Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 45

Archive 40

←

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

→

Archive 50

Language as Criteria for Notability

I already posted at Wikiproject video games the video game infobox template talk but will ask again here: I have noticed an editor removing non-English countries (particularly South Korea) from the release date and ratings sections of many video game articles because they are "non-notable on English wiki". This strikes me as extremely inappropriate but I don't know for sure. Thoughts? Some guy (talk) 10:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm the editor removing countries (though all non-English speaking countries, not just South Korea) from videogame infoboxes - and am doing so per the guidelines here, for videogame ratings: "The game's censorship rating most widely accepted in the game's country of origin (and any English-language censorship ratings)." and for videogame release dates "Use the first public non-festival release in the game's country of origin, as well as any English-language release dates available". Thanks! Fin©™ 10:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

This seems appropriate to me per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE - the primarily ratings and what not that are noteworthy in both the infobox and the article are those of the games country of origin and major English language releases. Including the ratings and dates of every country it was ever released in gets into the indiscriminate detail (and often unverifiable by Wiki standards). The same is true of films, television, novels, anime/manga, comics, etc though all of the latter also dealt with the issue by simply not having such content, due to also wanting to avoid systematic bias and the consensus that the ratings are too arbitrary to be of any encyclopedic value. As Falcon9x5 also notes, his edits are per the infoboxes as well. It isn't an issue of "notability" in terms of article notability, rather note-worthiness and overall relevance. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 13:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

This entire guideline is concerned with whether or not a topic should have a stand-alone Wikipedia article. Discussion of the inclusion or exclusion of content like this dispute belongs

• best here Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games
• or maybe here Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
• or maybe here Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) patsw (talk) 13:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I should start saying "not-noteworthy". My bad! Thanks! Fin©™ 15:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Non-English releases can be important N-wise, actually, in the case of works that are released in several languages that aren't English. It's just that they aren't significant enough to justify the infobox clutter if the series has had a truly international release. --erachima talk 18:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Funny, not including a country because it doesn't speak English sounds a lot like systematic bias. Whatever, I see the logic behind the policy and it's not worth fighting over. Some guy (talk) 08:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Should Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) be merged with Wikipedia:Notability (events) and Wikipedia:Notability (people)?

The following discussion 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.

---

Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) is currently a notability guideline that touches upon the notability of 1) criminal acts [i.e. events] and 2) people who are either the victim or a perpetrator of a criminal act. As an option to help alleviate a bit of redundancy within the growing number of notability guidelines, I am wondering if there is any support or opposition to merging the first section of that guideline with Wikipedia:Notability (events) and the second part to an appropriate subsection within Wikipedia:Notability (people). Location (talk) 06:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• I noticed this issue when we wrote WP:EVENT as the criminal acts guideline preceded it, but I felt it was better to get on with establishing the new guideline than trying to merge that one in too at the time. Thanks for raising this. I think a split and merge of this guideline as appropriate is a good idea. WP:PERP and WP:VICTIM are special cases of WP:BLP1E. Fences&Windows 23:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• I had not seen this guideline before - and find it extraordinarily malleable. If it remains extant, it should be written with far more definitive language than it presently has, and thus is really unsuitable, as is, for merger into anything much at all. Collect (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• Probably a good idea to combat CREEP. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• Less guides is more better. --Jayron32 04:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• Appears to be a good idea for making the guidelines less scattered. Now if we could just get people to stop creating articles about nonnotable murders and such. (Disclosure: I'm responding to a [neutral] message the proposer of this RfC left on my talk page.) Deor (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I personally think that Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) should be kept as is. The logic behind the policy and its appropriate interpretation is best understood when looking at both an event and the people involved in it. For example, a particular criminal event might be notable but not necessarily the individual people involved in that event. A splitting of the policy to different pages will make its subtleties less clear and less effective. A better solution would be to add a link to the policy on other pages.4meter4 (talk) 00:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think it would be best if Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) had it's title changed to Notoriety, and all pages left separate, since the pages aren't really all that close in topic. ☥United Accusations☥ (talk) 01:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Could you expound on the above? I don't understand why you think Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) should be renamed WP:Notoriety. I also don't understand what you mean by "the pages aren't really all that close in topic". The reason for moving the perpetrators and victims sections to Wikipedia:Notability (people) is to consolidate biography notability guidelines in one place, and the reason for moving the criminal acts section to Wikipedia:Notability (events) is to consolidate event-related guidelines in one place. None of this would directly make criminal events or criminal biographies more or less restrictive, but it would bring them in line with other events and biographical guidelines, as well as addressing concerns of WP:CREEP and Wikipedia:Recentism (since Wikipedia:Notability (events) specifically refers to recentism. The shortcuts to WP:PERP and WP:VICTIM would not disappear either; they would just redirect to their new places.Location (talk) 03:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Merge Criminal Acts to Events but not People A criminal act is a type of event. It is worth noting I made this suggestion before. However, a guideline for people should not be made common, because there are all different reasons why people are notable or not, and very often, this has nothing to do with any specific events. Sebwite (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
  • But there's specific advice about people related to criminal acts (or alleged criminal acts), such as being cautious about writing bios of people accused of a crime. Shouldn't that advice be retained somewhere? Fences&Windows 13:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment As it currently reads, this guideline duplicates what is said on the other 2 pages Fences and windows references. Further, it doesn't even address the one factor that affects the notability of crimes: notable crimes is a recent phenomenon. Prior to the last few centuries ago, there are few criminal actions notable enough to merit historical attention by themselves. Although this is off the top of my head, after some serious thought I can only think of two notable crimes -- as in single instances of an act -- which occurred before 1750: (1) Cain's murder of Abel, & (2) the murder of a patrician by his slave in the middle of an argument during the reign of the Roman Emperor Vespasian. (Every other possible example I thought of can be considered as a military or political event.) Now the first is adequately covered in the article on the two legendary personages, & doesn't need its own stand-alone article. As for the second, it is notable because of an old Roman law which stated that in the case of a master being killed by one of his slaves, all of his slaves must be put to death -- a requirement which shocked contemporary Rome in this case, & I believe this crime led to the relevant law being revoked or amended. (It was made with the assumption that any slave who killed his master acted with either the help or collusion of his fellow slaves.) Returning to my point, the notability of crimes need to be evaluated not only against coverage in secondary sources, but also against the policy at Wikipedia:Recentism -- something this policy fails to even consider. -- llywrch (talk) 15:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support as Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) is a slightly woolly guideline and was in need of a rewrite in any case. I recommend that Llywrch look out for "The Highwayman's case" (Everet v. Williams, Ex. 1725, 9 L.Q. Rev. 197) to add to his collection. I am surprised an article has not been written about it already, as I would think it would make a good DYK article. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• I am wondering if there are any additional comments before this is brought to an admin for closing? Location (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2010 (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.

Pseudo-closing comment

I'm coming here from AN (or AN/I) where someone asked for a 'neutral' (or at least uninvolved) admin to close a discussion. Looks like the consensus is obviously in favor of not retaining this as a page and at least merging it into Events or People. Can I close this and leave the general disposition of the sections up to involved editors? Or would it be better if I attempted to get a clearer read on whether or not every part of the guideline needs to be moved. Also, where do people feel the redirect should go? Protonk (talk) 22:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• I believe this could be closed as you have suggested, and I think Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) (and its quick links) should redirect to the appropriate section within Wikipedia:Notability (events). If permitted, I can make the appropriate moves/merges/redirects within a very short timeframe. I imagine that consensus at the destination pages will further reshape the moved material. Location (talk) 00:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I think that will be good. I would much appreciate it if you would do the moving, as I'm liable to mess it up. :) Protonk (talk) 01:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
    • In case anyone is interested in following-up on this, I've made the changes as noted above. Thanks! Location (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Carroty

Ihave a problem in determining notability. This page Michael G. Foster has been AFD’d Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael G. Foster. The more I have dug the more confused things have become. It seems that he may (or may not) have won particular tornaments based upon who wrote the artciel in Black belt magazine. Ther seems to be a lot fo contradiction in sources. As such I am not sure if this person fails notability.Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

How many returns in a popular search engine like Google does it take?

An article I wrote about someone was dismissed as not being of a notable figure. The subject's name is Perry Noble. Put his name in qoutes on Google's web search and you get close to 87,000 returns. I am not saying that in and of itself confers notability, but it has to count for something. Daredevil1234 (talk) 02:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

See WP:GOOGLETEST. A strict number of hits on google does not confer notability, because we're looking at the quality, not quantity of sources. That said, if you search instead with Google News, Google Scholar, and Google Books and get a good number of hits, there's a good chance you can use sources given there to justify notability. --MASEM (t) 02:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This is sort of connected to the point I raise below: google hits represent only the potential for a good article. Whether an article is good in the sense of satisfying guidelines, and policy, etc. is the task of the editor and it starts with references to sources which demonstrate significant coverage independent of the subject. patsw (talk) 02:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic...

An article about a company was created by an anonymous editor back in 2006. It was and is unreferenced. Someone nominated it recently for an AfD. The article has been around for four years without an attempt to provide references based upon reliable third party sources. I wrote in the Afd There's no sign that this article is going to be improved to meet WP:COMPANY.

No one is asserting the article is meeting WP:COMPANY now on the basis of reliable third party sources, rather the claim is to leave the article alone, in the expectation that eventually someone will add references based upon reliable third party sources. If that rationale were universally accepted, how could an article ever get deleted? patsw (talk) 02:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This is probably getting in the iffy area that has been used for settlements - but really doesn't exist outside of that area. Because companies come and go, crystal-balling the expectation of sources really isn't a good article for notability, and the article should be deleted unless secondary sources can be found. I can understand that settlements are a bit more permanent and thus part of the rationale why we can expect sources in the future. --MASEM (t) 03:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, I think there's a little experiment going on: Keep voters are asserting the mere possibility of adding sources of independent coverage ought to be enough for the article to survive AfD, rather than actually adding the sources of independent coverage to the article while the AfD process is open. patsw (talk) 03:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a real danger with this experiment' in that fledgling companies can create articles for advertising purposes. Hey one day they may be notable, let's kick start the process a bit. J04n(talk page) 22:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

ORG requires that sources exist; it does not require that any be cited. An article may be 100% {{unref}}'d and still comply with ORG. However, if nobody actually believes that the source exist right now (not maybe-someday-in-my-crystal-ball), then the article should be deleted. (How do you know that it's not a hoax if there are no independent sources?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this, combined with J04n's argument, combined with the fact we CSD articles on organizations and individuals with no evidence of importance to avoid vanity articles, basically means the exercise of "this will have sources in the future, just wait" is fruitless for any of the types of articles covered under CSD A7. That's a good way to separate out this problem compared to the settlements issue or other similar topics. --MASEM (t) 22:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

In the course of an AfD, sources must be forthcoming. When they are, the article should be updated to reflect them. {{unref}} is always a transitional state. An article that has been through an AfD should never need that template, so I'm not sure that I'd say that the template's presence is compatible with out notability guidelines. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 22:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Why can't you provide a link to the actual article? Why are we discussing this in the abstract if you have a specific case in mind? john k (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The Afd itself has the concrete case if you need to have context. I changed my vote in the middle of it. patsw (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Think about each of these cases of a AfD that started for an article which fails to meet WP:N and in particular fails to meet WP:GNG, and is unreferenced, or at least unreferenced from reliable third party sources:

1. Deleters state they can't find sources, and keepers state they can, therefore wait for someone to eventually add them. Invoking the nuance that content does not need to be verified in the article itself, only verifiable.
2. Deleters state they can't find sources, and furthermore it is unlikely they will ever appear, keepers state they believe it likely that sources will appear, therefore wait for sources to appear and for someone to eventually add them -- invoking WP:DEADLINE
3. Deleters state the above, keepers even concede the low probability of sources eventually appearing, so ultimately keepers quote WP:WIP(essay) as displacing WP:V (see also meta:Inclusionism and other essays) with respect to third-party sources covering the subject. My guess is they are appealing to a future consensus around WP:NOT which minimizes the role of WP:N. patsw (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

In the first case, as long as within the course of the AFD that someone has linked or spelled out references and others agree they work and should be added - but no one actually goes about adding them - that's ok, though it takes but a moment to even add poorly formatted citations to the main article if they are present in the AFD. So that's not an issue. But within actually pointing to sources, the keep argument should be invalid.

Under the presumption that there are no useful sources in the article on a company, arguing DEADLINE or WIP displaces V is not appropriate as V is policy (this is moreso than just being an WP:N issue); being at AFD for lack of sources means that someone has challenged the factual nature of the information on the page putting the onus of retention on the people that want to keep that information, and not being able to produce a valid source or a pointer to that source (verifyability) is grounds for removal, in this case of the entire article. This is in contrast to an article that is verified but yet shows non-notability. One can argue in this case for DEADLINE/WIP for some areas to allow notability to come long in time but this is a very limited exception. But it is a different issue than the 3 cases presented above, I believe. --MASEM (t) 17:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

As s sidebar comment, articles on certain types of subjects, such as companies have a higher risk / incidence of existing for self-serving or commercial purposes than other subjects. I think that it is common and right to give such a bit of extra scrutiny. North8000 (talk) 23:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

And keep in mind too, that WP:GNG and other guidelines are now in many cases treated as defacto WP:ESSAYS. Their instruction can be ignored when enough editors create a consensus in various discussions, even when that consensus might act contrary to instruction of any specific guideline. For instance, and though AFD is supposedly not be a "vote", creating a new consensus is done by overwhelming numbers of editors offering opinions and conclusions... even when that consensus runs contrary to existing guideline. It is through the numbers (votes) that new consensus is created and existing guideline ignored. So if enough editors offer a keep or delete, even when it might run contrary to existing guideline, a closer may recognize and act upon that new consesnsus, and thus himself ignore existing guideline, as they are simply guides, after all... and not ironclad rules... and closers may often acknowledge that interpretation and implementation of guideline is changing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

This is an oversimplification of the consensus. I think the following hold true:

• WP:V's requirement that articles be sourced to third-party sources (particularly for vanity articles) is still a strongly viewed policy. If there are no sources, period, we will pretty quickly delete anything questionable.
• The general concept of WP:N (not the GNG) is guideline quality - that is, a stand along article on a topic should demonstrate the topic is notable; there's some leeway here, but not a lot.
• Where there is the wide variance that comes from consensus that is alluded to above is where understanding that the demonstration of notability incorporates more than the GNG and other sub-notability guidelines, thus allowing topics to be included per WP:N that don't necessary meet the GNG or other SNGs but that still are meeting the core content policies (V, NOR, NPOV)
• Or another way to view it; we have an unstated inclusion guideline, of which WP:N (supported by the GNG or SNGs) is one part of; consensus lets us fill in the rest, but no one has been able to qualify that remaining space between inclusion and notability in words well enough, or possibly this is just impossible to qualify and thus why we let consensus decide when the issues around.
• But I will say this: saying WP:N is virtually treated as an essay is inappropriate; it is one of the guidelines that address WP's discriminate goals. It's understanding that parts of it - or lack of parts of it - are what is subject to much wide variance. --MASEM (t) 05:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• I will agree that my comment it is an oversimplification. But I have recently seen just such things happening, and it is rather chilling. When WP:N and WP:GNG become subject to personal interpretation, and through consesnsus lose their ability to act as guidelines toward what is worthy of note, consensus is changed and they become essay per definition. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• No, that's still not true. WP:N and WP:GNG can only be assessed at the level of consensus (a single person cannot delete an article outside of CSD issues), and requires consensus for that to happen; it only happens that one person can start the consensus-generating process for N/GNG based on their opinion. But that opinion can easily be against consensus and the article kept. AFD is needed for personal opinions overriding a consensus-based guideline. --MASEM (t) 19:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Hmmm... so such discussions could be "kept" if a closer determines that guideline was not respected, or "deleted" if the closer grants that consensus in a particular case is to ignore guideline? In either scenario the result could be a close taken to deletion review, and the close questioned, no matter the good faith of the closer in either direction. Yikes. Talk about a Gordian Knot. Admins have far more headaches than thought. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, yes. Though the few case of AFD where I see that happen, the most likely outcome is "no consensus" and letting the article stay around for improvement. Though again, people should note that deletion review is not AFD#2. It should be a problem with the process, not the notability issues. --MASEM (t) 22:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Help with Article for Deletion

There is currently a debate going on for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Road to... (Family Guy) about whether there has been enough significant coverage of the "Road to" series to warrant an article. The discussion is becoming more and more uncivil, so I would appreciate any opinions on the matter. Thanks. Ωphois 04:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Question

Has there ever been a discussion on whether all or part of this should be a policy? If so, could someone provide a link to that discussion? Thanks in advance, --WFC-- 20:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and they have resulted in very little consensus to do so. See Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Reevaluation. --MASEM (t) 20:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Lists and Notability

I think we need clarification of notability when it comes to list articles, especially those with a title that implies combine attributes for inclusion. Does the underlying topic of the list need to be notable, or is it enough that the items listed be notable (or is it some combination of both)?

