{Tmbox}}. Best wishes. /NewbyG (talk) 03:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• The application of a guideline to particular articles is a common topic on guideline talk pages, and is the most appropriate place to ask advice on the application of a guideline.
• A secondary topic that does not have substantial reliable sources independent of the primary topic is not independently notable, and does not warrant a separate article.

—Centrx→talk • 03:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Confusing wording

Twice now I've come across articles that are tagged for NOTE when the topics are obviously notable. One was a William Gibson book that was nominated for both a Nebula and a Hugo, which in that field is pretty much the definition.

In both cases the taggers responded that the problem was a lack of refs. So even though the article clearly stated it's notability, because that claim was no reffed, the article was marked as lacking notability. In both cases they pointed here, to the language of the guideline.

This needs to be fixed. There are too many tags as it is. The least we can do is try to ensure those tags are moderately applicable. Can we come up with some better language here?

Maury (talk) 11:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think we need to change WP:NB so that it is clear that only reliable secondary sources are evidence of notability. I know that the SNG says that winners of a major literary prize are notable, but that is a presumption that is not based on any evidence in this example. In my view, all SNG's need to be purged of statements to the effect that notabililty can be inherited/presumed/acknowledged in the absence of reliable secondary sources, as these states place opinion over evidence.--Gavin Collins (talk) 12:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• That would violate WP:V which only requires that the information be verfiable even if it is not yet verified with a citation. If a book has been nominated for or received a major award, we presume that such information has been documented somewhere. What you are suggesting would require the changes to be made in WP:V, not in the notability guidelines. Given that there are hundereds of years worth of millions of reliable sources (books, magazines, newsapers, journals, TV shows, etc.) that are not yet online, or even easily accessed, this is not a problematic assumption. This guideline cannot be written so as to negate a core value one of our major policies. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 13:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• The problem is when the verifiable information is trivial, a very common problem with the geographic articles. There may only be an atlas entry showing Neargo, East Dakota as a speck on a map. That passes WP:V, because atlases are reliable sources. It fails WP:N, but people keep making arguments that geographic places are inherently notable, even in the face of virtually insurmountable evidence that there are places that no one has noticed.Kww (talk) 14:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• what you should have done is removed the notability tag and replaced it with an unreferenced one. You may wish to consider merging the article on the book itself into a list of books by William Gibson. It would also be helpful if the claim that te book was nominated for awards was referenced per WP:V. Hiding T 12:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

proposal

There have been several heated disputes over the notability guidelines. After huge arguments from inclusionists, deletionists, and all those in between... a few compromises have gained conditional support. We are now putting a few of those compromises to the larger community at a request for comment.

Please chime in at: Wikipedia talk:Notability/RFC:compromise. Randomran (talk) 03:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The RFC is going as badly as I had feared, and I am in particular appalled by your conduct, criticizing A1 for a lack of specificity when you are the one who tore out the specificity and nuance to collapse it into a few sentences. Although I will participate in it, I am doing so only inasmuch as it is needed to clearly voice that the proposal under discussion on the RFC has no relation to the actual serious attempt at a policy shift that I am going to work on separately. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, instead of accusing me of "appalling conduct". You don't own the proposal, and even after you withdrew it I kept it in a different form because there was circumstantial support for it from others. Nothing is stopping you from making your own proposal at a later time, this RFC is not a vote, and it is certainly not the final word. It is merely a discussion that will help us rule out some possibilities, and develop consensus on even a few issues. Of course I hoped this would resolve the issue once and for all, but I never expected it to. We'll see how it pans out and wait for the next step. Randomran (talk) 22:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The RFC is proceeding quite predictably. Calling wide attention to a problem that a reasonably sized group of interested participants can't agree on is not likely way to get progress. A better method is to propose your preferred solution, defend it, and adjust it per valid criticism. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

For your consideration

In light of the RFC's present results, considering both the pros and cons and what concerns editors have for certain proposals, I have created this essay as a start of an idea to resolve notability issues, basically that we need to rework what we have as a structure for inclusion, using the GNG as one obvious measure, and reworking the SNGs to become inclusion sub-guidelines as the other measure. To deal with the matter of sourcing and other policies, those policies become the metrics by which we consider how much we talk about a topic. Can it be sourced through third-party sources (like most GNG-met topics can be) (among other considerations)? Great, it gets an article, otherwise it needs to be covered as part of a larger topic or grouped with other similar topics. The SNGs would need a major revamp to make sure that they describe inclusion and that the criteria is globally approved of. And I know Gavin or someone else will likely question that this will create a lot of non-notable lists, which I admit is there, but that's the reason to vet the SNGs to make sure that such lists include content we want to cover without overwhelming sourced information relating to a more overarching topic. (eg episode lists are ok, lists of major/recurring characters ok, but lists of one-shot characters are not appropriate for inclusion -- unless alone they meet the GNG).

My realization is that we have two WP mission aspects, the broadness and the verification, that clash. We want good discussion of a topic if there's lots of third-party and secondary sources about it, but when that's not available, a topic deemed worthy to be included still needs to be discussed, just in a much more limited form and in a manner that still is verifiable (just, likely from primary sources only). It's a more positive spin without ditching notability (as the GNG is still the catchall for anything that doesn't fit a SNG), and really is only a small tweak on how we have our current framework; the core of making this work is getting the SNGs right, and I don't have a big problem erring on the side of more inclusion to start to see what developments, removing allowable criteria if we find that it allows the wrong type of topics or articles. --MASEM 17:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

In a better nutshell

For the busy people, the article has this quick encapsulation of the notability article:

There are several important things that we left out of this nutshell, which the reader can get by reading the rest of the article. Think about these questions and ask yourself if they are important to an editor being pointed to this page for the first time.

• Why is notability important? What impact does notability have on Wikipedia articles?
• What happens if an idea is not notable? Do only notable ideas deserve articles?

If course, anyone who reads the article in its length can answer these questions. However, these are fundamental issues that govern whether an article survives deletion or if an inexperienced editor creates a legitimate Wikipedia article. Leaving these issues out of the nutshell statement is avoidable. Consider this version:

Granted, the original version specifies the agreed definition of notability, but this article does not simply define. Notability matters, and the term's use extends far beyond bare meaning. My motivation here is to make the notability statement connect with how notability affects the business of Wikipedia, because the existing version does not. —Kanodin 21:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Subjects don't "deserve" articles. The lack of information in reliable secondary sources is not so much a question of merit as a question of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. If there isn't enough reasonable coverage out there, we have no way of writing a decent article on the topic. The emotional judgment of "deserves" might be the ultimate arbiter when it comes to ignoring all rules, but the basic principle of notability is not "should we" but "can we?" SDY (talk) 21:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

See this earlier discussion - an article needs to be about a notable topic, but a notable topic does not need an article as sometimes it is better to cover such in the context of a larger topic. So the version you propose is not correct.

That said, maybe the wording needs to be flipped around:

that is, re-emphasizing that article topics should be notable (and that non-notable topics should not have articles), while reiterating the definition of notability. --MASEM 21:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I very much prefer Masem's version, which I think puts it well while also sounding friendly and positive. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC).