To give an example of what I am talking about... suppose I were to create List of buildings with shingle roofs. My question is this... do the buildings listed need to be notable because they have shingle roofs, or is it enough that the building be a) notable (for whatever reason) and b) have a shingle roof? Blueboar (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a very difficult question and I think that notability is the wrong feature to focus on for lists. There are likely some lists that are notable as a list themselves, there are likely many lists that are a collection of (only) notable elements for that list, but there are plenty of other lists, routinely kept, where there is no significant notability of the combined list topic or of its elements. To me, the way I've seen lists kept and deleted is all centered around two factors (though everything is case-by-case here):

• Is the list discriminate - but not too discriminate? This is shown by a meaningful, non-arbitrary definition of the list (ideally that definition being sourced itself) that provides a list membership size that is reasonable narrow but not too specific. "List of actors that have won Oscars" is meaningful, non-arbitrary, and is a finite list size. "List of actors named John" is arbitrary and leads to a list that can be infinitely long (and thus likely would be deleted). Note that often, a list that seems arbitrary is made discriminate by asserting a specific requirement in the definition or the article's talk page, such as notability; however, at the same time, a list of notable elements put together under an indiscriminate definition is not always going to be kept (such as "notable actors named John") Basically, if it is a good list definition, the list is likely kept regardless of notability of elements or the list itself.
• Is the list used to support a larger topic? If we had no WP:SIZE problems such as if we were a printed work, would a list that involves topic X be reasoned expected to be included in the article on topic X? If so, then it is likely going to be kept.

So taking List of buildings with shingle roofs as an example, clearly without any further definition, it is way too broad (it is a common roofing technique) so the next step is to consider tightening the definition. Adding only notable buildings (or specific buildings with articles on WP) with shingled roofs? To me, that still screams indiscriminate (again, because of how common the roof style is). A possible case may be List of historic buildings with shingled roofs, noting that "historic" must be included on the appropriate country's historic registration list - presuming that shingled roofs for historical buildings is non-common but interesting grouping. --MASEM (t) 15:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I would have to disagee, because this is too roundabout and subjective way to describe lists, which are no different from other mainspace articles other than their format. Lists are subject to all existing policies and guidelines, and so their subject matter ("the topic") should be notable. If a list is not notable, then there is no rationale for inclusion in Wikipedia.

In answer to Blueboar, your example is putting the horse before the cart. If the list top "List of buildings with shingle roofs" has not been published in any form by a reliable, third party source, then it fails WP:BURDEN. This means that the list topic must have been published, either in whole or in part (i.e. just a working definition) to demonstrate that it has not Primary (original) research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Except there are plenty of examples of lists, sent through AFD, that are kept that aren't notable but are discriminate and are well-referenced. So clearly notability doesn't apply to lists based on consensus. And we've been through this before: Notability is already a subjective measure, which is why consensus overrides all over flat out rules. --MASEM (t) 16:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Masem, you know that is not true. Notability is about topic inclusion, and although it is subjective, editors judge a topic to be notable based on verifable evidence. By contrast WP:AFD is about article deletion, and is entirely subjective process, as it self-evident that you cannot find evidence of any sort to show that a topic is not notable. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, lists (when the article is just a list) are a good candidate for "what Wikipedia is not", especially for lists with dual criteria. But, setting that aside...... But for here, IMHO the subject (as defined by the list criteria) must meet notability requirements. So, for "List of Oscar Winners", such a compilation will have been covered by suitable sources. But there is probably no suitable coverage in sources of the TOPIC of 31 foot tall buildings with shingled roofs. North8000 (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Notability is about the ability of a topic to have its own stand alone article; once shown notable, we do not restrict what is covered by a topic except through other content policies and guidelines. Lists are not topics - they may be a stand alone topic but more often than not they aren't. Thus, we cannot always treat lists the same manner as regular notability. When you look through Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists/archive, there are a lot of deletions, probably at least 80% are, so not any old list is immediately kept. But when you look at what's kept, and what's deleted, you find that notability of the list itself rarely enters into the question - it is whether the list is discriminate or not (which includes evidence or lack thereof of notable elements within the list), and whether other content policies apply to nullify the need for the list. So clearly its not flat out notability that applies here. --MASEM (t) 16:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the issue I am concerned about is this: WP:NOTE tells us that we need to establish (through reliable sources) that the topic of an article is notable ... but in many list articles this is difficult. For one thing, it isn't always clear what the topic actually is. What exactly is the topic of List of buildings with shingle roofs? Blueboar (talk) 16:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

IMO the generic form of the example ("List of buildings with shingled roofs") is "Examples of <notable subject>", which I think is weak (i.e., should be merged to the article about the notable subject unless there are WP:SIZE issues). If instead the goal is "Navigation device for buildings" (in which case, you might expect a series: List of buildings with gravel roofs, list of buildings with tile roofs, etc), then I'd accept it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing's last comment just clarified the issue (if not the solution) for me... there are two different types of list articles... on one hand we have "List of <items that all fall within a notable subject>" and on the other we have "List of <items that are individually notable, that have a common denominator>" With the first, it is usually fairly easy to establish notability ... either in an article or in the lede of the list. It is not easy to establish the notability of the second type. My concern is mostly with the second type... to what extent must the common denominator be notable... and how do we establish this? Blueboar (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, I think it's less that the common denominator needs to be notable moreso that it is supporting a larger topic (otherwise it is just a list for list's sake, which means a category may be better), and that the combination is not indiscriminate. --MASEM (t) 17:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I am having difficulty understanding why the common denominator does not need to be notable. Blueboar (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Because often when all the individual elements are notable but not the list grouping itself, that list grouping is serving as a means of navigation or similar classification that is beyond the capability of a category. Take several "List of people from..." lists which are generally only those with bluelinks. The list "topic" would be "Notable people from X" which may exist in limited forms as a notable topic for major cities or locations, but rarely for any random location - that is, notability of the list definition is not required to keep the list. It is because, as you can see argued when these come up, that a section about people from X would be a list normally included on the article about X, but when the number of people from X become exceeding large, it is moved to this list page, maintaining support for the original article. --MASEM (t) 18:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Masem, aren't you sort of arguing that a list should not be held to article standards because it's really a navigation page rather than an article? If there are no rules at the list article level, how about a "List of Elected Officials Who Voted to Raise Taxes" article?  :-) North8000 (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No, because we're still have to take into account several factors: Indiscriminate content ("List of people named John", even if they are all bluelinked fails) and issues like POV and NOT (which, seriously, the "List of Elected Officials Who Voted to Raise Taxes" would fail terribly). Lists don't have free clearance just because they are lists and not articles, but a different set of inclusion allowances instead come into play. --MASEM (t) 19:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I picked a glaring example for clarity, but there seem to be list articles where the title wording itself seems to be implied OR or soapboxing or "to make a point" One is currently being discussed at wp:nor "List of Wars between democracies" These "two criteria" lists seem to be inherently OR at best. North8000 (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "list of wars between democracies" is based on a POV-loaded term (though as I've noted at WT:OR the term can be taken in two different ways, one specifically neutral, the other specifically favoring a point, so there's some OR/POV issues to resolve there first before we can accept it. This is a lot more complex example, that I think the POV-ness of the term has to be dealt with first before we can question whether the list is ok for inclusion. --MASEM (t) 20:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me lay out a broad claim: any list for which there is (1) objective, verifiable criteria, (2) not a duplicate on some other Internet resource, (3) serious interest among editors (i.e. not contrived, not trivial, not silly), and (4) a reasonable expectation that it will be maintained, is a candidate for a good list. A more common questions is when does a list make sense, versus a new category. patsw (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree on #2. It depends on the encyclopedic nature of the data. There are plenty of offline sources that provide a list of US presidents, should we get rid of ours? All the other points make sense. --MASEM (t) 19:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I read number 2 as a general ward against duplicating single site lists elsewhere on the internet. Meaning that if we have a list article it shouldn't be an element for element copy of some other list article on a random web-page (distinct from copyright issues). Protonk (talk) 19:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The only objective, verifiable criteria for inclusion of lists is...(you guessed it)...notability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

same issue, but now with a real life article

OK... to put a real article's face on this... the article that prompted my thoughts and question was List of Masonic buildings. We have already had an AfD on this list... resulting in a no consensus leaning towards keep determination. That indicates that the community thinks something about this list is considered notable... but we are having difficulty defining what that is. Essentially editors can not agree on what this list should be about. Should it be about "notable buildings that happen to be Masonic" ... or is it about "buildings that are notable because they are Masonic" (the second would be a much smaller list). The title could be understood either way. So we really have two potential topics for the same title. Notability is not the key issue here (as I said, it isn't a question of whether the topic is notable... it's more a question of what part of the topic is notable). I understood how notability works for normal articles... but not how it works for lists. Blueboar (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I think there needs to be clarification on the name. A practical question: what does it take to make a building Masonic? Is it a certain certification, or can anyone just say "yea, my building's Masonic" --MASEM (t) 21:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Has the list (or its defintion) been published elsewhere? If not then it fails WP:BURDEN. No wonder the editors can't agree on what it is abou, because there are no reliable, third part sources which they can follow. As far I can see, the list is comprised of primary (original) research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No, not true. If there is a sourced definition, and there's sources for each entry to meet that definition, but the complete list itself is not sourced, it is still a list that complies with all policies and guidelines, though there's still a question of how discriminate the list is. --MASEM (t) 23:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No, there is no sourced definition. Most of the buildings are on the NRHP... but they are not listed in the NRHP because they are "Masonic". Blueboar (talk) 23:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, then, any random building can become "Masonic" simply because the Freemasons or similar decide to meet there? I do recognize based on the list that there are a subset of these buildings specifically built by Masons for the purposes of being a Masonic building, and that's a different kettle of fish regardless. But, say, the local Masons decide to use the town Library (not built by Masons, just a building) regularly for their meetings, is that library suddenly "Masonic"? If I am reading that as the case (I admit to likely being wrong), I'd equate that to sources being self-published and making the list of those buildings simply indiscriminate. Starting from this case, however, I would further argue that "Masonic buildings on the NRHP" would be a better qualified list (since that now requires a secondary source in terms of the NRHP to acknowledge that) or "Masonic buildings constructed by Masons" would be another qualified list. But again, that depends on if I'm reading the definition right. --MASEM (t) 23:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

...say, the local Masons decide to use the town Library (not built by Masons, just a building) regularly for their meetings, is that library suddenly "Masonic"? That seems to be the view of the more extreme editors at the page... I don't agree with that view, however. A more common situation would be where the local library is shut down, and the building is then purchased by the Masons for their meetings. The building is historic, so it gets listed on the NRHP... but because the Masons currently own it (and probably filed the application to list it with the NRHP, perhaps for tax assessment reasons) it gets listed as "Masonic Temple" ... even if the thing that made it historic in the first place has nothing to do with the Masons. A third situation is where a building was originally purpose built by the masons as a meeting hall, and then the Masons sold it... and now it is used for something else (a store... a hotel... condominiums... etc.) The building no longer has any "Masonic" connection ... but is listed as "Masonic Hall" in the NRHP. Blueboar (talk) 00:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so it's more correct to say that a "Masonic building" (ignoring the NRHP) is a building that is presently or was once owned by the Masons specifically for activities of the group. The Masons using a building that is *not* owned by them for one or so meetings does not "bless" the building as Masonic? --MASEM (t) 00:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Sort of... It may help for me to explain terminology and history here .... When Freemasonry started, lodges met in private houses, or in the rented private dining rooms of Taverns. The room where they met was termed the "Temple" for the duration of the meeting. Freemasons continue to use the term with that connotation today... any room in which Masons meet is termed a "Temple" by the Freemasons (even if they only meet in that room once in the history of the lodge, it is the "Temple" for the duration of the meeting.)

Now, to hold a lodge, you have to set the room up a specific way (with a table in the center of the room, and chairs for the officers in specific places). It was time consuming to have to rearrange the furniture every time your lodge held a meeting... so, around the time of the American Revolution, lodges began to rent or purchase rooms where they could leave the room set up permanently. These too became known as the "Temple". From there is was an easy step for lodges to purchase or build their own entire building... so they could include a dining room, kitchen, office and other facilities. In larger towns several lodges might join together and share premises. In rural areas the the buildings were limited to the town lodge. Over the years, a lodge might move to a new location, or it might want larger or smaller premises as needed. It might build a new building... it might purchase an existing buildings (not necessarily one originally built to house the Masons)... sometimes a lodge that was looking to relocate would purchase a historic building ... to prevent it from being torn down by developers. All of these buildings become known as a "Masonic Temple" or "Masonic Hall". However, when they moved, the old building often was still referred to as the "Masonic Temple" or "Masonic Hall" by the community. So now a building might be called "Masonic Temple" even if the masons no longer meet there.

Unfortunately, the Wikipedia list article in question is entitled, List of Masonic buildings... and not List of buildings named "Masonic Temple"... and "Masonic building" is not defined. That can include more than just meeting places. It could include other buildings associated with Freemasonry in any way. For example... the various orphanages, old-folks homes, Schools etc that were built by the Freemasons as part of their charitable work can be considered "Masonic buildings". The problem is that the term "Masonic building" is an invention of Wikipedia, not something that comes out of Freemasonry. There is no definition of what a "Masonic building" is... except the common sense definition of "a building associated with Freemasonry in some way". The question is... does such a broad and ill defined definition result in a notable topic for a list... or does it need to be narrowed? How can we say that a "Masonic building" is notable, when we are not even sure what a "masonic building" is? Blueboar (talk) 02:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so if I understand correctly: even if the Masons met once in a building and never again, it could be titled a Masonic building (per our WP definition)?

Working from that, it clearly should be obvious that not every "Masonic building" is notable - or more than the term "Masonic building" does not infer notability on the building because it is literally an arbitrary term. Thus, a straight up list of any Masonic building is indiscriminate since it could be infinitely large, as you describe. There needs to be one (or both) of the following: a stronger or more limited definition of a Masonic building (likely being at least a Masonic Temple based on your explanation above, as these appear to have more established requirements), or a limitation on what Masonic buildings can be include, such as the NRHP qualification or being a notable building in the first place. Both of these make the indiscriminate definition "Masonic buildings" more definitive and a stronger list on WP that is likely to be kept. Now, looking through that list, it does appear to include two additional aspects not clear by the title - either the building is notable (all blue links) or the building is on the NRHP. As such, the first para of the lead should likely better state that the elements are all either notable or NRHP-listed. Thus, I think the list is presently ok and a good discriminant one, presuming I understand your history of the Masonic building convention correctly. --MASEM (t) 02:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

IMHO the title is so vague and ambiguous that it ends up being a non-notable topic. And a list with all of the "houses and libraries" will certainly at least get into the thousands. What the creator probably had in mind was the significant, interesting unique-looking buildings that freemasons build / rebuild specifically to use as meeting places. And then they wrote the title vaguely. The "non-notable-as-is" could provide the catalyst to decide what they want to cover, and then write a title to match what they decided. North8000 (talk) 03:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It could simply be "List of notable Masonic buildings" (with the wikt:notable definition, not WP's) as a title to immediately improve the list without any other changes. --MASEM (t) 03:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

To the editors who are treading close to "I don't understand what the subject is, so subject is clearly not notable": If you don't know what the subject of the page is, you will not be able to determine notability. You simply cannot evaluate the notability of a subject if you do not know what the subject is.

The discussion that determines the subject of a page is not a discussion of notability. This decision is made with our Best Editorial Judgment and subject only to consensus. Apparently the editors at the above-named list need to have that discussion. I suggest that they frame it in terms of the three standard options for defining lists, since that may simplify their lives.

After they have decided what the list's selection criteria are, then we can tell them whether their subject is acceptable (either "notable" or "navigable"). Before then, any declarations about its status are likely to reveal more about the speakers' biases than about the page in question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but a better understanding of what is abstractly considered a notable topic for a list article (or at least how one establishes that the topic of a list article is notable) will help us determine what the article should be "about". We can eliminate those ideas that would result in a list that would be considered "not notable". Blueboar (talk) 04:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

But that's what WhatamIdoing is saying, it's the wrong question to ask. There are elements of notability that help to define a stand-alone list, but lists are not subject to the same expectation of notability like articles. --MASEM (t) 04:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar is wisely thinking two steps ahead: He wants to avoid having the page deleted, and therefore will advocate for whichever definition of its subject is least likely to be considered non-notable/not useful for navigation/otherwise inappropriate.

Whether the subject is notable not necessarily the wrong question to ask, because lists are allowed (but not required) to meet the usual notability standards. I only say that now is the wrong time for other editors to be asking that question, because the definition of the subject must precede any evaluation of notability (or alternatives to notability for lists). If Blueboar chooses to define the subject with one eye on the notability standards, then that's his business. We (i.e., the regular editors at this page/anyone not helping decide the subject of the page), however, have no business declaring that the list is obviously non-notable when we don't know what the subject actually is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what policy you draw that conclusion from, WhatamIdoing. Where in policy or guidelines does it state or even imply that Lists are an exception to notability rules? Qwyrxian (talk) 08:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no policy or guideline that states or implies that lists are exempted. There are a lot of spurious arguments in WP:ATA which might be used to justify the inclusion of lists that are not notable, but those arguments are entirely discredited. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

My point is, if the subject is that vague:

• There probably isn't RS coverage of that non-existent-due-to-vagueness subject for notability purposes. Not that I'm a 100% rule book guy, but this is a point
• If the subject is too vague to have a real notability discussion, does it stay in by default, or does notability need to be established for it to stay in?

North8000 (talk) 11:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If there is no rationale for inclusion based on RS, then list will fail WP:NOT by default. Argueably there should be an equivalent to WP:CSD#A1 for list topics that do not have a defintion (even a vague one), because they lack context. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Most of these buildings do have RS to show they are notable individually (For example, most are on the National Register of Historic Places, which can be cited)... what I can not find is any RS to show the buildings are notable as a group... something that will indicate that a building being "Masonic" (whatever that means) is notable. This is why my questions have focused on whether we need to establish "topic" notability, as opposed to resting on individual "entry" notability. The problem is that WP:NOTE does not seem to address this issue... If WP:NOTE allows "notable items, grouped in non-notable way" then we can take the article in one direction. But if WP:NOTE requires "notable items, grouped in a notable way" we can take it in a different direction. Blueboar (talk) 12:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

This is why notability is tricky, and really only applies to topics, not articles or lists, particularly when we have article size limitations that force us to split content among smaller articles for a large topic. List inclusion is generally more based on being an aspect of a larger, notable topic, avoiding indiscriminate definitions or membership, and meeting all other applicable policies partiularly V/OR/POV. Ask yourself this - if there was no size limitation in our articles (as would be the case of a printed work), would one reasonably expect there to be a list of Masonic buildings contained within the overarching topic of, in this case, Freemasony possibly Masonic Temple? Certainly not an arbitrary list of any building listed as a Masonic one, given the details you've stated above, since that implies thousands of possible buildings. But an edited version that applies well-defined requirements - such as being a notable building itself or a place listed on the NRHP - seems like fair inclusion in such a long article. And because it would be included in the non-SIZE restricted version, it should be included here, just possibly as a separate article referring back to the main topic, re-establishing what the list's topic is (this being Masonic buildings).

Now, that all said, in this specific example, I see Masonic Temple and this list, and clearly there's a lot of editing and merging that can go on, because while I will back the appropriateness of having the Masonic building list as defined presently (notable and/or NHRP-inclusion restricted), there are no SIZE issues to require a separate article. As you've explained clearly on what the various terms for Masonic buildings, it would almost make more sense to me to do two things: first, move Masonic Temple to Masonic buldings, and add in all the other terms you've introduced and the logic/rationale of why things were named (with sources). This still makes for a short article so merging the List of Masonic places as a list of examples at the bottom of the page makes a very strong and complete article, avoids unnecessary splitting, and otherwise would solve a lot of perceived problems. --MASEM (t) 13:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

IMHO Notability requirements apply to the subject of the article, not the items in it. To again take a silly example for clarity, what if I made a list/ article on "Brown haired people that are more than 5'8" tall and less then 5'9" tall. And then the list included Elvis and Frank Sinatra and Barack Obama. The entries are notable, the topic is not. BTW, I think that with a better definition, such as "noteworthy Masonic buildings" the list./article would be notable. North8000 (talk) 13:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's more so in this case that it is an arbitrary definition, though arguably there's also no notable topic it supports too. Lists should not be written in a non-notable topic vacuum - "List of songs by a non-notable garage band" would also be a problem. I do note that as it stands "List of Masonic buildings" is supporting a notable topic - that of either Freemasonry or Masonic Temple - even if it isn't named that way (Article titles are a completely separate issue to this point), so there's no problem there. --MASEM (t) 13:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with North8000 that the notability requirements apply, but simply renaming the list as "noteworthy Masonic buidings" is not the answer, any more than renaming the silly example to "List of notable brown haired people". Adding noteworthy, notable or important to the title does not make it a notable list topic in the absence of verifiable evidence.

However, Masem is incorrect: lists are not notable by inheritance.

Going back to Blueboar's example, does he know, at the very least, if there is evidence that the list has been published by reliable source or, better still, that the list has a sourced defintion? Before a list topic can be included in Wikipedia, there must be evidence that the topic already been published, at least in part, otherwise he risks falling into the trap of presenting primary (original) research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

We do not require lists to have been already published once before, just as we don't expect the text of notable articles to have been published as a whole in a single location before. Lists can be made from an agglomeration of sources as long as there is clear definition of when an item can be included, just as we do for including any source in article text bodies. And again, notability is not the end-all, be-all of inclusion. If the community wants the list to be included, it will be regardless of notability; this point is shown over and over again via lists keep at AFD. --MASEM (t) 14:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Masem, you have not answered my point that lists are not notable by inheritance. List articles are the same as any other mainspace page: they have to provide evidence that they the list topic is notable in its own right . The only alternative to notability is subjective importance, and this is not accepted by the community. Notability is therefor the end-all, be all of inclusion - there is no workable alternative. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

To answer Gavin... No... there is no published definition of a "Masonic building" that I know of... nor do I know of a source that discusses "Masonic buildings" as such. There are sources that discuss specific buildings that happen to be Masonic. And I think he makes a valid point about Notability not being inherited.

However, Masem makes a valid point about the community's wishes. As I mentioned at the start of the thread, this list has already survived an AfD, despite the fact that there is no clear definition of what a "Masonic building" is... The community thinks a "List of Masonic buildings" is worth having... so the question is... given that, what next. Blueboar (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Once again, no. Notability does one thing: "A topic is notable, therefore it may have a stand-alone article". It doesn't limit content, it doesn't limit multiple articles on different aspects of the topic, and so forth. It is also not the only metric for inclusion in a highly-subjective work like WP. Inheritance is a red herring here (it would be if one was arguing that Masonic Temple X was notable because the topic Masonic Temples was noatable; we are no where close to that type of discussion/logic). A list of notable Masonic buildings is part of the coverage of the larger topic of Masonic buildings, and thus would be reasonable to include, and has community backing for its inclusion. --MASEM (t) 14:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the article, I guess you could say that the de facto subject is "List of significant Masonic buildings" despite the title not accurately saying that. Such a dicotomy/difference is not unusual in Wikipedia. And that the original article / list was set up with that "de facto" definition in mind, and judged by the AFD community based on the de facto subject and content. I think that the one difference between lists and articles is that in a list article, by nature, the title can seemingly define the "rules for content" more so than with a regular article. Whether or not it is precisely written enough, consensused enough or in reality does exert that control is another question. PS: I deliberately did not learn which persons have which views on this. North8000 (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with North8000 that the de facto subject or topic of a list is its title in the absence of a defintion. Lists are barebone articles, and the title is a barebone defintion that sets the "rules for content". So to justify the inclusion of a list topic in Wikipedia, either the title or the definition of the list has to be the subject of reliable sources in its own right.

Masem and myself have an ongoing disagreement about spinout articles and lists. Masem contends that a spinout doesn't need to demonstrate notability in its own right because they are "part of the coverage of the larger topic", but my view is that is just another version of the (spurious) argument that lists and articles inherit notability form each other - on this he and I will have to agree to disagree.

In answer to Blueboar, I can't see that being kept at WP:AFD is a valid criteria for article inclusion. An analogy here is just because we can't agree to throw our garbage out today, that does not mean that we should keep garbage in the house forever. In the long run, the only defense against deletion is evidence of notability: I have never seen a topic that is notable in its own right nominated for deletion, let alone deleted. I thing the reason why listcruft is not deleted on sight is that it is impossible to prove that a list is not notable, nor is it possible to prove that it is primary research.

So I put it back to Blueboar, if the community has a blanket prohibition against article and list topics that fail WP:NOT, does that mean you are going to ignore that prohibition? I think you will find the only way to prove that a list topic is not listcruft, or to prove that a list is a platform for primary research is to provide supporting evidence from a reliable source to demonstrate that is neither of these. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that supporting evidence is required... but evidence of what? That each building is notable? That each building is notable as a Masonic building? That the term "Masonic building" is notable? Blueboar (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Gavin: this statement: I can't see that being kept at WP:AFD is a valid criteria for article inclusion. shows a severe lack of good faith and understanding of consensus driving policy and guidelines. WP, as long as it promotes open editing by anyone, will always be subjective and will never be objective in the manner you want.

Blueboar: We have evidence that Masonic buildings (the term) is a notable topic (though in this, I'd expand out Masonic Temple to add in the other types of buildings. Thus, the only evidence needed for the list is that each building in question is considered Masonic and then either it's a notable (presumely evidenced by the blue link establishing the notability of the building) or is NRHP-listed (needs one source). That validates each building as being part of a list that is used in conjunction with a notable topic. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

We have evidence that Masonic buildings (the term) is a notable topic... we do? What? Where? Because I have not found any after extensive searching. Blueboar (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, let me clarify. I would think the term "Masonic building" is a notable term based on the history you described above, and searching through Google Books/Scholar. That does actually need to be shown as Masonic Temple (the core of this) is woefully undersourced. I get the impression (via common sense) it is a notable topic, but it just isn't shown to be that way. So you are right that technically we have no direct evidence that "Masonic building" is notable, but common sense , plus the recent AFD suggests the term is notable by consensus. --MASEM (t) 16:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

We have evidence that Masonic buildings (the term) is a notable topic... we do? What? Where? Because I have not found any after extensive searching. Blueboar (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Masem, you have thrown yourself into dangerous waters. Whether Masonic buildings are notable is an entirely seperate issue, and there isn't any article in existence (and hence no evidence to evaluate your claims) at this time. More to the point, if a "List of Masonic buildings" has not been published by a reliable source, then I think Masem would have to admit that such a list won't have a published definition either, nor could it have used as a source for any Wikipedia article about a related topic (even a notable one, if one existed).

I put the question back to Blueboar, if there is no evidence to show that such a list has ever been been published, defined or commented on by a reliable source, then surely creating an entirely novel or original list topic within Wikipedia as a substitute or a proxy for a published source contravenes Wikipedia's prohibition against primary (original) research? Claims that a list has subjective importance have been extensively discredited, as have other spurious arguments at WP:ATA and in essays elsewhere. Evidence needs to be provided that either the list has already been published or that its defintion has been published, otherwise it is open to the accusation that it has been madeup. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No it's not a separate issue. It is core to understanding that a "list of Masonic buildings" is not a piece of indiscriminate information for Wikipedia, establishing the list as appropriate coverage of the term "Masonic buildings" (which notability cannot limit, once that term is shown notable). And it has been well rejected in past discussions that a list nor its definition needs to have been published before to be included. Our standard is verifiability and the choice of an appropriate non-indiscriminate definition, both which are well met by "List of Masonic buildings" based on the presumption that "Masonic buildings" is a notable term. Again the hypothetical situation: if we had no size issue and Masonic buildings was a notable term, we'd be including this list within it, so there's no suddenly magical change that happens because it is being a stand alone list. (Mind you: I do argue that there is a merge that should happen to strength the list and the Masonic Temple/buildings articles, but that doesn't change the logic for allowing the list in the first place). --MASEM (t) 16:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes... assumption... that has been a problem with many Freemasonry related articles. I admit, it is logical to assume that "Masonic buildings" is a notable topic... It is logical to assume that someone has written about them... unfortunately, the reality does not back this assumption. I was actually guilty of this myself... I was the one who started the Masonic Temple article... and I too assumed there would be sources that discussed the term and the buildings. Instead, what I found was that while many sources use the term in passing, no sources discuss the topic in any detail. I found a few books with the term "Masonic Temple" in their titles... but all were either about a specific Masonic Temple... or about peripheral topics like masonic symbolism. But again, none that discussed the topic in any sort of depth. When I realized that I did not have enough sources to support an article, I put it up for deletion... Unfortunately, no one was willing to believe that I had actually looked at the sources and found them wanting. No one at the AfD could get passed their own assumptions that there must be reliable sources out there... somewhere. Thus we ended up with Notablity by consensus... but not by sourcing. I suspect the same is happening with this list article.

This is actually a common occurrence with Freemasonry articles. Freemasonry is a fascinating topic to most people... it's mysterious... it's "cool"... they want to know more. So there is an instinctive "ILIKEIT" reaction that must be overcome whenever a Masonic topic comes up at AfD. People feel that anything related to Freemasonry must be notable... and they assume that there must be lots written on any Masonic topic. The reality is quite different. There is a lot written about Masonry's history and origins... and there is a lot about how Masonry is some great conspiracy out to destroy everything the author holds dear. But there really isn't all that much once you get beyond those two topics. there used to be a "Fight Club" mentality among Masons... Until very recently, Freemasons were reluctant to discuss Freemasonry with non-masons, and this was taken to extremes... even marginally related topics were not discussed. Thus the very people who might have written reliable source material about the Masonic topics refused to do so. Blueboar (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, I am willing to state that "List of Masonic buildings" should not exist if "Masonic buildings" or "Masonic Temple" is not notable. I think to me this is the core of the argument. If "List of X" (X being a singular concept) is not notable itself, then X better be a notable topic to allow for "List of X", otherwise its listcruft. This rule doesn't always work if X is a complex argument, but in this case, it clearly applies.