Also, because it correctly allows for what I have said just below about the role of the "GNG". Now what we need is a definition of "presumed" that doesn't presume to much. :). DGG (talk) 03:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Short and to the point, explains that notability is desired and why, but still leaves enough room to breathe. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

^ What Sgeureka said. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand Masem's objection to "deserves", and I have no problem with avoiding the word. In fact, I think the substance of what I wanted to add is Masem's new sentence. I am going to leave the original nutshell sentence (since the flipped version is logically identical and switching would require rehashing the rest of the article), and add Article topics should be notable. Surprisingly, that's all that I think is missing. If anyone disagrees, please revert/adjust the corresponding edit and explain. —Kanodin 06:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think the change is unnecessary. The inclusion of the word "should" adds an element of ambiguity, and I request that the first sentence be removed.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Given that this is a guideline (thus not absolute), and the second sentence of the lead uses the same word, there is nothing wrong with using "should". (even policies use "should", with the understanding there are always exceptions). --MASEM 12:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"Should" is OK for describing preferred behaviour. It is not useful for describing dubious facts (where a real fact would be worded "Article topics are notable"). When saying "Article topics should be notable", what are you saying? That editors should strive to make article topics notable? That is not appropriate, because a topic is either notable or not, and an editor cannot make a non-notable topic notable. The fact that notability is a requirement for articles derives from WP:DEL#REASON (or perhaps the behaviour that WP:DEL describes). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Masem is a master of obfuscation. The guideline is not absolute, but it still needs to be clear. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• Well, "Topics of articles on Wikipedia are notable" is de facto wrong. A quick look through CAT:NN will convince you of that. --B. Wolterding (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• (ec, to Smokey Joe and Gavin) The next step up from "should" is "must", and it's certainly not (yet) the case that notability is a requirement. I can't see any other word choice that is appropriate there.
• The other aspect to consider is that notability is not 100% objective. Even by the GNG, what constitutes "significant coverage" is not a question that can be answered easily; there's obvious cases on where it does happen, obvious cases where it doesn't, but a large number of articles that hit AFD for being "non-notable" fall in a subjective grey area. This is not like WP:V where sourcing is can be very apparently, and while exactly what are reliable sources up in the area, there's much more objective guidance on that. Because we cannot be objective when it comes to notability, we cannot say that article topics "must" be notable since there's no absolute measure of that. --MASEM 13:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone has ever claimed that WP:N to be 100% objective, as whether a source is reliable or secondary will always require an element of judgement. However, I have not seen any alternative proposals for inclusion criteria that are more objective; as far as I can see, alternative proposals (such as FEAPOALT) seem to be based on so called "consensus", which is little more than so called "expert opinion". I don't see any reason for the proposed change, unless you have come up with a clear and well defined proposal reason why WP:N should be watered down by changing the wording. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(←) Reread the OP's question and why this change was suggested. The nutshell covers the fact of what the GNG says, but does not explain why an editor should be aware of that. Since the statement "article topics should be notable" is a replication of text in the first paragraph of the body of the guideline, this statement of "why" should be added to the nutshell; it does not change any meaning of the guideline at all but enhances the first-time reader's understanding of the importance of the guideline. --MASEM 14:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• It is not the purpose of this guideline to explain why policies and guidelines exist, and more importantly we should not attempt to provide an explaination in a nutshell; this falls outside the scope of WP:N. In any case, the reasons provided by Kanodin as to why WP:N exists are an expression of his opinion only, not a statement of fact. My own view is that WP:N exists as an inclusion criteria because, where there are sufficient independent sources exist to satisfy the content principles of Wikipedia, then that is best criteria by which it can be judged whether or not to have an article on a particular topic. If you can think of other inclusion criteria that should be used, then state them, don't try and water down WP:N as if it were only one of many (better) alternatives.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion criteria is a cause of action in WP:N, as specified in the first paragraph of this project page: "The topic of an article should be notable..." I can find this inclusion criteria nowhere in the content principles, and those principles govern the content of articles, not whether they exist (WP:ATP is an exception, but has nothing to do with notability). However, an inverted version of this, an exclusion criteria, exists in WP:DP. If we are to say that WP:N is no cause for action, then we have no business declaring that WP:N requires all article topics to be notable. If the WP:N inclusion criteria derives from some other policy, then we should recognize that in the article. As WP:N looks now, the inclusion criteria is more cardinal than the meaning of notability itself. The inclusion criteria appears to be part of the essence of WP:N, and is not the same thing as an explanation of why the policy exists. An explanation of why the policy exists would extend to WP:NOT and WP:V, but WP:N bridges this connection by noting that notability exists as a presumption.

So, one of two things should happen:

1) The inclusion criteria should exist in inverted form inside WP:DP and should be removed from WP:N; WP:N should note that WP:DP excludes non-notable topics, or

2) The inclusion criteria should be a part of WP:N and its nutshell statement.

I side with (2), partially because Wikipedia better operates with an inclusion criteria rather than an exclusion criteria. Editors should justify to themselves that an article topic is notable before creating an article, and not wait for a complaint to measure whether they should have created the article in the first place. Relying on an exclusion principle advocates the latter behavior and distracts everyone with inane AfDs. —Kanodin 00:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Under WP:SILENCE, I am adding ' Article topics should be notable. ' to the beginning of the nutshell statement. This edit bumps against archiving so people can (re)join the discussion. —Kanodin 22:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• This is just your opinion, and your edit should be reverted. Frankly, I see no reason to say that articles should be notable; I don't thinking this conveys any meaning at all. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• Kanodin, you do make some sense, but I don't think it merits bloating the nutshell. The nutshell should be the absolute bare minimum. Perhaps you could modify the body of WP:N, or even better, help clarify the deletion criteria at WP:DP / WP:DEL#REASON. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Gavin: I chose Article topics should be notable because it already appears as policy in the first paragraph of the article. Should is a standard term that operates policy decisions. We can talk about using a stronger modal verb than should, but I think that is not the real issue. Without this addition about the mandate of article topics, the nutshell statement says nothing about Wikipedia articles. Do we want to assume that everyone knows that WP:N controls whether article topics exist? The statement in question says more about Wikipedia's standards than defining notability. Editors probably have some plain English notion of what notability means; but newcomers do not know that Wikipedia's articles have to be notable. Unless someone tells the reader, the WP:N nutshell defines notability and applies it to nothing.
• SmokeyJoe: Your comment exposes a tension between two policy pages. As we now gather, WP:DP has deletion criteria and WP:N has inclusion criteria. There is probably some overarching criteria for the existence of articles, but that set of conditions does not center on any one policy page. Those conditions are scattered across WP:N and WP:DP. Notability does not say everything about whether an article is legitimate. However, notability is still an essential condition of article existence--no article topic may exist without notability. Here is a major problem: since Wikipedia's article notability policy exists in WP:N and in inverted language in WP:DP, which page trumps the other? This is a potential wrangle, but I think that the inclusion criteria is cardinal, and WP:DP simply follows WP:N's suit. Article topics should be notable is better than its inverted form: Article topics should not be non-notable.
• Randomran: As much as we may agree that the addition of the sentence is appropriate, pushing reverts against two editors who plainly disagree with us is not productive. Gavin.collins and SmokeyJoe took time to break W:SILENCE and contribute their opinions, and I respect their right to disagree. As long as they find the time and energy to contribute their ideas in opposition to me, I will commit to keeping my opposed idea off the policy page.
• So far, this discussion has done two things for me. First, others have given me an opportunity to learn more about Wiki-policy and how certain policy pages fit together. Second, it has made me aware that policy pages overlap and collide in many ways. We require all Wikipedia articles to be notable does not have a clear "home" in any definite policy page. If it did, then I would know to which nutshell statement to add it. The other problem is we cannot expect editors interested in certain aspects of policy to have a whole array of pages on their watchlist. As an aside to the WP:N nutshell, try to tell me where the mandate of notable articles belongs in Wikipedia policy. I think answering that question will go a long way to resolving my issue. Someone tell me if I'm wrong, because I am starting to think that WP:Article Criteria needs its own page. In the meantime, I'm going to try this version for this page's nutshell statement:

• The added words, a suitable article topic, derive from the first paragraph of WP:N. Now, if someone is motivated to complain about nutshell bloat, remember that this revision expands the nutshell statement by three words and keeps it down to one declarative sentence. Is that not a reasonable compromise?