My recommendation is to figure out a way to strengthen your argument that Masonic Temples and buildings, despite the number of sources, don't give any depth of coverage. I can sorta see that considering the Freemasons as a "secret society" thus all their laws and bylaws being verbal and not for public use. Alternatively, make the argument to merge the Masonic buildings into the Freemasonry article, since it is not very notable based on your research. Right now, the consensus is for keeping it; and if you feel both the main Masonic Temple and the list of Masonic buildings really shouldn't be include, strengthen your arguments to merge or delete them. I don't think there's anything we can do otherwise from a notability statement to push that one direction or the other. --MASEM (t) 17:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

1. WP:Notability is not determined by the title. Observant editors will notice that the word "title" does not appear anywhere in the text of WP:N.
2. The WP:Article title is not (necessarily) the subject of the page. It is not necessary for the title to precisely match the subject. In fact, given the list selection criteria in place at some pages, it would be silly, and result in titles like "List of professional British footballers that have been on the payroll while the team played at least 100 games, even though this player might not have played in every single one of those games, and for which we have already written Wikipedia article(s)". You will find the title in the URL; you should find the subject in the WP:LEAD.
3. If you don't know what the subject is, you cannot determine whether the subject is notable. It looks like this: "I'm thinking of a secret number. Tell me, does my secret number match the standards set on the Secret Number Standards page, which specify that all secret numbers on Wikipedia must have four digits?" If your response is anything other than "I don't know, because you didn't tell me what your secret number is", then you've screwed up (and I've got a lot of prime Florida real estate I'd like to sell you). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the particular article, if you give this a "gut check" (which I suspect past AFD community did and future ones would do) I think you come out with this: The content of the article (Masonic buildings) is obviously closely and naturaly associated with the subject & title, (Masonic Buildings), and visa versa, so the notability of the content counts towards the notability of the subject /title. It's also a substantive and interesting topic. So they decide to keep it. Sometimes "unwikipedian" common sense works better than the granular level rule book. Actually "unwikipedian common sense" really is wikipedian, because Wikipedia calls for submitting things for group consensus. North8000 (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

OK... would the following be an accurate statement: In an article entitled "List of <adjectival phrase>", the topic of the article is presumed to be <adjectival phrase>... so, to comply with WP:NOTE, we need to establish that <adjectival phrase> is a notable topic (probably in the lede of the article). Blueboar (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

As a quick and dirty rule, yes, that's fair. Note that there's still other concerns: if, for "List of X", the article on X is short, there is no reason to have a separate "List of X" just because we can (which is what I would argue for this case on Masonic buildings). --MASEM (t) 19:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I have do disagree. If two article share identical sources, then one of them must be a content fork by logical deduction. The fact that one may be a list article, and the other may be a stand alone article is irrelevant. One is a notable topic, based on reliable sources, but the other will be a content fork, based on a category mistake. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No that is wrong. Just because two article share a number of sources in common does not mean one forks the other. Sharing common sources is a symptom of content forks but not the only measure of that determination. --MASEM (t) 21:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Masem, it stands to reason. If two articles share the same sources, one must a duplicate. I just pinched myself to check that I am not dreaming, but still your argument makes no sense. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No, you're making the logical fallacy. Just because two articles use exactly the same sources (no more, no less) does not mean there is forking, it only means they share the same sources. Of course there's a good chance we have duplication information, but it could also be the case that the reason the two articles share exactly the same sources is that they were once the same article but too large per size requirements, and thus split at a logical point, with the result that the same set of sources are used in both articles. There are reasons for that situation to happen beyond your "content fork" issue. --MASEM (t) 22:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Gavin, you're not thinking through all of the possibilities. A page that was split because of size issues might use the same sources, and not be a content fork. History of medicine might use the same sources as Medicine, and still not be a content fork. In a few weeks, I hope that Urban contemporary gospel, Traditional black gospel, and Jubilee quartets will use the same sources -- but they're still different musical forms (even though I've found a fantastic source that discusses all three). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

What a bizarre argument! If two articles share a common source, one must be a content fork (thus I assume bad). At the risk of subjecting my favorite subject to attack, let’s take the case of Yellowstone, clearly a notable subject. Currently there are ~274 articles directly related to the Yellowstone article in a tangible way. There are 10 historical event articles, 53 biographies, 5 organizational, 79 geography, 75 geology, 11 biology, 22 historic district/building, 3 recreational, and 16 community related articles. A great many of these articles share the same sources. Are they all content forks? Although I haven’t checked, it is conceivable that Yellowstone and the National Park Service share the same sources (if they don’t they certainly could). The NPS certainly could share the same source with the United States Department of the Interior which might share a source with United States federal executive departments. This could go on up to the Universe. I guess he who uses the source first gets the content, while the rest gets the fork? Bizarre logic.--Mike Cline (talk) 07:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar, it's reasonable to assume that "<phrase>" is the subject of the "List of <phrase>", but it is still merely an assumption. A notability determination rests on verifiable evidence, not easy assumptions. WP:SAL goes on at some length about the role of the WP:LEAD in describing the actual criteria for selecting entries in a list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

To be specific WP:LSC describes the actual criteria for selecting entries in a list. I think the case Blueboar is trying to describe, and instance of content forking I was refering to, where there is an article called "Masonic building" that has a defintion ("A Masonic building is an edifice contructed using the funds provided by one or more masonic lodges...") and the "List of Masonic buildings" uses the same defintion to justify its existence. Perhaps Blueboar needs to clarify what he meant.

Going back to the example of List of Masonic buildings, we can say, based on the sources available at this time, that it or anything like it has not been published anywhere outside of Wikipedia. There is no article about Masonic buildings, so there is no working definiton of a Masonic building. We can logically deduce therefore that there is no defintion available to us to define what a list of such buildings might contain, and there is no published equivalent which could be used as a crib.

If this list topic is not the subject of any reliable source, then we say "there is no evidence of notability at this time". We can't say "its not notable", because we can't prove this. Equally, we can't prove that it fails WP:NOT#DIR, and we can't prove it is primary (unpublished) research. But we can call a spade a spade, and say there is no rationale for inclusion of such a list in Wikipedia. However, many editors won't except this because there is no proof that it does not belong, and this is where editorial opinion is divided on this issue. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely wrong. It is long established that WP editors have a reasonable amount of editorial synthesis to assemble the content of a notable topic in a manner best suited to disseminate the combination of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources to the reader, including creating lists from collective sources that are appropriate for that topic per all other content guidelines. When SIZE comes into play, moving that list to a new article is neither a content fork (even if it reuses the same references, this is actually good to do this to stay consistent) nor introducing unacceptable original research that is otherwise fine in a larger context. Any other argument is missing the point of what SIZE restrictions require us to do in an electronic work.

There are really only three issue with the list of Masonic building article that I can identify.

• Notability of the topic "Masonic buildings" is presently based on an AFD consensus; it should (must be?) improved with sources to prevent that ever being requestioned. This is probably the most critical issue to be solved.
• Ensuring the list is not indiscriminate, which as I've stated: restricting to only other notable buildings or those on the NRHP seems to achieve this, so it's not much of an issue but one to worry about
• Was this a necessary spinout due to SIZE, or was the list simply created before there was an article it supported? My understanding is that it is the latter, and clearly nothing is near SIZE. It is completely reasonable to suggest a merge for the two articles (again, working that we treat Masonic buildings as notable due to the AFD) since SIZE doesn't seem an issue yet. --MASEM (t) 13:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Alas, being kept at WP:AFD is not a valid inclusion criteria for a list: that would be an example of the tail wagging the dog. In the absence of any verifiable evidence that the list topic is notable, there is no rationale for its inculsion as a standalone list article in Wikipedia at this time. As explained earlier, it is impossible to prove that the list fails WP:NOT, but on the other hand, your argument that this list topic "truly" exists (WP:ITEXISTS) is invalid, since the List of Masonic buildings has neither been defined nor has it ever been compiled by a reliable source. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Consensus drives policy and guidelines, not the reverse despite how much you'd like it to be. If AFD says it should be kept, it is kept. Period. That is the fundamental principle of the open editing nature of WP. --MASEM (t) 14:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that Masem; you should assume good faith. Remember that article deletion is a seperate process from topic inclusion. The are lots of lists that get deleted at AFD, as well as kept. I don't subscribe to the view that just because one or even a hundred lists have been deleted demonstrates anything other than...it was the consensus this was the right thing to do. What is needed is verifiable evidence that the List of Masonic buildings is a notable list topic. But there is none at this time. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

No, you are very much mistaken. Article deletion and topic inclusion are very closely related because the results of consensus from AFD lead us to developed the guidelines for topic inclusion. That's how WP:N was born. That's how most of the SNGs were born. That is consensus driving policy, one of the few fundamental principles that WP was developed on. You don't like it, obviously, as you clearly want more objective standards. Unfortunately, current consensus is far from that point, and will remain far as long as anyone in the world can participate in the discussion, creating a work that is a culmination of the subjective expertise of its editors. --MASEM (t) 15:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Article deletion and topic inclusion are very closely related, but not in the "Pushmepullyou" way that you suggest. Deletion policy is influenced by the notability guideline, but not dictated by it: this is made clear in the section Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines. But the relationship is a one way street: there is no policy or guideline that says or event suggests that deletion discussions are a valid criteria for article inclusion. That is purely your invention. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

random break

Well, I am not really trying to ask whether a specific list article passes WP:NOTE ... I am trying to understand how one establishes notability in list articles in general, and using a specific list article to illustrate the issue. I was trying to see if we could derive a "rule of thumb" from this discussion... something that would help me better understand how WP:NOTE applies to any list article, not just the one I am working on. From the comments so far, it seemed that everyone was agreeing that in [[List of <phrase>]] the topic is <phrase> ... My understanding of WP:NOTE would indicate the notability of <phrase> is therefore what needs to be established. For a stand alone list this is best done in the lede... for a non-stand-alone list, this can probably be done at the related article (ie when you have [[<phrase>]] and [[List of <phrase>]], you don't necessarily have to establish notability at both the article and the list). Blueboar (talk) 13:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

If my "rule of thumb" is correct, then for List of Masonic buildings, what we need to establish is that "Masonic buildings" is a notable topic. This might be done in a new article on Masonic buildings... or in the lede of the list article... but that is what needs to be done. Whether that can be done (or not) is a second, related issue, but that is more an issue for the list's talk page, and not really the focus of my query here. Blueboar (talk) 13:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, provided it is notable. Since "Masonic buildings" is effectively a category, I would expect a book about them to contain a list of such buildings that could be included in that category, even if only as an appendix or in the index. I can't imagine such a book not to contain such a list, but if it did not, then the list would not be notable. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Well... in this case there isn't even a book about these buildings, much less a book that contains a list or index. So the point is moot. Blueboar (talk) 14:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar, I believe you have the stated list construct aptly. If the general subject of the list, ie the Phrase as you called it, is notable (supported by reliable sources) and the list lead establishes inclusion criteria that allows individual entries to be verified against that criteria, then the list is suitable (notable) for WP. Lists are articles, but they are also navigational and organizational elements of WP. They complement categories. They serve a very useful developmental role in building the encyclopedia. As such, it would be ludicuous to require an entire list to have been previously published as such as a prequisite to inclusion in WP.--Mike Cline (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I would not go that far. WP:USEFUL is not a valid inclusion criteria if it fails WP:NOT. I could be mistaken, but I don't think he subscribes to the view that it is. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

For list articles, we need to establish that the list itself is a notable topic. For example we can have a list of Masonic buildings if and only if the collection of buildings has been commented on by reliable sources. For this particular example there isn't much of a difference between a list article and a more general article on masonic buildings, but there are other cases where the list's topic is clearly notable and the list itself is clearly not. In the end it all comes down to sources. If a list has been commented on by reliable sources we should publish it (AFI's 100 Years…100 Movies is an extremely notable example) and if a list hasn't been we shouldn't create it. ThemFromSpace 02:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This does not hold up through AFD results and common sense. There are plenty of lists in existence that have been reviewed by AFD where the concept of the list itself is not notable (like List of Masonic buildings) but is kept because it mets all other inclusion and content policies. The list would be acceptable if part of a "Masonic buildings" article, and thus is acceptable (beyond whether it really needed to be split out) as a stand alone list. --MASEM (t) 03:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's quite a shame about the AfD results :\ Hopefully consensus will change regarding this in the future and our notability guidelines will be applied equally to lists. Currently our list articles on the whole are some of the scrappiest on Wikipedia and the problem isn't what's inside them, it's that so many of their subjects are unencyclopedic from the outset. ThemFromSpace 03:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

AFD results are the primary source of consensus. To doubt them throws a lot of bad faith onto the project. --MASEM (t) 12:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

They aren't a source of consensus, primarly because nobody can provide a definitive interpretation what the AFD results mean, whereas policies and guidelines are clear, explicit and have been endorsed by the community over many years and represent the strongest form of concensus that we have. Policy and guidelines determine how AFD discussions take place, not the other way around. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly the job of non-involved closing admins, to evaluate consensus. And while a good AFD argument will cite policy and guideline, participants and the closing admin are free to ignore all rules in cases where consensus is inconsistent with policies and guidelines, thus forming a new consensus. AFD is how we measure current consensus since it can change over time, and the most direct measure of it in practical applications. --MASEM (t) 13:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

They are indeed free to ignore all the rules, but there is no evidence to suggest that the "List of Masonic buildings" is notable, and that is the only set of inclusion criteria in Wikipedia. If you want to propose an exemption for this list, why not make a formal proposal to this effect? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

When notability guidelines collide

I have realized another reason why we are having so much difficulty reaching a consensus at the List of Masonic buildings article... I think we have a conflict between two (unstated) SNGs. The editors involved in the debate essentially come from two distinct projects... half are from the NRHP project and half are from the Freemasonry Project. I am not sure if either has a written SNG (I know the Freemasonry Project does not)... but written or not each project has a clear project wide consensus on notability issues that fall within their project... The NRHP project considers all buildings that are on the NRHP (and similar registries) to be inherently notable by virtue of their being listed. Since the majority of the buildings listed are on the NRHP, they consider the topic of the list notable. The Freemasonry project, on the other hand does not consider a building to be notable unless it has a historic significance to the fraternity as a whole (an extension of the "local chapters" clause of WP:ORG). I don't want to get into which view is correct here... I am just outlining what the conflict is. I want to look at this in the big picture... so my question is this... when the SNGs of two projects conflict... how do we resolve between them? Blueboar (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

If a topic is notable (per WP:N, broadly interpreted), the topic belongs in the encyclopedia. That is true even if a subgroup of contributors who have a strong interest in some aspect of the topic consider it to be inconsequential. --Orlady (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I did a lot of asking here and got a lot a great info on the question of the relationship between specialized written notability guidelines and wp:not / wp/gng. The approx ~90% consensus was that meeting either of them was sufficient. That would mean that a subject meeting the SNG could be given a pass even on having to meet GNG. Given that even GNG can be "bypassed", it would seem unimaginable that an unwritten SNG could say that it can't be bypassed by meeting another guideline of similar or stronger status. North8000 (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's quite right. Yes, meeting any guideline can be sufficient, but if editors responding to an AFD (not: "the inclusionists", "the deletionists", "the page's primary authors", "the nominator"...) decide that it is more appropriate to apply Guideline X than to apply Guideline Y, then the AFD will be decided on the basis of Guideline X. For example, editors commonly prefer the slightly more restrictive WP:ORG rules for sources to the vaguer terms of WP:GNG when evaluating small charities. In other areas (e.g., people somewhat notable in each of several professions), they commonly prefer GNG to any of the SNGs. These edge cases are uncommon (usually an article either fails all the options, or complies with all the options), but it's important for us to remember that editors can choose one guideline over another. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

(Just a note of explanation... in the case of the Freemasonry project, we rely on WP:ORG for guidance as opposed to creating our own project specific SNG... so WhatamIdoing's comment is apt in the case that inspired my question) Blueboar (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

We need to be careful here. SNGs created by a Wikiproject but not vetted by the wider community are generally not upheld if they conflict with a wider guideline that has been put through wider community consensus, if they allow for topics that otherwise wouldn't be included by the GNG or other existing SNGs (all which have community vetting) Technically, I wouldn't even call them SNGs, I'd called them "WProject notability guidelines". So if it were the case that a topic would fail the GNG but "pass" one of the wikiproject notability guideline, it would still likely be deleted. --MASEM (t) 17:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Would you consider that applies where the SNG is used as a proxy for compliance with the GNG through precedent set by majority opinions in WP project space?

ALR (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Lost you there, do you mean "SNG" as a wikiproject notability guidelines, and one that is based effectively on the GNG? --MASEM (t) 18:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps getting a little arcane as a KM professional.

Where a precedent has been set by a number of wikipedia votes that assert notability according to the project criterion that becomes used as a proxy. Essentially we have a situation where what might be termed consensus, in Wikipedia terms, has grown up. That precedent is then used to assert notability without requiring verifiable compliance with the GNG.

Is that clearer?

ALR (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I understand, and basically, if a project is saying that within the project they have come to consensus that all topics of a give type should be presumed notable without having to meet the GNG (we'll assume we're still within WP:V though), that is probably improper oversight by the wikiproject. If a project thinks they have found a class of topics that can always be presumed notable without immediately satisfying the GNG (the function that the main wikipedia-space SNGs do like WP:NF or WP:BIO), they should bring that to gain wide consensus of the entire wikipedia community. Otherwise, we are then effectively allowing wikiprojects to create their own walled gardens for notability that doesn't meet with the overall project scope. --MASEM (t) 18:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikiprojects are more than free to come up with standards of what they think constitutes notability---and I think it is a valuable tool in that it helps those not familiar with the subject guage what might be notable. That being said, those standards should not be viewed at the same level as SNG/GNG, but rather as an essay thus no binding authority/expectation. Anybody (or project) is allowed to write Essays, but having an essay does not mean that their interpretation is sacrosant. What we have here is basically two essays that are somewhat at odds, but IMO since we are dealing with essays, neither trumps the other. It sounds as if we are dealing with a pissing contest. Personally, if another project was trying to compile articles on something they saw as notable, I probably wouldn't object as long as they could provide a sound reason why the subject is notable. It's not a fight that I see as productive/beneficial.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, we seem to be in the same place on that.

ALR (talk) 07:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the simple answer is : treat wikiproject notability guidelines as essays subservient to the GNG/SNG. --MASEM (t) 20:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It strikes me that the issue isn't notability per se, since in both cases they go back to the GNG, but to what use the information is being put.

I've just been looking at a couple of Biography articles; Prince Michael of Kent and Prince Edward, Duke of Kent. It strikes me that while there doesn't appear to be a conflict in terms of assessment of notability there is a reasonable balance struck in their articles. It reflects the relative significance of the topic with respect to the projects. That is, both of those have about a paragraph related to their Masonic responsibilities within a much larger article reflecting their royal duties.