—Kanodin 09:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• I do like that one [2]. Reducing the use of that confusing "notable" word is good. This page effectively defines wikipedia-notability, and internal references to "notable" are not helpful. Note that this is especially in reference to the intended audience: newcomers and others not familiar this this notability stuff. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Why not leave it as it was? Unless you have a compelling reason for change (e.g. it makes no sense) leave it as is. I don't think any of these cosmetic changes are necessary, as this continous "goldfish editing" (which involves nibbling at the guideline, but forgetting what came before) is not productive, and a waste of time.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right that it's much more productive to get this right on the talk page first, rather than making snappy replies in the edit summary. That said, I think your version with "a suitable article topic" is actually better than anything we've had so far. The problem with ditching "articles should be notable" is that you don't explain why we should care about notability, and what happens when an article is notable / not notable. The problem with keeping "articles should be notable" is it's kind of trite and uninformative. Saying "it is presumed to be a suitable article topic" is synonymous with "it is presumed to be notable", but much more informative for a novice reader. Randomran (talk) 12:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think the use of the phrase "it is presumed to be a suitable article topic." is awful! For starters, it is too judgemental. We have been down this path before, describing the inclusion criteria for an article as being based on "importance", and now we are using an equally judgemental term "suitability". Also, it is a very old fashioned turn of phrase. Describing an article as worthy for inclusion on the basis of "suitablity" sounds like we are selecting a husband for a Jane Austen character. Has he article got "means" to impress its readers? Is the article written in a "cultured" style? Is the article's tone "pleasant" and without any pride and prejudice? Was it first drafted in tastefully coloured ink using a sharp quill? My goodness Mr. Randomran, I must now demand that the original version be restored or otherwise we will have to resort to pistols at dawn!--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• I don’t think the phrase is really that awful. If it judgemental, that’s because it is the nature of WP:N to be judgemental, as a policy based deletion criterion. “Suitable” and “importance” are not similar words. “is presumed to be” is a bit of a funny turn of phrase, and is in a passive tense. I’d be happy with “is”. I do think it is important that an article has sources that impress. You go on to confuse matters with references to style, tone and taste. These things relate to the style guidelines and have no place in WP:N. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• I accept your point that the term notability is itself judgemental, and that the way that the concept is applied in Wikipedia (say at AFD) is also judgemental. However, if you follow the archived discussion at WT:IMPORTANCE regarding the use of the word "importance" as a description for Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, you will see that "importance" was abandoned because what is important to one person may be irrelevant to another. By contrast, notability was considered to be a term that was less judgemental in the sense that, regardless of whether a topic is notable or notorious, it qualifies for inculsion in Wikipedia, provided reliable secondary sources can be found for that topic. A similar problem arises with use of the term "suitable", which sounds as if it has more to do with describing a topic which passes WP:NOT, as an unsuitable topic would (in my imagination at least) fail WP:NOT. A notable topic, by definition, is one that is "worthy of notice"; this is a concept distinct from "importance" or "suitability", which is why I am still requesting that the original wording be restored.--Gavin Collins (talk) 04:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• “Suitable” for an “article topic” is what WP:N is about. Labelling a subject/topic not “suitable” appropriately conveys the message that there is nothing you can do to fix it. No amount of editing can make an unsuitable subject suitable. I feel that suitable has far less value connotations than importance, and reasons for not using “importance” don’t readily apply to “suitable”. The previous wording I think is worse because it implicitly redefines “notable” from its real-world meaning. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• But truthfully, our use of "notable" is a very limited subset of what "notable" means in the real-world. A first-time editor getting hit with a non-notable AFD needs to be aware of this fact once directed here. Now, I can see dropping the word from the nutshell as to not get hung up on its alternate meaning, but then there seems to be no relationship between the page title and the nutshell. --MASEM 12:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• In answer to SmokeyJoe, if you don't define what "suitability" is, how can you say that WP:N is about "suitability"? In answer to Masem, notability may only be a subset of the real-world meaning of the word, but within the context of this guideline, its meaning is explained comprehensively, unlike suitability. Please restore the original version that has been in place for over a year [3]. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that notability should be mentioned; I think the nutshell is less effective if you, as a first time editor, come to "WP:Notability" and not see it defined in the nutshell. We shouldn't be beating around the bush with the nutshell. This is why the other part that is being added, about notable topics and article suitability, is also necessary: without it, we say what notability is without why it should be considered. We don't have to get into specifics, just that "An article topic should be notable." --MASEM 16:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

(un indent) I like the version posted by Kanodin at 09:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC) best of all the options shown. It keeps to the original intent and signifies the article is a critical part of the statement as topics do not need to be notable in of themselves if they are in article which is notable. Jeepday (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me point out that I did not come up with these additions to the nutshell out of thin air. In an effort to eliminate controversy, I chose phrases and words that already exist in WP:N. If we want to talk about whether a certain aspect of WP:N belongs in the nutshell, that would be a legitimate conversation. But, questioning the legitimacy of the proposed statements as if they were foreign to WP:N goes way beyond a nutshell issue. Consider these sentences:

• The topic of an article should be notable.
• Notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article.

If anyone has a problem with these sentences (emphasis added), go to WP:N and read the entire opening section. All of these statements already exist as part of policy. By virtue of their stable presence in WP:N we all concede that these represent Wikipedia policy. If people want to question these proposals based on their acceptance as policy, they need to question their presence in WP:N and not simply their appearance in the nutshell. —Kanodin—VENT— 06:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• "The topic of an article should be notable" would be better written as "Articles should only cover notable topics" --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Question

When it comes to hip-hop musicians, are mixtape articles allowed on Wikipedia? See Template:50 Cent.

If it's covered by reliable third-party sources, then yes. If there's an artist who would get coverage for mixtapes, it would be 50 Cent, among others. Randomran (talk) 14:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The notability subguideline on music uses the following wording (effectively summarised by Randomran): "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 14:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I ask this because mixtapes for other rappers such as Snoop Dogg were deleted quickly. Maybe this should apply to 50 Cent. I'm just saying. Fclass (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The best way to save an article from notability-related deletion is to find sources. That said, I'm pretty confident that 50 Cent's early mixtapes are notable. Randomran (talk) 14:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Might be easier to have an article on 50cent mixtapes. That would e easier to source than individual articles on each tape, and less likely to end up in arguments over the one tape that has only one trivial source... Guy (Help!) 20:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Defining notability and football coaches

I just posted this on the Help desk and then thought it might be better posted here. A recently created project seem to stretch WP:NOTABILITY to include a large number of football coaches who are not notable under the normal rules of WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE. The arguments are set out at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Walter_J._West. How do I set about extending the afd to embrace all such non-notables without falling foul of WP:FORUMSHOPPING ? Kittybrewster ☎ 13:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Try Template:AfD footer (multiple). I don't know how to use it. If that does not work, get an admin on your side to use one AfD to cover all the nominated articles. Point all AfD links toward that single AfD discussion. Expect a lot of participation. —Kanodin—VENT— 14:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You don't. Expanding an Afd that has been going on for a while is wrong. Multiples have to be submitted together so the discussion covers them all. Submitting as a multiple afd isn't appropriate in this case anyway, as college football head coaches isn't a tight enough group to qualify. Now if you were submitting a bunch of articles about people that had being a part of West's staff as their sole claim to notability, then you would have grounds. If your issue is with a project's interpretation of WP:BIO you should discuss it at their talk page. Horrorshowj (talk) 08:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• The folks attending to those AfD discussions can best answer these questions of appropriateness. The template I pointed to suggests creating an AfD the traditional way (to see how it goes) before putting multiple AfDs together. Kittybrewster should bring this idea up at any relevant existing AfDs and all the talk pages under future AfD consideration. The people there are the likely stakeholders of a multi-AfD. That way there will be fewer surprises. Also keep in mind that there could be other people waiting for this move to happen, because if it is appropriate, it saves a lot of time.
• Yeah. Don't mix existing and new AfD hearings. It messes with discussion time periods, and people may leave a discussion once they make a single contribution.
• Finally, think about how much time you save. How many different articles are we talking about here? If it's five, I wouldn't bother. If it's 30, I would get an admin in on the situation before doing anything else. —Kanodin—VENT— 06:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• How about "has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources"? Anything meeting those criteria seems to be generally accepted as encyclopaedic. Guy (Help!) 09:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Tag for sections