To an extent I don't see a big issue when it comes to individual articles about a topic X. The content of the article reflects the availability of sources, and should avoid speculation. From a project perspective the importance can be reflected in tagging on the talk page. Where a subject X is unimportant to one of the projects then the tag reflects that low importance. I have seen some instances in MilHist where there has been a desire to tag projects at the same importance but the general consensus has been that's inappropriate. In terms of quality markings that seemed to go the same direction. Different projects may quality assure the same article at different levels.

It does become more of an issue where one is looking to catalogue or sort articles, and can probably be handled by appropriate wording of article titles and descriptions, template titles and descriptions or category titles and descriptions. These can reasonably reflect the paucity of sources with respect to one of the projects, where there may be more sources appropriate to the other project.

Of course all that requires some pragmatism and thought about how the policies and guidelines apply, rather than a simplistic approach.

ALR (talk) 17:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring the notability of intermediate topics, the "List of Masonic buildings", to me, is a topic that falls squarely under the Freemasonry project as defined. Yes, there is overlap that a lot of Masonic buildings are NRHP-related, but it is still primarily about the Masons. Thus, the article should be developed towards the guideliens of the Freemasonary project, which seem not to believe we need this list. If this is the case, what the NRHP project should consider is finding a way to define a list that lists NRHP places that are considered Masonic. If that list focused on the NRHP quality first and the Masonic aspect as a specific qualifier, now you have a list that falls into NRPH's court, but could be linked to from the Freemasonry article as examples of Freemason buildings on the NRHP.

In general, however, I don't think there's a common resolution route. More often than not, the article can be classified better into one project's camp more than the other, and thus the guidelines from that primary project should be followed. But I can still see this needed case-by-case treatment --MASEM (t) 18:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

As some of the comments on the List page have gotten split all over the place, let me respond here briefly on comments made, because they're pertinent. "Masonic buildings on the NRHP" is still a problem, because many of the buildings were later sold, repurposed, and added to the list as something other than a Masonic building. They only retain the connection on the nom papers as "other names". Therefore, we have maintained that, without proof otherwise, those buildings are not "Masonic buildings on the NRHP".

As for "Freemasonry-influenced architecture", there's almost on such thing. One POV of the origin of Freemasonry is that it comes from medieval stonemasons' guilds, so what constitutes "influence", when those guys built everything? Take another POV that it goes back to the ancient Egyptians or the building of Solomon's Temple, and itsimply exacerbates the problem of "influence." Also note that what makes a building "Masonic" is often what is in the rooms inside it, rather than something permanent about the structure itself.

So there's definite guideline collision, because, as the above replies indicate, no one is exactly clear on what we should be looking at in the first place to figure out what goes on the list. My thought is leaning towards that if we can't figure out what to do with the list fundamentally, it can't be of encyclopedic value. MSJapan (talk) 00:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

"we are having so much difficulty reaching a consensus at the List of Masonic buildings article" - consensus on what? whether to spawn off specific articles for specific buildings? Getting back to the core point - Notability is about article topics, not article content - without having visitied the discussion, can you clarify that the issue is about whether or not a specific article deserves to exist? ‒ Jaymax✍ 15:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Continuing (after seeing the ongoing debate above - I would concur with whomever it said that 'List of Masonic Buildings' is non-notable in and of itself unless the topic itself is notable (as Masonic architecture, or something similar somehow). There could be scope for a category? ‒ Jaymax✍ 15:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

If you mean a WP:Category... one already exists. (see Category:Masonic buildings) Blueboar (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Not only is there no evidence of notability, but in the absence of a verifiable definition or set of inclusion criteria, the list of 'List of Masonic Buildings' is original (primary) research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Given these comments... it sounds as if we should nominate the list for deletion at AfD (it would be a 2nd nomination). I am too involved in the debates to do this myself without accusations of bad faith, but I would support if someone else were to do so. Blueboar (talk) 16:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

That would solve the problem if an uninvolved party could do it. MSJapan (talk) 19:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

MSJapan, I think the problem is the lack of definition. "Masonic buildings on the NRHP" could be defined as "All buildings on the NRHP for which we have verifiable evidence that the building is now, or ever has been, associated in any way with Freemasonry". It coud also be defined in other ways, e.g., "Buildings that were originally built to house Freemasonry activities and have since been placed on the NRHP", or "Buildings now on the NRHP that were ever owned by Freemasonry organizations", "Buildings owned by Freemasons at the time they were placed on the NRHP", etc.

Until you actually define the topic, we can't tell you whether that topic is notable. It's a hopeless question. It's like asking us to tell you whether some tree is notable, but you won't tell us which tree you're talking about. At the moment, that list's lead implies a rather expansive selection criteria, but I think it would actually be helpful to have editors formulate the criteria as criteria, e.g., "This list contains buildings that meet all of the following criteria:" WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

A word on the "special" or "additional" notability guidelines: They don't trump the GNG, ever. Most them, probably all of them, make this point clearly. The boilerplate used (emphasis mine) is this:

• "If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article... Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion, along with relevant guidelines such as Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources."

What this means is that you still need to pass the GNG -- which is usually established by multiple non-trivial mentions that deal with the topic of the article. The "wikiprojects" have conned a lot of people into thinking that their locally created guidelines set the bar for inclusion. They don't.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, as for wikipedia-wide criteria for stand alone lists, this is the guideline (which on my reading makes deletion for this particular list a no brainer [1]: "In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), membership criteria should be based on reliable sources." Is there a reliable source that is establishing inclusion criteria (that is, the category of things that should be called Masonic buildings)? There doesn't appear to be one.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Bali, you are correct... no such source is provided. And, having spent two months looking for one, I don't think such a source exists. Blueboar (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Since you apparently insist that the word "Masonic" is essentially a trademark that must never be used for any topic that does not currently have an official meaning within Freemasonry, it likely is true that no source exists that will satisfy your criteria. However, the 43,700 Ghits that I get on the phrase "Masonic building" indicate that the term is one that is used and understood by many English-language speakers. In addition to the use of this term by reliable sources published by the "uninitiated" (for example: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]), web pages like this from South Carolina, this one from Massachusetts, and this one from California indicate to me that many Freemasons are fully comfortable with the term.

At Talk:List of Masonic buildings, I have suggested that an appropriate inclusion criterion for the list would be notable buildings that were erected by Masonic bodies and were built at least partially for Masonic purposes. There is at least one excellent book on the subject of such buildings, plus many other shorter publications. I apparently doomed my suggestion by including some elements that seem to be anathema to some Wikipedians who are members of Masonic bodies. For example, it appears that you rejected my comment that the scope should include notable buildings that no longer exist, as well as buildings that are no longer used by Masons, because you feel the word "Masonic" can be used only for topics that are currently associated with Freemasonry. Additionally, it appears that my reference to "Masonic architecture" has been rejected because Freemasonry doesn't prescribe any specific architecture. I am quickly coming to the conclusion that the Freemasonry Wikiproject members would be better off working on a wiki-encyclopedia of Freemasonry, as Wikipedia is too broad-minded to meet your standards. --Orlady (talk) 22:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

That shows an extreme lack of Good Faith, Orlady. Freemasonry is an extremely complex topic, and you should not be surprised when those who have studied the subject and are familiar with the topic reject inaccurate simplifications of those complexities. Blueboar (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

There you go with another version of the statement that only an initiated Freemason can understand Freemasonry -- and because it's secret, you can't even explain it to us non-Masons (as a woman, I'm not even eligible to become a Mason). Let me remind you that Wikipedia cannot use personal knowledge (even if it's not secret knowledge); the encyclopedia needs verifiable information. Also, I can't help but think that comments like that one probably have contributed to the anti-Masonic conspiracy theories that seem so ubiquitous. --Orlady (talk) 03:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Orlady, I don't see that Blueboar is saying it can't be explained to you because you're not a Mason. It's that you're making assumptions based on lack of familiarity with the subject. Yes, there are certainly buildings out there called "Masonic buildings" -- but there's nothing unifying them, short of the lodges that meet inside them. Even the items that are specifically called out in initiatory work -- for example, the Mosaic Pavement -- will not be found in many (most?) lodge buildings. (And regarding your eligibility, see Le Droit Humain.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it has become clear that buildings have no particular significance within Freemasonry, except perhaps as the places where lodges currently meet, but the topic here is notability within Wikipedia, not significance within Freemasonry. Buildings built by and associated with Freemasonry seem, however, to have some notability in the world as buildings, and have been the subject of multiple published works. This is why I recently proposed the article scope as "notable buildings around the world that were constructed by Masonic bodies for Masonic purposes or that have some other strong association with Freemasonry", and edited the list-article's introductory section accordingly. (See the article for the sources cited, etc.)

I knew that I could possibly join Order of the Eastern Star, but I was not aware of Le Droit Humain. Regardless, based on discussion at Talk:List of Masonic buildings, where at one time it was suggested that only the first three levels of Craft Masonry can be called "Masonic," I think it unlikely that the Freemasons here would deem Le Droit Humain to qualify as "Masonic." --Orlady (talk) 14:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I do, actually. :-) I wouldn't necessarily chat with a member about "Masonic secrets", and I definitely wouldn't invite them to my own lodge meetings (unless they were initiated as well in a lodge recognized by my Grand Lodge), but it's clearly Masonic. The primary reason I didn't join them (besides having no local lodges around here, as far as I know) was that it wouldn't have enabled me to work with my wife in Eastern Star and Rainbow. I don't agree with "regular" Masonry's exclusion of women, but I signed onto it anyway. :-( --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Quick point - 'List of Masonic Buildings' as an article, would be international in scope - conflating that with a US registry would be inconsistent. 'List of notable Masonic Buildings' would be those that justify their own article. 'List of significant Masonic Buildings' would require a cite (or article) for each entry'. I think extreme care is required when trying to deploy a claim of Original Research with regards to a list - it is inherent in the listing process that OR is required - and this is as it should be for the encyclopedia to be better. Further to that - it is also appropriate (in the sense of making for a better encyclopedia) that list entries may only be supported by Primary Sources providing WP:PRIMARY is adhered to. The tricky question IMHO is entablishing the notability of the list topic. How do you establish notability of a list of masonic buildings if 'Masonic Building' is not notable? On the contrary, it seems to me that 'List of significant Masonic Temples and Lodges' would be a USEFUL article - the topic having been already detemined to be notable, and the list (as something that could easily sit within the article, should therefore have no problem being forked for size reasons, even if it's a 'fork in instatiation') ‒ Jaymax✍ 12:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• I have been thinking on this further... What if we renamed the list to something along the lines of: List of historic buildings with a Masonic association or the narrower List of historic buildings built by Masonic groups. I think something like this would shift the topic away from the current "Masonic buildings that happen to be notable" to "historic (and thus notable) buildings that happen to be Masonic". The implied emphasis would shift away from the "Masonicness" of the buildings, and towards the "Historicalness" of the buildings. Would this change the notability of the topic? Thoughts? Blueboar (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

We have another potential re-topic/rename proposal... List of landmark buildings with associations to fraternal orders... how would this affect notability? Blueboar (talk) 15:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

All three are good tries. Sometimes if you try to put into words what one knows in their head, you get a good answer. And for a non-Mason, one idea would be to a better way to say this awkward sentence: "list of historic buildings and Masonic styled buildings associated with the Masons. North8000 (talk) 22:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Generally speaking, no subguideline should ever presume to substitute for substantial, multiple, reliable third party sources mostly or wholly about the article's subject. We should never substitute our own judgment for those of sources, and that includes that if no one else has written substantially about the subject, we shouldn't either. Winning awards, touring continents, being a professor with a lot of citations, or whatever else it is that's in subguidelines for garden gnome statues or however deep it's gone is no substitute for reliable, substantial sourcing. That should be an unequivocal requirement, with subguidelines just helping to point out when it's likely to exist, not allowing an article if it demonstrably does not. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Those proposals (and variants) have been made in at least two places on Talk:List of Masonic buildings in the past ~24 hours and I have responded at least twice. Please see that page for discussion of the problems with those proposals. --Orlady (talk) 03:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

All questions of proper scope or organization or whatever of this article aside, I find the argument that the topic itself is not notable completely puzzling. In Philadelphia, where I live, there's a big old masonic temple right in the middle of the city. When I walk by it, I occasionally wonder, "Where are there other big old masonic temples?" The idea that we should not have an article that makes some attempt to answer this question is bizarre to me. john k (talk) 15:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thinking of the notability guideline in this way is what leads people to endless arguments about it. WP uses notability for inclusion determine (a topic having its own article). Notability is not defined by the presence of information in sources, as that is a result of something being notable; instead, notability is based on what mankind, has a whole, has come to deem notable. It is best evidenced by the presence of significant coverage in secondary sources, which happens to help meet WP:V and WP:OR at the same time, and thus why the GNG is something we'd like to see most topics show. But at the same time we are an encyclopedia summarizing human knowledge. Clearly there are going to be topics that are notable (outside of WP standards) that lack the immediate sourcing demonstration that we otherwise seek. The SNGs exist, in part, to identify topics in such cases that we know we should be including, and have or will likely have sources in the future that help demonstrate that notability and meet WP:V/WP:OR, etc. Those are the policies that we want to be assured of being met with a new article; GNG is a shortcut way of getting there, but there's a reason its not policy. --MASEM (t) 23:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I've never seen notability as a "shortcut" to meeting verifiability. It is, rather, an extension of no original research and undue weight at heart. Within an article, we do not choose what is "right" and "wrong", nor how much weight something should have, based upon our own opinions. Rather, we report on what sources say, giving appropriate weight to each position that can be verified according to the sources supporting it. Similarly, notability ensures that, rather than ever using our subjective judgment about what should or should not have an article (which will necessarily be patchwork and have oddities and conflicts), we write about what has already been substantially written about, and give it only the weight that real-world sources already give it at the time of writing. If substantial sources are "likely to appear" in the future, great! We'll write the article once they do, but not a moment before. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's look at WP:PROF for a moment as an example. There are some people whose works are very important but for whom there has been very little secondary, independent coverage of _them_. There generally is plenty of biographical data that isn't independent (IEEE fellow nomination or endowed chair talk given by a colleague for example) and there is plenty of sources about the work that are great WP:RSes. I'd say we should have an article on such a person if their work really is significant and notable. And the article can be pretty darn good! So why not write it? Hobit (talk) 00:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

If the sources we have are on their work, why not have an article on their work? We don't need an article on them, if that's not what's been covered. Now absolutely, by all means, if their research is critical and groundbreaking, we should have articles on it. But just as every FBI agent isn't notable (though the FBI unquestionably is), not every professor is notable, not even those who perform notable research. It is entirely possible for something to be notable without the person who came up with it being so. We don't need articles for their own sake. PROF is a very flawed guideline, for exactly that reason. If the sources judge that the research, not the person him/herself, is what's notable, we do not second guess that determination, we follow it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The point is still that notability is subjective. WP has consensus that some topics only require verification of existence to be part of the summary of human knowledge because for very limited exceptional cases of a class of topic types, any member of the class should be included because it is part of fundamental human knowledge - and hence notable - regardless of how much people have written about it. (notably, all inhabited settlements). It is important to recognize that the GNG is the primary way one is going to show a topic notable (99.99+% of the time) but doesn't completely fill the notable topic space.

SNGs (which , importantly, get vetted by the community to avoid notability defined by a few editors with limited interest) should serve three purposes:

1. Define specific fields that we want to have every member of that field having its own article. The cases where this is true should be considered exception, and likely are going to be those focused on history, geography, or fundamental sciences. (e.g. such articles never have to meet the GNG, though should if they can)
2. Define cases for that field where, under the established conditions, a topic verified to possess a specific condition will nearly always have sources present currently or in the reasonable future to build a full article (e.g. we expect the GNG to be met given a reasonable amount of time ,but do expect V, NOR, NPOV, and other appreciable policies to be met until then) It is not a free pass; if someone wins a notable award and is never mentioned again, we don't keep that article around for 5 years. The reason for this provision is that this encourages IP and new editors to build on articles on topics they may be aware of; it is much better to leave otherwise non-content-policy-infringing articles around to let them build then to delete them away where they have no chance of being built.
3. Define specific field-specific limitations on the GNG, where, even with secondary sources, we would not include it. (e.g. WP:NEVENT a good example of this).