Is there a notability tag for article sections? I have a huge section that needs to go but I want to tag it first. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 17:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Since notability does not restrict article content, cleanup templates such as Template:Notability only apply to whole articles.--Gavin Collins (talk) 21:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, not to canvas but, can you take a look at Köchel_catalogue and see if I'm off my rocker? they are replicating a list of compositions in the body of the article and claim that because one list is by subject and the other is chron they are not redundant. I can't help but think that kind of need is a little too specialized for WP to have to put up with multiple lists of the same stuff. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 06:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The lists are not redundant (presumably verifiable original research by Ludwig von Köchel), but that's not what matters. I first question the notability of then Köchel_catalogue (a WP:N issue), then next question the legitimate weight of reproducing the entire list (a WP:NPOV issue). Why is showing the whole list germane to expounding on the notability of Köchel_catalogue? Everything in an article should strive toward explaining the notability of the article topic. Defenders of the list must give an adequate answer to that question. The fact that something is the text of a notable document is not grounds for its inclusion.

Try the {{content}} template:

—Kanodin—VENT— 07:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You don't think they are redundant? They are the same list, sorted two different ways. How is that not redundant? I guess that's my biggest hurdle, lists be damned, how can someone think the same information sorted two different ways is not a repetition of the same information. That is gonna drive me to distraction. A sortable table could take care of the whole mess in one shot. I guess my programming background makes me see lists as tables and I can organize the data without affecting the data. I just don't get the "not redundant" argument. But thanks for the advice and the tag. I've placed an RfC so we'll see how it goes. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's time to stop using the vague statement "notability guidelines do not directly limit article content", and phrase it in the affirmative. According to our policy, "an article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." Perhaps a more useful heading would be in the affirmative: "notability guidelines indirectly limit article content", or perhaps "limit the amount of coverage, but do not necessarily exclude coverage". I'm looking for a phrasing that is more accurate. Randomran (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, it is time to overhaul. I will make a suggestion in a new section. —Kanodin—VENT— 07:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Rename proposal

I would like to propose that we rename this page Wikipedia:Inclusion guideline. The main reason for this is the incredible offence it gives to article subjects who clearly and unambiguously fail our inclusion criteria, to be told that they are not notable. It's a recurrent source of complaints to WP:OTRS, and wold be vastly easier for non-Wikipedians to understand in deletion related discussions and user talk page discussions. Guy (Help!) 21:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. John Reaves 21:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I've noted that I've written based on the current RFC results that approaching this as Inclusion is the "right" way to go for many reasons; "notability" as per defined by the GNG is still part of that as any topic that is notable per GNG can be included, but there's more than just that we really should be consider. I point again to my draft of what I think this could look like at User:Masem/Inclusion Guideline. --MASEM 21:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Good idea by JzG (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 21:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Strongly support. Daniel (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

People are often mislead or confused by the term notablity. Real world language is preferable. WilyD 21:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think a rename actually makes some sense. "Notability" conjures up too many real-life intuitions about what is or is not important. This is not about importance. It's about whether we have decent sourcing or not. That said, I'm not sure that "Inclusion" sums it up. I think "Minimum Sources" might be a good way to frame it, but I'm not sure. Randomran (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This would also go a long way to clearing up the perpetual confusion between "notability" and "important/famous". I support. Shereth 21:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

So simple! Yes, "Inclusion guideline" is more clear, and avoids the insult of calling thousands of people non-notable every week. henrik•talk 21:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggest Wikipedia:Inclusion as a rename instead of Wikipedia:Inclusion guideline, for more flexibility if this page's status changes at some point. Cirt (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but we need to reinforce the fact that this is a guideline, the policy is WP:V, WP:NPOV and to a certain extent WP:NOT.

The problem I have with "guideline" is its vagueness and scope for unconstructive debate around the margins. I would agree with "Inclusion Criteria", and my initial objection elsewhere was largely based on the fact that many WP projects have set out their own more specific criteria, and "guideline" would possibly have forced them to re-evaluate those criteria, which I can only see leading to dissension. I don't want to see this debate diffuse, as have so many others, into nothingness. We have better things to do, although the principle of not causing offence is useful, but not determinative. --Rodhullandemu 21:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but "criteria" sounds like a firm policy, meet X and you are automatically in or out, whereas there may be a consensus to the opposite in individual cases (such as schools, which are often included even without non-trivial reliable independent sources). But just "Inclusion" would not carry that baggage. Guy (Help!) 22:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

We should form a committee to discuss the proposal to rename the guideline. Just kiddin. :P -- Cirt (talk) 22:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I like Wikipedia:Inclusion or Wikipedia:Inclusion criteria as straightforward, non-pejorative descriptions of the purpose of the guideline. I don't think including the word 'guideline' is a good idea, as it implicitly casts the document as a {guideline}. The word 'criteria' I can take or leave; it really is what this guideline aspires to be, even if it is both incomplete and heavily tempered by both WP:IAR and WP:SENSE. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I support the change to "Inclusion..." for the reasons given above. However I think we should go slow in making changes to the guidelines which have been developed over several years with much community input. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I will point out again my suggestion of an inclusion guideline (based on many comments over the last 2 years and the running RFC). The TL;DR version is this:

• We are an encyclopedia, we should be defining topics that should be covered simply because we are that, an encyclopedia, not because of sources.
• We still want to make sure V, NOR, NPOV, and NOT are met. Topics that should be covered but lack third-party sourcing should be covered in limited context (aka lists and tables).
• We still want an opening for any topic that may not be specifically called out by what we want to cover to be included as long as it can meet the four policies; this is where WP:N and the GNG fit into place.
• We need to have strong vetting of the sub-notability guidelines (aka sub-inclusion guidelines) to make sure that none delve too far into allowing too many topics in a specific field but still provide the right level of coverage that Wikipedia's consensus seeks to be.

This, I hope, addresses many of the concerns both inclusionists and deletionists have, as well as those worried about sourcing and the like. It doesn't diminish what WP's notability means as the GNG is still a well-tested criteria, but sticking to that and only that makes for the conflict on WP. --MASEM 22:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:INCLUSION works for me. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• WP:Inclusion works for me as well. We already tag it as a guideline. No need to go out of our way to do so in other ways. Protonk (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I like Wikipedia:Inclusion. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I support moving this guideline. Is the idea to replase the existing DAB page, and to subsume its contents into the header? This idea is similar to the impetus behind Wikipedia:Article inclusion, to which I ascribe its failure to it being created as a fork during controversy and full protection of WP:N. We need to worry about "notability" returning to being a widely used/misused/abused term at AfD. Should the title Wikiepdia:Notability be a redirect or converted to an essay summarising the past use of "notability" and how we now choose to talk about WP:INCLUSION instead. If this proposed WP:INCLUSION turns out to be user friendly, I think it should be policy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability is still useful, at least in the sense of the GNG, in that it itself is one facet of inclusion for Wikipedia. Simply moving this page, striking out all "notability" for "inclusion", and stating the problem fixed is not going to work. This page should stay here but with a big header and introductory note that more inclusion guidelines can be found at WP:Inclusion (or wherever it ends up), and edited to describe what defines GNG- notable coverage only. --MASEM 23:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I oppose this. Notability is not the only factor determining whether or not an article will be included on Wikipedia. Verifiability notably (no pun intended) comes to mind as at least one other governing factor. So to call this an "Inclusion Guideline/Policy" is misleading because there are other things taken into consideration with regards to inclusion. On a much more subjective and possibly irrelevant note, the word 'notable' will almost certainly still be used, as it seems a pretty indelible term, and that rather defeats the purpose of no longer using the word 'notable' to prevent offense. Especially since this leaves no word to describe articles that we currently call 'non-notable' or 'unnotable'. How would A7 be re-worded? "Does not assert meeting the inclusion guideline"?seresin ( ¡? )  23:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

In the case of A7, "Provides no assertion of significance." would still work nicely because A7 does refer to the importance/significance/"real notability" sense of the word. This is exactly why the change would be beneficial: articles are speedily deleted if they don't indicate the subject is important, while pages which do not meet Wikipedia:Notability for other reasons have to go through AfD. Being able to distinguish between which meaning we are referring to will be of immense benefit. --erachima talk 02:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I also support this, even though it's going to slash the productivity of people in deletion debates by removing their ability to write "NN. ~~~~" --bainer (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment: It'll just become FIG (Fails Inclusion Guideline).Kww (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• I support moving the title to Wikipedia:Inclusion Wikipedia:Viability, because being able to refer separately to distinguish between notability-the-guideline and notability-the-concept will make it much easier to explain things to new users. --erachima talk 02:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support move to Wikipedia:Inclusion. However, I do not think it a move will be sufficient in and of itself to clear up the confusion. A large part of the problem is (and will continue to be, if uncorrected) that the guideline is not at all clear about the fact that "notable" means "significant and noteworthy according to the body of reliable sources". Some serious work needs to be done to make a more comprehensible guideline, but moving the page to a less "loaded" name is a good first step. Vassyana (talk) 02:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support struck. The oppose comments raise good points. The remaining comments stand. Vassyana (talk) 07:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support move. "Notability" has a certain simple elegance, but I agree that the negatives outweigh the positives. Wikipedia notability has become a term of art, and is thus confusing, contradictory to A7, and, apparently, an OTRS issue. I can't say I love the idea of moving this to WP:Inclusion, as that's not a particularly descriptive or intuitive name. After a bit of thought, the best I came up with was WP:Inclusion threshold, though I think any of WP:Inclusion guideline, WP:Inclusion criteria or WP:Article inclusion would be better than just "Inclusion".--Kubigula (talk) 04:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support. I was bold and moved Wikipedia:Inclusion to Wikipedia:Inclusion (disambig), which frees up the former for this proposed usage - which at this time appears to have consensus to go forward with. Anyone want to be bold as well and move this page to there? Cirt (talk) 04:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Given that we currently have an RFC discussion the global impact of notability, bolding moving this may be premature, plus there's only be half a day's worth of comments on this on a critical topic, it may be pushing it too fast. I would say we should prepare everything for moving, but let's not jump that fast at this. --MASEM 05:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Or more specifically, if I go off the OP point that started this, renaming "notability" to "inclusion" is a placebo - it may feel better to call this inclusion, but there's a deeper fundamental problem that we need resolve through the RFC; we should really focus on that, and keep in mind that we should be framing whatever results as the positive "inclusion" over the negative "notability". --MASEM 05:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support I've just had to explain to yet another user how "notability" on WP is not the same as "notability" in the real world, when they tried to defend an article (understandably) on the grounds that "the subject has done x, y and z". "Inclusion criteria" is going to better help editors understand what they need to do to defend an article, and that can't be a bad thing. :) - Bilby (talk) 05:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Not a good idea. This proposal changes the scope of WP:N. Some conditions exist outside of notability that govern whether an article is suitable, hence the presumption clause. Those extra-notability issues exceed the scope of WP:N, and rightfully go to other policy pages. If we change WP:N to something like WP:Inclusion, we expand the mission of this page to cover not only notability, but everything else that governs whether a page exists. If that happened, we would have to talk about all the issues behind the reasons for article deletion. Some of those issues have nothing to do with notability, like WP:COPYRIGHT, WP:ATP, WP:BLP, WP:SPAM, and WP:OFFICE. Do we really want to address all of these non-notability topics after a rename? I support pursuing a separate article criteria policy page, but not at the expense of cannibalizing WP:N. Let's go back to WP:Article inclusion and turn it into a decent policy page. —Kanodin—VENT— 06:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Weak oppose based on the wise words of Kanodin. Renaming to "inclusion" changes the scope of this guideline. It means we don't just talk about minimum sourcing requirements, but we also have to mention various aspects of WP:NOT and so forth. I have been a proponent of a rename for some time. But I think that while we need to rename for clarity, we need the rename to retain the same scope. WP:Minimum sources or WP:Research threshold or something to that effect would be more effective, IMO. (As in: article does not meet our WP:Research threshold and is at risk of deletion.) Randomran (talk) 06:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose per the same reasons as Kanodin and Randomran. I think something like WP:Research threshold.  ;) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - There are other rules on article inclusion other than WP:N (were someone to copy an ad for a provably notable company, which has proof of notability, that would clearly follow WP:N, but be deletable under 2 different CSDs! Additionally, the link WP:N is used in several deletion reasons, and a user who comes in an opther year will have no idea what it means. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose- I have found in assisting new editors at the New contributors' help page, the Drawing board, and other areas; that the word "notability" is very well understood by people and that it succinctly gets across the fact that this is an encyclopedia with a clear threshold for inclusion. I use the word all the time in articles for that very reason (e.g. notable alumni, notable residents, etc.) Changing the name will muddy the issue and make it harder, not easier, to explain to newcomers where the inclusion/exclusion line lies. The nominator gave as a main reason for this is because it's a common subject of complaints at OTRS... The way I see that is that it doesn't matter what the guideline is named, they're still going to cry and complain because, "Somebody deleted MY page". —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 09:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• neutral per comments above, but "research threshold" is not the way to go, IMO. If you want something to address the meat of the page, it would have to be something like Source Requirements or something, either way I have no opinion on whether to keep or rename. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 11:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Strong support, sensible move, long overdue. Everyme 12:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Names like Inclusion guideline fairly scream "I am just a rule." To the extent that it is tempting to assume one knows what Notability means without looking at the guideline, renaming it Encyclopedic Notability might help to indicate that the word has a specific technical significance in this context, and that one would do well to look it up, without sacrificing descriptive value. However, there will always be contributors who do not undertake to review policies and guidelines, or lose sight of them for one reason or another. When a conversation becomes necessary, it is valuable to have a name that is descriptive of the guideline's subject. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose to name change, Strong Oppose to incorporating Guideline in the name. WP:N being a guideline instead of policy has been a never ending source of trouble, emboldening little groups to ignore it under the rallying cry It's only a guideline, not policy. Incorporating Guideline in the name makes it harder to promote it to its rightful place.Kww (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support. The word "notability" has such a unique meaning in Wikipedia that it always causes confusion to newbies at AfD and other places. Renaming it to what it really is--an inclusion criterion--would improve communication by avoiding unnecessary jargon. --Itub (talk) 13:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support This has many key benefits. I would support Wikipedia:Inclusion or Wikipedia:Inclusion criteria both as guidelines, but I don't like the word guideline in the title either. I don't like WP:Viability, too confusing. - cohesion 14:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose both renaming and changing it from guideline to policy. Renaming (including as something like "viability") will confuse the ussue. There are many other considerations apart from notability that are relevant in deciding if an article is notable, such as length, BLP, content and POV forking, WP:NOT, and other considerations. Making WP:N into a policy is even worse and I am extremely strongly opposed to this. As Wikipedia expands, the utility of WP:N is decreasing and the utility and importance of subject-specific notability guidelines is increasing. There are too many special situations and circumstances depending on particulars of different subjects that WP:N cannot cover in detail. Special notability guidelines should be able to override WP:N if necessary and to establish notability standards that better reflect the substantial differences in how different subjects are covered by reliable sources. Nsk92 (talk) 14:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support - Notability isn't the only criteria for inclusion, and with the concept of "inherent notability" it tends to get ignored in a lot of circumstances. It would need some rewriting to actually reflect the new title. Mr.Z-man 15:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Kanodin, Elipongo, and Nsk92. In response to the comment by Mr. Z-man above, "inherent notability" is part of the notability guideline. --Pwnage8 (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose there are plenty of other inclusion guidelines and policies (WP:NOT, WP:BLP, WP:SPAM etc). The word "notability" accurately describes the contents of the page. Hut 8.5 17:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• It does, but it also does a horrible job at conveying the spirit at the heart of the guideline. Unfortunately, the exact momentary wording of policies and guidelines is often given undue weight over their spirit, their basic tenet if you will. "Notability" is just a word that has come into widespread use in lieu of more subjective approaches (fame, prominence etc.). But it doesn't describe the actual function of the page and the processes in its vicinity, which is to help us determine what will be included and what will not. Everyme 12:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support some renaming. Not entirely sure inclusion is the right rename, but the term "notability" is toxic and needs to die, and inclusion, while potentially misleading in that it ignores NOT, BLP, SPAM, etc, at least isn't offensive to newbies. I'm happy to trade for a lesser problem. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think this is the way to go. Same reasons per Kanodin. However, I also disagree with "Research threshold" and the like. --Banime (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. 1. WP:N is here not for the purpose of inclusion, but for deletion. It is a negative barrier, and, as already mentioned, there are other barriers that bar inclusion. 2. The use of word notable and non-notable seems to be persistent and simply renaming a policy does not prevent future "offence to subject". NVO (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• I don't think we can design our encyclopedia to prevent damage to fragile egos. If someone gets offended because we say they are not "notable" enough, they are going to get offended no matter what language we use to tell them they aren't worthy of inclusion. We also can't design our policies to prevent the problems caused by ignorance. The current name for this guideline does a very good job of literally describing what it's all about. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Seresin, Kanodin, Hut 8.5; proposal creates confusion by substituting a guideline, which covers only part of a larger policy, to the policy itself. VasileGaburici (talk) 01:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose as the term notability is focused on Wikipedia's inclusion criteria based on GNG. Other attempts to rename or replace WP:N with alternative terms, such as Wikipedia:Attribution have failed, simply because they lack focus on the requirement to site reliable secondary sources.--Gavin Collins (talk) 01:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Attribution's history has nothing directly to do with WP:N. Wikipedia:Attribution's failure had nothing to do with lack focus on the requirement to site reliable secondary sources. There has been only one serious attempt to rename/replace Wikipedia:Notability, and that was Wikipedia:Article inclusion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Personally, I would support renaming Wikipedia:Notability (people) back to its original name, Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies, which would undo this requested move] from December 2005. Would that help resolve the OTRS issue JzG brings up? What are the possible consequences of renaming Wikipedia:Notability to Wikipedia:Inclusion? How about renaming Wikipedia:Notability to Wikipedia:Overview of inclusion guidelines or Wikipedia:Summary of inclusion guidelines? Those names seem to me to be the original intent of Radiant! (describing current practice) when Radiant! edited it[4] in September 2006. Perhaps someone should notify Radiant! of this thread. I see there are some old discussions that may be relevant to JzG's proposal over at Wikipedia talk:Article inclusion. --Pixelface (talk) 03:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Rename proposal: Wikipedia:Viability