Wikiprojects really should only be defining guidelines in the 3rd case (more restrictive than the GNG) and should only provide advice towards the 2nd case though really they still need to meet the higher GNG/SNG case. --MASEM (t) 01:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The "all human settlements are notable" bit reminds me a lot of the "all schools are notable" meme that floated around for a while. After a while, we realized that only some schools are notable, and consolidated and cleaned up the rest. We'll do that with "populated places" sooner or later. We can consolidate those by a lot of "Populated places in (regional organization unit, country)", with bluelinks to the genuinely notable ones. That'll get done sooner or later. Notability is sources and sources only, it's never inherent or by category. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

But that's still missing the purpose of an encyclopedia, and the fact we've got sources that at least verify the information and avoid content issues. "Significant coverage in independent secondary sources" is a very difficult barrier to meet for otherwise fundamental academic topics, while easily met by, for lack of a better word, trivial "fluff" of contemporary topics simply due to the volume of material published. That's while we have only a few exceptional category of topics - generally all part of fundamental human knowledge and of less transient nature that one or two generations. Things that , simply put, belong as part of a general knowledge encyclopedia at the broadest level, regardless of the number of sources backing it. This is why that even though I agree about the settlements thing and there's a better way to handle it, I don't think we'll ever see the consensus move away from "every settlement has its own article"; because one can fully expected to find every lived-in settlement to be documented in a large work like WP. Remember, notability is to prevent inclusion topics of indiscriminate nature, but such topics usually are not that way. --MASEM (t) 02:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Arg, lost my response in a 2x edit conflict. TLDR version: Writing about research is much easier and much less subject to issues of WP:OR and WP:UNDUE if organized by researcher rather than by subject. Much much easier. And so that's what we do... Hobit (talk) 02:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

(In reply to Masem) But that's the problem. We're substituting our judgment for that of sources (who express it by writing about the subject, or not). We're not supposed to do that. We're supposed to follow sources even if we disagree with them. If they implicitly state that a subject isn't notable, by failing to write about it, it isn't. We don't get to second guess them any more than we get to second guess them as to what they do say.

(In reply to Hobit) If the professor did research about the scrobbledypinging effect, and such research is available and reliable, just write the article about the effect, using the professor's work as sources. We don't need an article about the professor at all, unless he himself is notable. If he also did research about the foobar phenomenon, write about that phenomenon too. Still don't need an article about the professor. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You cannot disprove a negative, only prove the positive; it is impossible to prove that no one has made any determination about the notability of the topic, only that there are sources to show a topic is notable. Granted, we generally prefer topics be shown notable, but that doesn't mean that that a topic that has no sources to show notability isn't notable; that's where common sense and such limited exceptions come into play - we ask ourselves "is this likely a notable topic"? WP follows the sources for article content (anything else is OR), but in the organization and what we choose to cover a new type of paperless work that never has been seen before, we are free to make decisions above and beyond what sources give. It is important to recognize community consensus trump sources in these types of matters of inclusion and organization. Am I say we have a free ride to include anything? Heck no, there's clearly a strong factor that consensus only allows for a limited exception of some topics to have a "free ride" so to speak in showing a topic notable, and then a somewhat laxer allowance for certain other fields (SNGs), on the fact that that is the type of content we wan to include. --MASEM (t) 04:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, believe me, I realize the practical issues there. Bloc voting/obstruction was a significant issue with cleanup of schools, and fiction, and many things like that, and I've no idea they'll remain so for some time to come on professors and villages. But eventually, the cleanup will get done. A few years ago, it was unthinkable that we'd ever be able to get past the "all schools are notable" and "fictional sources are sufficient and in-depth for their elements" memes. But we did, and we've done excellent cleanup to those areas. We'll get to the rest too, sooner or later. Once the memes fade, people will realize that there are a lot of things that "pass" this or that SNG, but really don't have more than trivial sourcing. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Seeing these things as "cleanup" is what inflames the issue; you may rightfully see it as cleaning up topics, others see it as deletion of what they consider encyclopedic topics. WP is a living work with guidelines that changes with the makeup of its contributing editors. It may be the trends towards better normalization of topics with the GNG may continue. Or it could be that consensus decides that all the removal of fiction in the past was inappropriate for a boundless work and allow for its inclusion. Or it could be that articles based only on sources that exist on the web may be considered a problem and deleted. I have no idea which way it will go, only that it follows consensus of what is appropriate to include in the work. Notability is still a pendulum swinging; not as much as it was from 2002-2006 , but it still is moving and probably will for several more years. Forcing it (such as by calling such things "cleanup") does not help. --MASEM (t) 06:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

And just as a quick followup point: I would agree that right now, nearly every topic needs to be shown notable via the likelihood of sources to meet the GNG at the bare minimum; this is probably a stronger statement than could be made two years ago where I think consensus readily accepted more causal "oh, it's notable" arguments without proof. Similarly, I think that while consensus is still strong that every settlement is implicitely notable, there seems to be more laxness in other possible solutions such as a so-called Wikiatlas or Wikigazeteer - not enough to say we should do it, but with the trend, we could be there in a year or two. And of course we recently just had the broad WP:ATH allowance reduced to a less-broad (but still very broad, IMO) WP:NSPORT, despite years that ATH sat there. But this stresses a point I make: notability, probably moreso than any other policy or guideline, follows the trend of consensus, a prime example of how consensus sets policy; forcing an idea in notability without assuring it has been practice for some time is going to inflame the situation. --MASEM (t) 06:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I certainly did not mean "cleanup" to be an offensive term, and I apologize if it was. What would you suggest as a better description? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This has long since stopped being a discussion of "what happens when notability guidelines collide" and has instead become one of the several dozen venues where List of Masonic buildings is being discussed. If this is just a discussion of that one article, please can it be conducted at Talk:List of Masonic buildings (where additional active discussion is also occurring)? --Orlady (talk) 02:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I actually agree with that. As I said in my opening comment my intent was to ask a generalized question... And I apologize for allowing the discussion to slip into the specifics. Orlady's comment is justified... when it comes to discussing the specifics of that list article, we should do so at the article's talk page. I think we could use some fresh eyes at the specific article... so I encourage those who have commented here to join the discussions at the article. But unless anyone has further comments on the generalized question, perhaps we should close this discussion. Blueboar (talk) 15:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I just collapsed the discussion above. If anyone has comments that are relevant to WP:N instead of the article in question, feel free to chime in within the collapsed section -- it's not an attempt to end discussion, just to redirect it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Subtopic notability

I occasionally see talk page remarks along the lines, "WP:N concerns article-level notability, not notability within an article." Perhaps this guideline should address subtopic-level notability as well as article-level notability. I would presume that if a an article meeting WP:GNG guidelines exists which is within the topic area of a WP article, that other article merits a mention. I would also presume that if a subtopic exists which meets WP:GNG guidelines, it merits mention whether or not a standalone WP:SS article on that subtopic has appeared. This was prompted by the discussion at Philippine National Police#Suitablility of incidents section. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:N primarily focuses on the notability of topic and sub-topics at an article level... not at a section level within another article. The concepts are related, but dealt with in different policies. The governing policy statement for discussing sub-topics as a section within another article is WP:UNDUE. Essentially the question that needs to be asked is: does discussing the sub-topic within the context of the main article give undue weight to a particular view point? Blueboar (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem with WP:UNDUE is that it only deals with points of view, not with factual content. For that, we have to fall back on WP:NOT, which is (in my opinion), a lot more vague and difficult to apply. Perhaps this is intentional--perhaps the desire is to give wide latitude to the editors of each article to determine what level of detail that article should reach. But there is a striking disparity in different articles of the same type; two examples that spring to mind are cities, which range from stubs to masses of every single piece of information related to the city, regardless of the cities' sizes; and historical events, which might be similar in scope but contain widely contrasting levels of detail (say, a minute by minute report vs. a historical overview). Now, I can see how this would be nearly impossible to write into policy, but perhaps there's something we can do to help more clearly delineate what is and is not an inappropriate level of detail. 23:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The link given above is incorrect. This is the correct link Talk:Philippine National Police#Suitablility of incidents section. As noted above this is off-topic for this page and discussion should take place on the article talk page. BTW, "Suitablility" should be spelled Suitability -- "i" is missing between "b" and "l" patsw (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Relevant Afd

Article page = Rob Miller (South Carolina politician) AFD discussion, is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Miller (South Carolina politician) (2nd nomination). Student7 (talk) 22:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no other axe to grind (!), but here, it would appear that notability attaches to a perennial unsuccessful candidate. He is "notable" for getting himself nominated. This appears to be a change and may require a change to the actual policy if successful. Specifically, that nominees for any office are notable, not just office-holders. The editors seem to be suggesting that the article is useful in running for office, which I find appalling. We weren't supposed to be WP:SPAM or WP:PR.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Student7 (talk • contribs)

I really dislike the entire concept that a person or thing can be inherently notable (or non-notable) because they belong to a category. The fact is, some political nominees will be notable... and others will not be notable. The notability of a specific nominee depends on the coverage they receive in reliable sources. Generally, I would expect the nominee from the major political parties to have such coverage, and thus meet our requirements for notability. Generally, I would expect nominees from minor and fringe parties to not have such coverage, and thus not meet our requirements for notability. However, there will always be exceptions to both generalizations. This is not something that we can make a "rule" about. Blueboar (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree. This particular candidate is notable because he has been thoroughly covered by multiple reliable sources. "Is X notable?" is really a shorthand for one and only one question—"Has X been noted in a significant and reliable way?" Just like everything else, we follow, never second guess, sources. If good sources indicate something is notable, by extensively noting it, it's notable. If they do not extensively cover it, it is not notable. There's no need for any other questions or tests whatsoever. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

"The notability of a specific nominee depends on the coverage they receive in reliable sources." I would suggest extending that based on all the discussion that went into the event SNG. If a specific nominee is notable only because of a specific event (and I would argue that a campaign is a single event, unless there are multiple events due to the candidate within the campaign that are individually notable) then WP:INDISCRIMINATE who's who still applies, and coverage of the candidate should be restricted to an article about the race which is garnering the reliably sourced info. We don't cover people who's notability is the result of a single event. ‒ Jaymax✍ 06:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

And, as above, notability doesn't indicate that we must cover something. It's only one of several tests to be passed. But here, we're talking about notability, since after all, this is the talk page for the notability guideline. It's entirely possible for an article to pass notability but fail another content guideline, or simply to fail the consensus test. Being notable is a necessary but not sufficient condition for an article's retention as a standalone article. Determining that something is notable doesn't mean its article must be kept if there's something else wrong. Determining that something is not notable, on the other hand, means it cannot have a standalone article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

This comes very close to circular definition of notability since the guideline defines it as the determination made by Wikipedia editors if a topic merits a stand-alone article. Some, and I don't specifically refer here to the above comment, conflate WP:GNG, i.e. significant third party RS coverage of the topic, as notability, and this is not a necessary condition for a topic to be included and never has been, although it is always relevant in AFD and merge discussions. patsw (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Village Pump discussions on notability of religious figureheads

I've posted a query at the Village Pump on whether -- while considering an article tagged with a csd A7 -- the claim of being a Hindu saint should be always considered equivalent to being a claim of notability. Warm regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 19:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Note this discussion was closed at the pump a while back.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Current Afd regarding a list article

Currently, there is an AfD for List of horror movie serial killers. When I initially proposed the deletion it was because the list was merely a reflection of a couple of categories that had the same thing. Recently, as I began restructuring the links in the article (i.e. identifying whether the character went to his own page or just to the film article) I realized that 90+% of the names do not have their own article and are thus not considered "notable". Given that this page says that list articles such as this one require the list to be at least predominantly filled with notable subjects, does this list not clearly fail WP:NOTE, and as such provide enough justification for deletion?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

This page doesn't say that. The language I think you're looking at it specifically about lists that have notability as one of their inclusion criteria, and doesn't speak to the notability of the list as a whole at all. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

This page says: "This does not limit situations where editors agree upon limiting a stand-alone list's membership to subjects that have their own article, either to keep the list at a manageable length or to maximize the relevance of its entries. By definition, the content of such a list will be limited to notable subjects." - My question was, if the subjects within such a list are not notable, does that consistute that the page itself isn't notable and/or should be deleted? In other words, a list of names of non-notable fictional characters whose only connection is that they kill people in their films.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The notability of the entries in a list doesn't imply anything about the notability of the list, for or against. —chaos5023 (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal re: List articles.

Based on the discussions above, I propose we add something like the following:

Establishing notability for list articles

The topic of a list article needs to have its notability established, no less than any other article. However, when a list derives directly from a related article, it is not always necessary to do so on the actual list page (although it is never wrong to do so). If there is an existing article about topic "X", and the notability of "X" is properly established at that article, it is not necessary to re-establish notability in a list article entitled List of X.

Topic notability does need to be established at the list page for stand-alone lists. If you write a List of Y where there is no article that establishes the notability of topic "Y", then you must establish that the topic "Y" is notable on the list page. This is best done in a short lede paragraph preceding the list itself. Notability is established through reference to reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article.

Please do not confuse the notability of the individual items listed with the notability of the list's topic. It is possible to have a notable list topic that is entirely populated by non-notable items, and it is possible to have a non-notable list topic that is populated by notable items. In the latter case, notability is not inherited.

Your thoughts? Blueboar (talk) 21:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

First, this is thinking backwards (though not wrong). Notability determines when a topic should have its own article; it is not the reverse that an article is required to be a notable topic in of itself (as there are many possible unwritten metrics for inclusion beyond notability). Thus, I don't think this is fair advice to give on this page, but instead over on WP:SAL, in most of what the rest you said is true; articles in the style of "List of X" typically presume that X is a notable topic. It may rarely be the case that "List of X" itself is a notable topic, but that's not a requirement. Outside of such cases, "List of X" -type articles should provide a reintroduction to X and establish X being notable in some way. --MASEM (t) 21:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The last paragraph seems wrong, or perhaps mis-phrased. The two cases:

1. A notable list topic entirely populated by non-notable items: I sincerely doubt this is possible. For example, if I find a list on a school, TV station, or town of "Current Residents/Alumni/etc." and there are non-notable people on the list, I delete them, as I'm fairly sure policy requires (per WP:NOT, and sometimes WP:BLP). Notability for inclusion on a list is lower than stand-alone article criteria, but there must be some level of importance to be included. If removing all such people meant the list was empty, then I would delete the list. If this were a stand-alone list, I'd AfD the article.
2. A non-notable list topic populated by notable items: When you follow this with "notability is not inherited," I'm assuming you mean, based on what you wrote in the previous paragraphs, that such a list is non-notable, and therefore subject to deletion. I think clarifying that in the last sentence is necessary, otherwise, I actually read that sentence as implying that such lists are acceptable.Qwyrxian (talk) 21:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The notable list topic populated by non-notable elements often a lot when you talk about TV show episodes and characters from works of fiction. The work is notable, but the characters themselves rarely not. --MASEM (t) 21:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make in the last paragraph was that the notability of the topic is a separate issue from the notability of the items listed. Yes, it is likely that a notable list topic will have notable items populating it and vise-versa, but there are exceptions... and a notable population does not automatically equate to a notable topic or vise-versa. Blueboar (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Re Masem's statement that "it is not the reverse that an article is required to be a notable topic in of itself (as there are many possible unwritten metrics for inclusion beyond notability)." Can you give me an example? Blueboar (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The point is: it is not true that all articles need to meet notability guidelines, as there are many different types of articles that can exist in mainspace. The only thing notability gives us is this logical relationship: "Topic X is notable" therefore "An article on X is acceptable". It does not say anything about the reverse logic; we may have articles with a topic X where X isn't notable but the article is acceptable due to other reasons such as lists, spinouts, navigation aids, and so forth. This is a reason notability is a highly highly subjective guideline. --MASEM (t) 03:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is true that all articles need to meet notability guidelines, because there isn't any alternative inclusion criteria that has been accepted by the community. Notability is subjective, but we make subjective judgement about a topic's notability based on verifable evidence. It is is about time for Masem to accept this principle, as it is the consenus that alternative inclusion criteria based on subjective importance such as usefulness have been discredited and are not accepted. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

"Usefulness", or the lack therof, has never been rejected as an argument to use in deletion discussions or elsewhere. The very essay you linked to says: "There are some times when "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how a non-trivial number of people will consider the information "useful". Information found in tables in particular is focused on usefulness to the reader. An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context. For example, "This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject."". Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a fair point, but I think you will have to agree that there is a presumption is that a list is already notable, and is "useful" because a reliable source thinks it is useful too. If a topic like Masonic buildings does not exist, or there is no evidence to suggest that a List of Masonic buildings has ever been published, let alone notable, then no one in the real world has found it "useful". If a list article has not been published, defined or commented upon by a reliable source in the real world, then it is not going to be anymore useful as a list article within Wikipedia.