I note that several people think Wikipedia:Inclusion is not a sufficiently precise title and would create new problems, and on consideration, I agree. However, I still think we need to retitle WP:N to something less misleading to new users. I suggest the page instead be moved to one of the following two titles: Wikipedia:Viability, or for additional precision, Wikipedia:Page viability (shortcuts WP:VIA and WP:PV are available).

I believe these titles would appropriately capture the concept we are attempting to describe on this page: the exclusion of subjects on which an encyclopedia article cannot be written; and also give the guideline a clear scope: describing the standards a page should meet to show that it is viable to write an article on the subject. This title should also assuage concerns with the wording of WP:CSD#A7, as it could be rephrased quite simply to "that does not indicate why its subject is viable for an encyclopedia article." As an additional benefit, this new title should clarify the purpose of the rule in numerous ways, allowing us to lower the level of policy complexity by requiring less disclaimers. For instance, the section "Notability does not directly limit article content" should become unnecessary, as it should be clearly understood that viability applies only to subjects.

As a demonstration of how this terminology switch will promote clearer understanding of Wikipedia's stance on article inclusion, I will employ it in explaining two seeming paradoxes in the Notability concept that have historically led to lots of contention between editors: the lovely pair of "inherent notability" (the WP:SCHOOLS debate) and "inherited notability" (the WP:FICT debate), whose common sense interpretations directly contradict how Wikipedia treats them. The idea that all highschools, for instance, are notable on the surface seems patently absurd. When you consider it as an issue of page viability, however, the reasoning becomes clear: the continuous coverage of school history and events in local newspapers means that it is often viable to write an encyclopedia article about a school even if it is completely unimportant outside of Podunk, Iowa. Similarly, it makes intuitive sense that the main characters of a top-selling media franchise are notable because they are key aspects of a highly visible subject, but for Wikipedia's purposes these character are often not viable article subjects because there is simply nothing encyclopedic to say about them, and they are therefore excluded despite being orders of magnitude more significant to the public mind than the highschool in the middle of nowhere. --erachima talk 08:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with the general approach, I think this still misses why the change from the name "notability" is called for, and that is because on the surface, the words "notability" or "viability", ignoring any meaning they have in policy, are highly subjective terms and to some extent we have to alter their typical meaning for WP's purpose; a user is going to complain per the OP the same way that they would if an article they think is viable is called out non-viable just as they would if an article they think notable is called out as non-notable. There's no reason that we can't talk about viability of an article as part of this guideline as that as actually a good measure when the term is placed in context, but as a naming term, it still carries the same problems. I think this is why "inclusion criteria" is better as now the term is not ambiguous with a real world meaning and thus leading to the same complaints from new users (we'll still have them arguing they feel their topics should be included, but that's a very different issue). This doesn't mean that we can't have inclusion criteria that include notability or viability but these would not be the only possible criteria as well. --MASEM 12:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

As several people have noted above, the Wikipedia:Notability guideline has a specific focus, and renamings which significantly broaden or change its scope (ala "Inclusion guideline") are going to be problematic. This guideline is not about every reason a topic cannot be included in Wikipedia, just the ones that cannot be included due to a lack of second-party sources. Also, any term we chose would be subjective. --erachima talk 13:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment of the problem. As for the solution, I think "viability" comes across with less emotional baggage than "notability". But the problem is it's still not really clear as to what this guideline is about, and doesn't really have any clear scope. The guideline is about sources. A good rename would encompass that, IMO. Or else we're just making a lateral move, trading old problems for new ones. Randomran (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the assessment that this is a lateral move. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Viability has connotations, at least to me, that are too process-centric for a general content guideline. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

"Viability" carries an even more negative connotation than "notability". Whereas notability implies that a subject does not belong on Wikipedia because it is not important enough, viability asserts that the subject does not belong because it's completely useless and shouldn't even exist. Therefore, more editors would be offended if the guideline were renamed to "Wikipedia:Viability", and we'd have the same problem all over again, except much worse. --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• No Inclusion is clear and direct. Notability was lawyerly. viability is not lawyerly, but does not benefit from being clear. Protonk (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• No. Not a useful term. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• No.. Viability reminds me too much of Roe v. Wade and suggests that an article can survive deletion if it has gestated for enough time. (I will provide a more serious objection later, but in the meantime, show how WP:Viability escapes the expanding-scope objection) —Kanodin—VENT— 22:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Vague terminology, even more confusing than "notability". VasileGaburici (talk) 01:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• No. Term doesn't even make sense in this context. Inclusion or notability are far superior. 2005 (talk) 01:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Stay focused!

Just interjecting quickly here, but the real possibility of this discussion falling apart due to a rambling focus is becoming worrisome. Before half a dozen different rename proposals and just as many disparate straw polls/discussions crop up, I think the core issue of whether or not this page needs to be renamed at all should be answered. Once a consensus that a rename is warranted is reached, then it makes sense to start debating over a proper new title, rather than blending the two questions into one. Shereth 16:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Support: A rename is a good idea, in order to get away from unclear words with real-world baggage. That said, we shouldn't trade one kind of confusion for another. Focus on what notability really demands: sources. I'd support any rename that focuses on that. Randomran (talk) 17:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes It is important that we move notability (or whatever we will call it) away from a term of art defined in a lawyerly fashion. This only adds to the gulf between people who are new to wikipedia (and so may not understand why inclusion policies are important) and people who are well versed in the language. The rename should preferably coincide with a page change to turn WP:N into something like WP:CIVIL, a concatenation of WP:NOT, WP:V, and WP:OR, noting that other policies might allow or disallow inclusion of a topic. Protonk (talk) 19:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Possible compromise - "Encyclopedic Notability"

I appreciate Shereth's point, but I'm not certain you can completely separate the two issues - the support or opposition may hinge on what the move target is. At this stage, I would say there is a consensus for a move, though the trend of comments seems to be weakening that consensus. Frankly, I see this beginning to head towards gridlock. Reviewing all the comments above, I see one that strikes a nice balance among the various concerns. Specifically, User:Ningauble's suggestion to move this to WP:Encyclopedic Notability. It would help make it clear that this is a term of art and alleviate many of the concerns with the current name. At the same time, it remains close enough to address the oppose and qualified support issues.--Kubigula (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, but that doesn't fix the problem. Article subjects find the judgment against "notability" to be excessively problematic. We know this from long experience. Guy (Help!) 19:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I admit that it doesn't fix all the problems, but I think it would be an improvement on some of the problems raised by having this guideline simply called "Notability". I suggest it as a compromise that would probably make nobody happy, but might help with some of the issues and be something that we could all live with.--Kubigula (talk) 20:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Egad, I have been caught in a compromising position! In hindsight, while the suggestion might or might not help disambiguate for general contributor education, it does not really address the WP:OTRS problem where an interested party claims bad faith. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• The term "notability" in all its variations has connotations of a value judgement; attaching the similarly subjective and arbitrary qualifier "encyclopedic" would actually worsen the problem. Everyme 12:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Deconstructing WP:N

Perhaps it would be helpful to deconstruct WP:N. WP:N is not so much an inclusion criterion, but an amalgamation of three exclusion criteria (three Parts):

(1) A topic must have at least one reliable source (cf. WP:RS)

(2) A topic must have at least one independent source

(3) A topic must have at least secondary source (cf. WP:PSTS), or some undefined alternative ("secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability").

The part about “significant coverage” is really just saying that the source must a source for the topic to some fuzzy extent. It attempts to elimate red herring sources.

Part (1) is clearly grounded in WP:RS. Part (3) is clearly grounded in WP:PSTS, even to the extent of ambiguity about it always and necessarily applying.

Part (2) doesn’t come from another explicit rule that I can think of, but it a deeply ingrained otherwise unwritten rule. It is implicit in the occasionally written encyclopedic axiom “we write about what others have written about”, and it feels related to WP:NOR.

Parts (1) and (3) are definitely independent. Indeed, they even tend to be exclusive. Reliable sources tend to by primary sources, and secondary sources tend to not be reliable sources (for the “facts” that they comment on). A good secondary source explicitly cites reliable sources.

Parts (1) and (2) are rarely tied together. If the fact is disputed, then independent sources are preferred, but if the source is unquestionably reliable, few care that the source is not independent. Some do.

Part (2) is definitely tied to Part (3). A secondary source is only considered to demonstrate notability if it is independent, and this point is frequently insisted upon at AfD. An autobiography, or a company’s press releases about itself, is never accepted as a demonstration of sufficient notability.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Where to put non-notable material?

Is there a list somewhere of other sites that do accept non-notable material? It might be nice to have a link at the top of this talk page. Just an idea. Thanks. 203.190.192.130 (talk) 02:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikia allows the creation of fan-wikis on a variety of subjects. I'm sure there are others as well. --erachima talk 02:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we've been historically very down on the idea of better integrating links to Wikia and sending our (obviously existent) userbase there in a smooth way - "Bugger off to Wikia," the message we usually give, is not helpful in the same way that "Wikia might be a useful place to look for information that expands on what we offer in these ways." Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikia integration has been an element of several drafts of WP:FICT, but those drafts all failed due to the usual inclusionist-deletionist conflict over what stance the guideline should take with regard to character lists and whatnot. (Also the page is currently indefinitely protected due to edit wars over what variant of "this isn't a policy page" should go on it.) --erachima talk 04:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

In a Nutshell: Yet more confusing wording

In the "nutshell", and indeed pretty much the entire article, it says "Article topics should be notable". Shouldn't this read "Article subjects should be notable"? because it also says, at the bottom of the article, that content is not beholden to WP:N - "...particular topics and facts within an article..." do not need to meet WP:N. So I'm left wondering how can "article topics" be notable if the topics in articles are not notable? I understand that the distinction is kind of banal but we should make a more clear attempt at separating the "subject" of an article from the "topics" discussed in the article (those being my proposed "distinction words"). What say ye? padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 19:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• You are right that distinguishing between the topic described by an article's title and sub-topics within an article is important. However, replacing topic with subject doesn't solve the problem. People may still think that an article may have multiple subjects within it, and then we're back to your original issue. Discriminating between the scope of an article and multiple sub-topics requires verbose wording that goes beyond the nutshell, and I cannot think of a simple way to make that clear for the nutshell. Part of the complexity is that notability affects an article's NPOV content; article content should be germane to that topic's notability (i.e., relevant). We don't write everything that is verifiable on every notable topic (WP:INDISCRIMINATE). —Kanodin 20:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, then notability does affect article content and we should take the contrary insinuation out. This would also alleviate the problem by removing one side of the confusing elements. But I find it unacceptable to use the same word for two different situations and expect the reader to figure it out. How about the following:

padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we need a quick step back here, and make sure we are nutshelling correctly.

We have the following "major" points that are your one-minute take-aways from all of WP:N that we're trying to fit to the nutshell:

• Sign. coverage in secondary sources --> presumed to be notable
• (Meet an sub-notability guideline --> presumed to be notable) (this one, lets leave out pending the RFC)
• An article's main topic should be notable.
• Content of an article on a notable main topic is not further limited by notability.

I will point that "topic" is consistent with other guidelines (particularly NOT) so we should stay consistent.

So considering these:

(The SNG section is a placeholder but would be removed in a current version). This gets all four fun facts quickly and easily and in order of importance at least in the current editing environment. "Primary topic" is better than "main topic" or "topic" alone as yes, a topic may have several sub-topics, but "primary topic" should be obvious. --MASEM 13:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

MASEM, you show your customary skill at concision--but I would just substitute the word "independent" for "secondary" The question o fjust what counts as a secondary source has proven to be confusing, as Wikipedia seems to sometimes use it in a special meaning. The combination of significant, reliable and independent is enough to take care of the common valid objections to non-notable subjects. DGG (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

DGG, I disagree. In a great many areas, if not all, secondary sources, as per WP:NOR, are essential in formulating articles properly based on sources. No one denies that there is confusion as to the detail, but you can't just cut it out due to complexity. The existence of secondary sources are critically important to a useful concept of notability as an inclusion criterion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It is key to remember that sources sit on two axes: the relationship to the facts (first- and third-party) and the type of treatment of the facts (primary, secondary, and tertiary). Verifiability means a strong reliance on third-party, utilizing first-party to suppliment; the GNG, on the other hand, requires topics to be covered more than just repeating the details -- aka having secondary sources. This is why we can't (yet) justify episode articles only on TV guide descriptions (third-party but primary sources since they do no analysis) while we can use (with caution) commentary from the producers or actors as first-party, secondary sources. --MASEM 02:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, TV Guide descriptions are generally first party: they are provided by the production companies and printed verbatim.Kww (talk) 02:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the nutshell at the moment is just fine. For those who disagree: What is it that the nutshell says, or doesn't say, that leaves you, or the newcomer, confused? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• At the moment, I agree with SmokeyJoe. Mentioning WP:NNC in the nutshell is stretching things a tad far, but distinguishing main topic from sub-topic warrants concern. WP:NNC exists as a courtesy clarification of the limits of WP:N, but is not essential to policy. WP:NPOV covers content issues that relate to notability (the code words for notability in NPOV are significance and proportion). WP:NNC tries to eliminate policy overlap (a Mickey Mouse solution) and would look rather silly in the nutshell statement. I also think that we should attend to the vague 'instead' language in WP:NNC before squeezing it into the nutshell.
• It would probably be best to address one of these issues at a time. The main-topic/sub-topic issue is more basic and should be solved before tackling the WP:NNC issue (if people want to pursue it). My first poke at nominating a change to the nutshell would be to change a suitable article topic to suitable as the primary [or main] topic of an article. The downside to this suggestion is that it expands the nutshell by four words.