Simply put, if a list topic is not notable, it is only useful within the context of Wikipedia if it used as a basis for a category. I think you will have to concede that not every category would make a "useful" list, and this is the problem with this list. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

No, and yes. I don't think explicit publication of the list itself in reliable sources is a particularly good criterion to determine a list's usefulness. For instance, I am not sure whether a comprehensive list of all the stations on the London Underground has been published, unless you call the tube map a list where the entries are sorted geographically in two dimensions, none of the sources cited point to a single source containing that list. I am even more sure that no source has explicitly named the list: "List of London Underground stations", and presented them in the table format we have. Nonetheless, I find it hard to argue that our List of London Underground stations is not a useful article. On your second point, I agree that not all categories make useful lists. I have never argued for such a radically inclusionist viewpoint though, so I can't really call that a "concession" though. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not understanding you position. If you don't think explicit publication of the list itself in reliable sources is a particularly good criterion to determine a list's usefulness, how could you justify the list's usefulness or inclusion if it or its defintion has not been published at all? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I endorse the explanations in the WP:LIST guideline which tells us how a list can be useful and a valid entry on Wikipedia. They are: 1) Information; 2) Navigation; 3) Development. It is important to distinguish between the article title, and the article subject. For example the title of the list I mentioned is "List of London Underground stations", but not the subject. Writing up an article where "list of London Underground stations" is the subject would go something like:

A list of London Underground stations is a comprehensive catalogue which includes entries for all operative stations on the London Underground system. Such a list may tell in which zones the stations lie in, and which lines serve the station, and the entries may be sorted in alphabetical order, or by its annual passenger usage.

Such an article would be a rather silly idea, not least because it probably wouldn't include the list itself, and the fact that there is nothing analytical to say about the list would make such an article a total violation of WP:NOR. However, the subject of the article we do have is not the list itself, the subject is tube stations. The list's inclusion on basis of notability is justified by the fact that the subject of tube stations is notable. The "list of" in the title and the list format is an aid to our readers telling them that the bulk of the article is in list form. The article's presence is justified by it being a useful navigational tool and a reasonable summary of basic information. The definition of "London Underground station" is rather obvious, and only a rules-lawyer would challenge an article based on that "London Underground station" isn't properly defined.

There are cases where the list criterion is ill-defined, and I have successfully challenged lists based on that (example), but in many cases the list's criterion is self-evident. Regarding the "masonic buildings" example, architecture is not a subject I have much interest in, and it's not a subject which I have studied. At first glance, I cannot tell whether that is a good list or a bad list. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I think list of London Underground stations is an excellent example for a template on where a list could include notable and non-notable entries. Generally, I believe that entries on a list should be notable, but there are two key exceptions. First, occassionally you will have subjects wherein most of the items are (or should be) notable, but because some of the subjects are old or hard to get information on, might not be "verifiable" to the degree necessary to write a full article by Wikipedia's standards. Second, and this is where list of London Underground stations would be a prime example. There are a limited number of Underground Stations in London. With all things London, I would not be at all surprised if a fair number of those stations are notable and worthy of articles. But undoubtably, many of them will not be. A list would become a means by which we would be able to let others know if the individual stations are notable. A notable station would have a link to the article, the non-notable ones wouldn't. The list might also contain a little info about each of them. In this case, comprehensiveness of a notable topic would be more important than establishing if each individual entry rises to the level of notability. Sometimes a list on a notable subject serves us better via comprehensiveness rather than by trying to affirm that each entry is notable.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course you can't tell if it is a "good" list, because the "List of Masonic buildings" is a list no one has compiled, let alone gone on the record to say it is "good". By contrast, the list of tube stations is a published list (so we know it is "used", even if is not "useful" without the map) and is the subject of commentary and analysis in relation to transport planning, operations research, as well s frequently cited in newspapers and magazines (particularly when the fares go up). I think you must concede that notability does apply to lists, if only because (almost) nothing is self-evident. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Where is the list of tube stations published? Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It is published as the index (page 2) to the London Underground map by Transport for London. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That is not an independent, or secondary source. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That is correct. What you ask for is what you get. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there are independent sources for that publish a list of "London Underground stations". this, and several of these Blueboar (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I would argue that since the great majority of Underground Stations are notable in their own right, it is that aspect that conveys notability. I would be very worried if a list article required that the list itself be secondary citable etc to justify a list article (not that it hurts) ‒ Jaymax✍ 16:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Anatomy of a List Article

The following is a simplified list with relevance to notability annotated.

List of 20th Century Foos (article title, conveys topic (or subject) of article concisely. Does not have to be supported by sources.)

This is a list of 20th Century Foos. (This is the lead. It establishes inclusion criteria and should be sourced sufficiently to establish that the subject of Foo is notable. If there is an article on Foo in WP it should be linked here. If there is no Foo article, then sources must establish the notability of Foo as a subject.)

Foos are strange little things that abound anywhere foo-bahs reside. (If Foos need explaination, it should be included in the lead and content sourced with reliable sources.)

• Foo1 (Foo1 is notable as it has an article. No additional source necessary but if present, OK, content of Foo1 article must validate list inclusion criteria)
• Foo2 <ref></ref> (Foo2 may or may not be notable in its own right and there is no WP article yet, but its existence as a 20th century Foo is supported by sources, thus the <ref> tag.

See also

• List of 19th Century Foos (related Foo articles are listed)
• {{Foos in history}} (If there is a Foo nav template, it should be included to establish a broader context for the list.)

Our guidelines re Notability and Lists need to support the above construct.--Mike Cline (talk) 01:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why the topic doesn't need sources. As with all other articles, the title (ie the subject) must be defined through reliable sources, as per WP:V and WP:N. Doing otherwise when no such sources exist is original research. When it comes to notability, the list itself has to be notable. The individual items within it need not be notable, and theoretically the list's topic doesn't have to be notable either (although it would be nearly impossible for a topic to fail the notability guidelines when the topic's list meets it). ThemFromSpace 02:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The "article title must be sourced" claim has been fully dcebuffed at WT:AT. Arguing this is a dead end. --MASEM (t) 03:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• A plea: Do not define notable using the word notable. patsw (talk) 02:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• I think you're missing the point. Lists (along with many other types of articles) are not subject to the usual notability requirements, as we've established. Instead, the basis of lists is how well they avoid an indiscriminate collection of information (partially defined through WP:NOT) without becoming overly specific. If they are too indiscriminate, they won't be kept. If they define their contents too tightly ("List of men over 6 feet tall named John"), they won't be kept.
• Now I can flip the question to how best to define indiscriminate collections, and one key factor to avoid this is notability of the part of topic X that the list covers. There are four possible cases:
  1. It could be that the list itself is notable, (like the AFI movie lists), thus assuredly it will be discriminate and kept. This is the only "sure" bet for list retention.
  2. The list itself may not be notable, but the topic X it covers is; this helps the argument about being a discriminating list since we've identified that its part of a topic that WP covers - it could still be challenged if it is a minor aspect of the topic, or itself still overly indiscriminate (for example, in the case in List of Masonic buildings, if it was not limited to notable buildings and NRHP ones, and instead listed out all thousands of them, it would be indiscriminate). In general, from AFD, the better the sourcing and use of non-primary sources, the most likely it will be kept.
  3. The topic of the list X may have questionable notability but the list inclusion definition is strongly established by WP editors and elements of that list are notable. These often are more navigational aids over anything else. Any of the "List of people from X" articles would fit this mold. If the collection of notable topics is indiscriminate or arbitrary (again, like "List of men named John over 6 feet tall", using only notable Johns) it likely will be deleted. Sources to at least establish that the definition is not some arbitary definition pulled out of thing air is generally a good thing to avoid deletion, in addition to sources for each notable element.
  4. Finally, there are some lists where the topic is weakly or vaguely notable, and the elements have limited or no notability. Nine times out of ten, such lists are deleted, but I would bet given some time there are rare examples of these. I would certainly not encourage these types of lists, but they (very likely) exist in limited numbers.
• So that said, the key change above is that the goal of a lede of a list article is to (re)introduce the topic X (if it is List of X) and establish why the given list is not indiscriminate. Whether this is by proving it notable, re-establishing the notability of the topic X, or establishing the clear inclusion definition for the list, that depends on exactly the nature of the list. But most importantly, list inclusion is not driven by notability, but by the indiscriminate nature of the list. Notability, however, is a consideration in evaluation of "indiscriminate". --MASEM (t) 03:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh, and let me re-iterate an addition point. WP:N is not good place for this advice. It should be contained on our policy/guidelines about lists. Or, possibly a new guideline altogher on "list inclusion". But it is not really an issue of notability that requires a change at WP:N. --MASEM (t) 03:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • And one more point: this is based on both past observation and a recent spot-check of several entries of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists (both active and closed). --MASEM (t) 04:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The whole premise that "Lists (along with many other types of articles) are not subject to the usual notability requirements, as we've established" has been discredited and debunked already and is a barefaced misrepresentation of the discussion so far. For if we go back to the example of the List of Masonic Buildings, we know that there is no evidence that the topic of Masonic building even exists outside of Wikipedia, let alone notable in any way. How can a list of Masonic buildings be notable if there are no sources to define what a Masonic building is? How can anyone argue it is a notable topic at this time if such a list topic has not been defined by even one reliable source, or such a list of has never been published? In the absence of veriable evidence of any sort, there is no rationale for inclusion of this list topic in Wikipedia as a standalone list article at this time.

Whether a list is discriminate or not is a matter of opinion, not fact, and should not concern us here. Whether a list is discriminate, indiscriminate, ordered or coherent is a matter of subjective opinion, and are not recognisd or accepted as valid inclusion criteria, for they are not defined in any policy or guideline as such. There are many lists of indiscriminate items, such as Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, but they are included in Wikipedia because they have been the subject of commentary, research and analysis, and are verifiably notable.

The mistaken position that Masem et al are putting forward is that Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed does not apply to lists. Somehow they have forgotten that an organised list of stuff is a directory. It is about time they came out of their bubble and accepted that existence on its own is not an accepted inclusion criteria for lists. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that the topic of list articles should be subject to notability requirements. But here's an idea. If the topic is such that the public would commonly use it to characterize the contents, then the contents could be used to count towards meeting notability requirements. So if the public would naturally use the attribute/categorization "Masonic Building" as applying to individual Masonic Buildings, the sources etc. on those individual buildings could be used to meet notability requirements. But, the public would not use the attribute/categorization "persons over 5'10" tall with brown hair" to categorize Elvis, so sources on Elvis could not be used to establish notability of the topic "persons over 5'10" tall with brown hair". I know that this sounds abstract, but if you dissect how your you mind works when applying "common sense" to this question, this is it, and I have found such to be a good guide. Just an idea. North8000 (talk) 12:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That's probably yet another good description of when lists are kept, if by common sense they fall out of normal grouping/categorization (but not to be confused with our Wiki-categorization schema) as opposed to highly convoluted definitions.

The key to remember here is that consensus drives policy, and the fact that lists like List of Masonic buildings and others are kept due to consensus means we cannot create policy to route around that, otherwise that is just gaming the system. There are numerous numerous lists that the topic "List of X" is not notable, but X, like North suggests, is notable or some natural discriminate; thus we make that allowance for it and try to rationalize it in policy and guideline. It is subjective, but every single aspect of WP is; WP is not a place for someone looking to desire strict rules and objectivity. --MASEM (t) 12:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you have forgotten that the was no consensus to keep or delete the List of Masonic buildings, and that is not the same as the consensus to keep. I think you are clutching at straws, Masem. If established policy like WP:NOT prohibit directories of masonic (or non-masonic) buildings, then that is clearly and explicitly the consensus. The list would never have been nominated for deletion if it was notable, and that is its ownly protection in the future. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The list would never have been nominated for deletion if it was notable ---That is some of the faultiest logic I've seen in a long time. Plenty of notable subjects have been nominated for deletion!---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that specific list arrived at no consensus, and I do not that one of the comments that the admin hilight was a merge which I still support for that list. But there are plenty of "keep" AFD results from lists in the past (from the deletion sorting) where I base my interpretation of current consensus at and demonstrate that lists are kept where the topic "List of X" is far from notable. There are also probably 3-4 times that number of lists that are deleted, but not for the reason that "List of X" is notable but that the list is indiscriminate. The four types of lists I've described above are my general interpretation to match what's seen in the list deletions That's our consensus, and we need to reflect that where ever these are going to be written. --MASEM (t) 13:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That is the problem: it is your general interpretation of the AFD results. Its an interesting interpetation, and is relevant to this discussion. However, it is not supported by any policy or guideline at this time. If you want to change the notability guideline to exempt lists from WP:N so that your interpretion becomes the recognised consensus, put forward a formal proposal to this effect.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

But consensus drives policy not the other way around. But if you want be insistent on that, I am following a core policy: that WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information (per both WP:5 and WP:NOT), the reason lists are generally kept or not *and* the parent policy of WP:N. Furthermore, there is presently no clear policy on how lists are handled, which is why Blueboar started this whole discussion. My interpretation both keeps to existing policy and fills in the right gaps where policy and guidelines do not cover following what consensus has given. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

If I can step in here for a moment, that particular example remains quite a useful illustration of the problem where a list has no independent notability. Those of us involved in that area are still struggling with what criteria are applied to populating the list, which at the moment appears to have arrived at it's obvious. There is a general inability to state reasons why obvious is acceptable.

The majority opinion was that the list should not be deleted, the majority then bugger off elsewhere and leave it to others to sort out the mess.

ALR (talk) 14:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That's the unfortunate part - in the Masonic buildings list, there was even a suggestion given about a merge (that I agree with looking at the list now) but that clearly went nowhere. However, such "no consensus" results are still test cases to consider, knowing that the closure couldn't decided between the weight of two sides. --MASEM (t) 14:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It's probably an indicator that consensus decision making is long dead in Wikipedia, particularly using AfD as a guide. There are a small number of people who participate, and in different subject areas a small group of editors who will contribute in or around their area. The closing admins will generally reflect number of votes, not quality of argument and regularly the outcome has little to do with the raitonale initially presented by the nominator.

ALR (talk) 14:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It could also be a sign of fewer editors participating in WP space due to a number of factors. There's certainly been no push to say "consensus-based editing is dead". --MASEM (t) 14:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

If anyone was to suggest that consensus based decision making is dead the first response they'd have is that consensus is that it's not. Consensus has become shorthand for don't rock the boat.

ALR (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• I concur with ALR, becasue if there was a serious imbalance in our policies or guidelines, it would have already resulted in a revison to WP:N, but if a few editors are voting to keep topics that are not notable, that is there perogative, but its not a game changing development.
• I think Masem would have to concede that if lists were in need of being exempted from this guideline, such an exemption would have appeared in WP:N from its inception. If Masem truely belives that consensus "drives" policy, then he must realise that this guideline would have already been "driven" towards this point years ago. If Masem believes that now is the time for change, well and good, but if he is not willing to table an exemption for lists, then he will have to acknowledge that it is the current consensus that lists are subject to the notability guidelines.
• Even if Masem is right (disputed) and list should not be the subject of this guideline (disputed), he still must take into account that WP:NOT#DIR prohibits lists created for the sole purpose of listing everything that exists or has existed. I think this is the knock out reason why he should now consider Blueboar's proposal, because notability is the only defence against deletion for a list that judged to contravene this prohibtion. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Breaking the deadlock

The problem as I see it is that for years we used have Pixelface telling us that notability guideline did not apply to certain topics, such as plot only article topics, but he was never able to impose his views on the community, despite his best efforts. Despite all the endless dsicussions we had with him, and the long essays he wrote on the subject, he never put forward a formal proposal that would result in such an exemption being approved by the community.