—Kanodin—VENT— 13:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• I do agree that NNC can be a red herring, so keeping it out is fine. And the matter of SNGs is still up in the air but as noted above, a small clause can be added once its resolved once their purpose is confirmed. The only major concern is that the nutshell never mentions the word "notability". If a new user created a non-notable article (unaware of policy/guideline) and it was put up to AFD for being non-notable, the nutshell would not serve them well. Mind you, I see the point of not stating "notability" to avoid with the non-WP, more common definition of the term (and IMO, with the way the RFC is going, I think I see a way to depreciate our use of "notability" for a better term, but that's neither here nor there), and having it in the nutshell could complicate matters.. --MASEM 13:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Having the nutshell define notability might be good. Having the nutshell refer to notability is bad. People will come to WP:N to find out what this “notability” thing is, and being self-referential is not very helpful. Not using the word “notable” as far as possible is, I think, a good thing, because our modified definitions causes confusion.
• Deprecating “notability” would be a good idea except for two problems: (1) Finding a better word/phrase; (2) The word is so deeply entrenched in our history that people will keep using it, and without WP:N, they will go back to misusing in the confusing, undefined manner that people used to use it (along the lines of “not encyclopaedic” which degenerates down to “I don’t like it”). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't go too far, this is just a nutshell. y base argument was that everything is referred to as "topic" - Article subject as well as sub-topics in the article, and this might be confusing. You got several statements, even outside of the nutshell, that say the article topic must be notable and then a blurb stating that topics in the article need not be notable (which, in and of itself, is misleading too). So I was just looking for a better way to phrase one or the other of these things. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 13:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• I still prefer the original wording because it was brief [5], and did not include any vague adjectives such as "suitable" (which is better left to Jane Austen novels), and I propose we revert to this version which survived for more than a year on the basis that we have not agreed on a better version as yet. I don't like the term "suitablity", which in my view is a veiled reference to the requirement that an article must satisfy the content principles of Wikipedia. The term "suitablility" should be replaced in GNG with an explicit statement to this effect, but this should be the subject of a discussion for another day. To avoid addressing this issue now, and to address the issue that the original "notability in a nutshell" was vaguely self-referencing, I propose a compromise which I feel is less judgemental in tone:

Since notability is just one of many guidelines on inclusion criteria, I feel this makes sense, and does not suggest it is the paramount guideline on this subject just because it defines what is "suitable", which is related to the content guidelines and falls outside the scope of WP:N. --Gavin Collins (talk) 02:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I like it. It gets to the point. It explains the sourcing requirement. And it explains what that sourcing requirement gets you. Saying "it gets you notability" doesn't explain anything. Saying "it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article" does. If there's a cleaner way to say that last part, I'd support that too. Randomran (talk) 03:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• These latest nutshells won't do because they seem to indicate that the existence of sources qualifies a topic for inclusion. This is not the case since there is material for which we have good sources but which we do not wish to cover, for example, ordinary murders (WP:NOT#NEWS). I am therefore reverting back to the last nutshell which explains how notability is defined, not that it guarantees you inclusion. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • If the problem is that we might mislead that meeting the source requirements "guarantees" inclusion, perhaps it might be more useful to phrase it in the negative? "If an article doesn't ..., then it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." Randomran (talk) 07:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Colonel Warden, there was never a guarantee of inclusion: The presumption clause exists solely to impugn the finality of notability. The phrase presumed to be notable is equally as inclusionist as the latest versions. Also, you forgot to readjust the body of the article to reflect the nutshell version you prefer. However, I think we will be moving to Gavin's version soon, so I'm not worried.
    • Randomran, phrasing in the negative morphs the inclusion criteria into an exclusion criteria. That move would make WP:N behave consistently with WP:DP, which may be a move in the right direction. It puts the language in a reactionary pose, and prescribes this: Only worry about notability because the article would otherwise be deleted... Is that the way of things? —Kanodin—VENT— 11:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
      • In answer to Colonel Warden, I think he may be right but for the wrong reasons. It is true that single or even multiple news stories do not necessarily make a topic notable, and the content of a lot of news stories cannot be classed as "significant coverage", as described in WP:NOT#NEWS. However, I think my wording is better, as it eliminates the self-referencing issue that Masem identified earlier. The problem which the Colonel has brought attention to is that WP:RS#News_organizations does not dovetail with WP:NOT#NEWS. If the Colonel would revert his last edit, I have tabled a proposal at WT:RS to bring it in line with WP:NOT#NEWS, not only becuase I think this is a good idea, but also that such an amendment would address his concerns. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Where are we on this? I'm with Gavin's latest version, but I don't know about everyone else. —Kanodin (talk to me / slap me) 16:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
• Gavin asks for some examples. Here's a start: Dude, Bollocks. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• In answer to the concerns of the Colonel, I am not sure that the notability of Dude or Bollocks is proven by any means. I have reviewed the article Dude, my initial view is that the sources cited fail WP:RS as the content seems to have been drawn from tertiary sources such as dictionaries. Other seondary sources have been cited, but they tend to cite the words in passing or in relation to other topics which may be notable, but this does not make the term notable per se. Overall I would say that the article fails WP:DICT, as this topic would be better dealt with by Wiktionary. Overall I think WP:RS (which is included in the nutshell I am proposing), WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:DICT cover your concerns, unless I am mistaken. I therefore suggest we revert back the nutshell wording above. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• I dispute the buried assertion here that a dictionary is a tertiary source. The main purpose of a dictionary is to be a primary source. With regard to the history of the usage of a word, where a dictionary quotes previous usage, it is clearly not “THE” primary source, where there are distinctions among primary sources, but it is not a secondary source as it doesn’t, itself, compare, analyse or comment. Mere repetition does not create a secondary source. Similarly, a phone book, a map book, a street directory, an atlas, or any directory, is a primary source. There are dictionaries that have elements of secondary source content, but where this occurs they are moving away from being a dictionary. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Gavin's discussion of Dude and Bollocks further shows that an article can be an illegitimate article topic regardless of WP:N. This occurs because of the presumption clause, which remains strong regardless of whether the presumption involves being notable or satisfying the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Dude and Bollocks are probably notable, but they do not satisfy the other policies that Gavin described. It is okay for an article topic to be notable and fail to be a good article topic--we do not have to ignore the rules and we can still reach a consensus about illegitimate-but-notable topics.
• We accept the inclusion criteria by leaving it in the article. Disputing its presence in the nutshell is a matter of how important the inclusion criteria is to WP:N. Removing the inclusion criteria from the nutshell does not impugn its policy status. Until the Colonel disputes the policy status of the inclusion criteria, I find his objection about it being in the nutshell to be unpersuasive.
• Strictly speaking, the inclusion criteria is outside the scope of notability. However, until we have an accepted policy page on a unified inclusion criteria, it stays in WP:N.

—Kanodin (talk to me / slap me) 00:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)