With regard to lists, I see the same pattern emerging. If there is any editor here who believes that list topics should be exempt from WP:N, then they should put forward a proposal now, rather than infer that they exempt by other means. Blueboar has asked for clarity, and now is the time to make such a proposal explicit and open to discussion. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• The problem is not User:Pixelface. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• WP:N is not policy, thus not a requirement, and therefore a pointless question to ask. --MASEM (t) 13:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

(added later) WP:N seems to be treated as policy. E.G. I know of an AFD where the consensus leaned towards keep, but the closing admin saw it as their duty to apply and interpret wp:n and delete the article based on that. North8000 (talk) 14:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It's still not policy, though it is still a guideline which are generally expected to be followed with common sense exceptions. Without pointing to the AFD, I could surmise several reasons for that closure: maybe the Keep's were all based on WP:ILIKEIT arguments, maybe it was a BLP1E (which we have become more stricter with) or the like. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Like most situations it was complex, but the point here is that the closing admin saw it as their duty to determine whether or not the article met wp:n, and then to keep/delete accordingly. North8000 (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

So am I to understand, then, that you are not willing to propose an exemption for list topics from the notability guideline? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I wouldn't go so far as to say that there is no established reason to think that lists are special (or any need to enervate notability). Lists are set alongside categories and navigation templates (WP:CSL) as alternatives to each other, and WP:PURPLIST does not suggest they serve the same purpose as real articles. This won't resolve Blueboar's question, although it might suggest that lists should at least be populated with notable items. If it is appropriate to have a category, it is probably appropriate to have a list. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 14:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that being a category help establish that it is a real vs. artificial criteria. North8000 (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I think RJC is mixing apples an oranges. Categories and templates are not mainspace pages, where as articles and list articles are, and therefore subject to content policy. I will acknowldege that Redirects and Disambiguation pages are sort of a grey area, but they are not intended to contain content per se. I think a proposal to exempt lists is the way to break the deadlock, because, whilst categories are a "useful" way of classifying content, list articles are a source of that content. We have to make a clear and explicit the distiction between mainspace and non-mainspace pages for this reason. The question still stands, does anyone have a formal proposal to exempt lists? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, then I would say WP:CSL mixes them too. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 14:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's get down to the core issue here: In an article entitled List of X, do we need to establish that X is a notable topic? Blueboar (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Notable in what sense? In the way that a category can't be an indiscriminate collection or that there must be articles published somewhere entitled "List of X"? RJC ^Talk_Contribs 14:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The counterargument is that any list of objects with a shared characteristic is notable, which we absolutely do not want. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 14:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I meant A or B, which one? RJC ^Talk_Contribs 14:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

My bad: I edit-conflicted. I was replying to Blueboar. In any case of "List of X", X must be notable. "Notable" need not mean having an article directly, but it need definitely establish itself as a non-arbitrary reason to form a list (i.e. not list of German citizens born in Botswana, list of foods that start with the letter Q, list of fictional psychopaths). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 15:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the simplest thing to do would be to add a phrase or two about lists to the general notability guideline. And yeah it is a guideline and not a policy. Which means there are some common sense exceptions, but hopefully they'll be based on something sensible so that the exception can eventually become a guideline instead of "whenever I feel like it". Shooterwalker (talk) 14:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

No, but we do need to establish that the list of X is a notable topic, since that is the article's subject. Just like with "comparison of X and Y" articles and "criticism of X" articles, it is not X and Y that need to be notabile, but the comparison and criticism itself. The same goes here. ThemFromSpace 15:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Given that we're not going to come to consensus here despite the fact there was nearly one, I'm going to start an RFC on VPP (as to gain wider attention to the issue) on when we include "List of X". --MASEM (t) 15:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

OK... we are back where we were a few days ago. So let me ask this... in an article entitled "list of X", what is the topic of the article? Blueboar (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The topic is the list. However, the list is arbitrary (and hence unwanted) if X is not notable. "Running 100m in under ten seconds" is not quite worthy of an article in itself: however, it is a noteworthy achievement, so a list of people who have done so is a suitable topic. (it just happens to be located at 10-second barrier; it's still basically a good list article.) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 15:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I am having difficutly understanding how the topic of a list is the list itself... isn't that the same as saying the topic of an article is the article itself? Please explain further. Blueboar (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I think a survey or open-ended RFC would be a good idea. Nothing where we're trying to approve a new guideline or exception or something. Just a way of taking the community's temperature on the issue. I'd be happy to help work on it if someone wants to start it. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

RFC created. I've used a format that editors can provide their own proposed language for whatever policy/guideline it best fits at the end of the day. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I note you did not ask if lists should be exempted from the notability guideline. Unless you ask this question directly, I don't think the RFC is making its purpose explict. I know you disagree with me on this issue, but I think beating around the bush on this issue does not help to clarify or resolve the locus of this dispute. As a consequence, I think the RFC is too smart for its own good. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

No, the way I set that up, you are free to add in another proposal, effectively "Lists are not exempt from WP:N". I put in mine, someone's already put in another, so please go ahead and add your proposal. We want to end the RFC with language to insert somewhere to put an end to the issue, which is why I based on it on suggesting policy-like language. --MASEM (t) 16:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Except that the language you employed in the RFC is vague and abstract, and is designed to go around the issue of what an exemption would mean.

I have stumbled the answer as to whether an exemption from the notability guideline should be given to list in the form of List of characters in Heroes, which I think is the type of list that would benefit the most from an exemption. Its a list, but holds sufficient content (33,000+ words) to illustrate what how list would be expanded as a consequence of an exemption.

I think what I have learnt form this example is that, the more information a list contains, the more evidence is need to demonstrate that a list topic is notable. My thinking is as follows:

1. A list in its simplest form contains boilded down or barebone content. To demostrate that a simple list is notable, only a boilded down explaination from a reliable souce is sufficient to provide context to the reader: e.g. "This list of Masonic buildings was compiled in 1989";
2. A list containing lots of detail or complex information is more like an article. Like an article topic, it should be the subject of significant coverage that provides a working definition of its scope, as well as evidence to demonstrate its notability.

The reason behind this thinking is clear from List of characters in Heroes: it is way off topic in the sense it reads more like an in universe TV guide than encyclopedic content. The coverage is not about the (fictional) characters per se, it is more about the plot of the television episodes and grahic novels, and its subject matter is obscured as a reult. As I see it, such lists are more suitable for Wookiepedia than Wikipedia because the requirement to define its subject matter and scope has been ignored. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You may think it an exception. That's not the general trend this discussion is here, those certainly you're free to offer that language in your input on the RFC (which it appears you have done). You may think those lists are bad for WP, but they're obviously kept, so there's something about them that consensus finds encyclopedic, but if the RFC shows consensus is against those lists, then we can discuss deleting them. --MASEM (t) 20:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think List of characters in Heroes is an exception, that is what is so scary. More to the point, there is no verifiable evidence to suggest that such lists are encyclopedic at all.

Do your remember the webzine article on The 8 Most Needlessly Detailed Wikipedia Entries? "Number #4 on that list, (Universe of the Metroid series) was deleted. Quote from the webzine article: "Word Count: 30,106. That's more words than Shakespeare's fifth longest play." I don't know if List of characters in Heroes beats any Shakespeare play on word count, but at 33,000+ words it must rank as highly as a needlessly detailed list article.

I don't think the consensus finds thes sort of articles encyclopedic, not matter what spin you put on the AFD discussions. Dumping topics that do not demonstrate evidence of notablity into lists goes against the spirit and the letter of WP:N, and allowing content that conflicts with WP:NOT to augment these lists is in no way supported by policy, guidlines, AFD discussions nor the wishes of the Wikipedia community in general.

I think these sorts of lists are not supported by consensus, and I think they are considered to be joke by commentators outside of Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I tend to think of a list as something you get when you take 15 seconds to write and execute a database query. Give me 5 minutes and I'll create 20 useless articles. North8000 (talk) 11:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that consensus would also like to see football scores on the main page of Wikipedia, and today update on Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan included. A little guidance from the concept of creating an encyclopedia is also needed. North8000 (talk) 11:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

And people are gping around saying to avoid lists within article, at the same time as saying it great to have lists BE articles. Why should the format create a whole new set of standards? North8000 (talk) 11:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

North8000, your comments here are either condescending, sarcastic, or both. They are not at all helpful. There are several good lists on Wikipedia, the product of carefully summarized research, and claiming that they are hashed together in 15 seconds is missing the mark totally. Second, your claim that there is a Wikipedia consensus that wants football scores on the main page and updates on female models is purely your fantasy. Finally, there is nobody who says lists as a rule have no place within articles; it is when the articles become too long that we figure out what things to spin out from them. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't intend anything like those things towards any people or their statements. I did intend to take a swipe at the concept that something being in a particular (list) format should create a a whole looser set of rules, or should be allowed to distract from whether or not there is real content being created. I.E. the thought that it is just another formatting attribute, like using green text or putting content into a table. I also intended to make the point that the mere act of listing is not necessarily real creation of content. North8000 (talk) 13:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I will reflect this at a later time in a revised proposal but I think what needs to be clear is that we have two widely different types of lists (despite the fact we use similar "List of" titling)

1. Truly stand alone lists that the list itself is notable with many sources to affirm it. That would be the AFI movie lists, for example. Here, in this case we are writing an article about that list, and likely including that list in he article to be complete. (It is probably entirely possible to write about the AFI lists without including the lists. It's not as effective an article, but it is still a notable "list" article that's not in a form of a list). No one has issue with this types of "lists" (but they are effectively articles with an embedded list or two), and it is very helpful if one can convert an article of the second type into this type to avoid problems. For example, note that Characters of Final Fantasy VIII is treated as an article - without the first and last two sections, most people would call that a list article. We want to encourage these improvements.
2. Pretty much every other type of list where, from the start, the list itself is not notable. These are generally truly articles with list contents with just enough text around them to establish the definition, context, inclusion requirements, etc. These are the ones well under dispute of whether the are lists, articles, need to be notable, etc.

   My argument is based on the fact that most of the second type, the true lists that aren't articles, are nominally material that would otherwise be included in an article about X, if WP:SIZE were not an issue for our medium. (Hence the idea that "List of X" is ok if X is notable). If X was in a paper encyclopedia that had no page count restriction, would we expect "List of X" to appear within it? If the answer is yes, then "List of X" seems like a good idea. If no, it is probably indiscriminate. The issue that we do have is that 1) we are still recovering from the massive bloat of information added at WP's onset (eg the large number of articles on fictional characters pre WP:N's birth) and 2) people put the cart before the horse and create "List of X" before X is fully spelled out. The former has required us to adopt some lists that are non-notable as a list itself or its and elements, and borderline on whether that list would normally be included in the main article on X. The latter means we have people creating lists like List of Masonic buildings just because they can but without forethought to where that information should really be contained. I fully support merging of lists like that into their main topic X - with all necessary trimming that can be done to make it fit - whenever possible. But I maintain that sometimes it is impossible to trim X any further per WP:SIZE, and thus require the list of X to sit in a separate article; this is also generally better for some data per summary style which suggests that X be the most general article and its necessary spinouts be of more specific interest. One can get creative and/or lucky and be able to convert such a list into an notable article about this list (see the first type above) but this is not always possible. In this specific case, as long as X is a notable topic, "List of X" should be seen as an extension of that article (remember, WP:N does not limit coverage), and should be included because we've shown X to be notable. Again, this is my belief on how consensus sees these and are not absolutes. --MASEM (t) 13:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Lots of detail and more of it

I understand where Masem is coming from in terms of coverage: if we set aside the are requirement for all articles or lists to be notable and pretend that lists are exempt from WP:N (...for just a moment), then Wikipedia could support comprehensive coverage of all aspects of a notable topic, such as characters in a TV show for instance.

However, this approach would conflict with WP:NOT#DIR which says that Wikipedia is not complete exposition of all possible details. Summary style also involves "summarising" detail, so that we don't have to create long lists to accommodate large quantities of list items: "If information can be trimmed, merged, or removed, these steps should be undertaken first before the new article is created".

If we don't trim, we end up with gargantuan lists such as List of characters in Heroes (33,000+ words) whose subject matter has already been summarised in the article Heroes (TV series) (6,500+ words). I can see that the TV series is notable, but I am not sure that giving huge amounts coverage to topics that go into obsessive levels of detail is the right way forward. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Lists are articles... it says so at WP:LIST. A list is simply an article that is presented in a listified format rather than a paragraph format. So how can lists be exempt from WP:N? Blueboar (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Now that this has come up in this discussion, we may have a wording problem that may need to be resolved based on the RFC consensus. If it is the case that lists must be notable, then there's no issue. If it is the case that lists do not need to be notable, then we have to address that inconsistency. It is right not a point that is there but not worth arguing about in the larger picture that is being resolved. --MASEM (t) 20:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Staying with List of characters in Heroes, I content the problem is strictly a content one, not an inclusion one.

• We agree that the main article: Heroes (TV series) is long - when you edit, it is at 86k, so while there is room to add, there's not a lot. There is not much area to trim it - more than 66% of the article is all out-of-universe information - development and reception - that are backed by secondary sources, so that's all useful stuff that is always kept. So the point is here: Heroes (TV series) is too long to include a full list - beyond cast notes that are already there - in the article. That I think is a point of agreement.
• A list of significant characters - beyond a sentence each - is expected for nearly any serial work. If there was no size limit, a list would be within that main article; possibly expanding out the cast section to be "cast member / character / brief paragraph summary". So it is not the question of whether a list of characters should be included somewhere on WP.
• So we turn to the list and my OMG it is bad. I agree with you 100% that the list is bad. For one, all the main characters are shuffled off into their own articles - and all those articles are incredibly detailed. The list goes into every minor and spinoff character. I think, save for the Heroes fans, this is a bad example of fictional content whether it was in a notable article or a list or whatever. I agree on that point.

That said, that does not invalid the list as appropriate for inclusion. It is not true that we deal with bad content (that otherwise is not a copyvio or BLP) by deleting it; we edit and improve it. Were I more into Heroes (I know enough I probably could), I would massively trim the main list to the main characters and recurring ones, merge all the individual characters (that otherwise lack notability presently) into the single list, and bring down what is probably now around 200k worth of words across a dozen articles to around 10k or less. That's basically an application of WP:WAF.

So unfortunately we can only envision what this trimmed list would look like (it could look something like Characters of Lost, but if we start from there, we first should recognize it probably cannot fit into the main article (and again, that main article can't be trimmed). Since it is information that otherwise meets all other requirements for WP, the list would have to remain as a separate article per summary style. I would also argue a more focused list has a better chance of being made notable by adding the appropriate sections, though is not necessary.

The short answer: There is something wrong with List of Characters from Heroes, but assuming all the appropriate cleanup per all other policies and guidelines, it otherwise is an appropriate list to keep based on the previous previous section. --MASEM (t) 20:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

AFAICT, not all stand-alone lists are articles. Some of them seem to resemble non-dynamic, hand-built categories instead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Categories are great if all the list elements are notable to start - one can ask "is the collection notable or appropriate for a list article" from that point. They don't work in the case of Heroes characters above because most of the characters are non-notable, would (should) never have an article, and thus invisible to most categories unless someone properly adds redirects and category sorting. --MASEM (t) 00:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

So,we must clarify, what is/ are the specific questions(s)? North8000 (talk) 00:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

As a random and perhaps unhelpful thought - I've long thought that the distinction between in-article lists, and stand-alone lists, should be driven by WP:SIZE as much as anything else. Recognising that a list could equally appear in either context (whichever makes for a better WP) may help with the debate. It would be wrong to force a huge (but appropriate) list to overwhelm it's 'parent' article (where such exists) - likewise it would be wrong to encourage the creation of stand-alone list articles where the list is best embedded within another article. I would think, that wherever a list (whether in-article or stand-alone) exists, if the list ENTRY does not meet notability guidelines (thus having it's own artice), it should justify an interesting, relevant, encyclopedic paragraph of it's own in the list body.

As a second, less random, and perhaps equally unhelpful question: Should Notability be elevated from guideline to policy (my vote on this would be yes, I think (edit: after some work) - the criteria for article inclusion should be high up the tree of what's important for any encyclopedia) ‒ Jaymax✍ 16:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think elevating the notability guideline to policy is the only way to bring clarity to this debate. It is clear to me that lists without notability fail WP:NOT#DIR, yet it is not possible to prove this. This is the locus of the dispute about lists: few editors will admit that lists without evidence of notability fail one or more content policies in the absence of evidence to this effect. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:N will never be made policy. Consensus barely accepts it as a guideline; we can't get rid of it as many see it important to avoid indiscrimination, but we can't make it stronger because some see it being used as a tool to remove content that should be covered by the work. As long as it relies on subjective measures (to what degree is the GNG met; does it meet an SNG appropriately, etc.) it cannot be treated as policy. --MASEM (t) 19:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think most editors would accept that notability is the most acceptable and noble of inclusion criteria, as it is based on the principle that editors should, where ever possible, be Standing on the shoulders of giants, rather than making stuff up. My personal view is that if we allow the inclusion of lists that are based on purely primary (original) research, then Wikipedia would be moving away from this principle, and I am not sure that the community would welcome this development, even if there are benefits. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Following on from the RFC

I think if we can collectively recognise that lists are barebone topics in their own right, and that their subject matter (i.e. how the list is defined) is subject to the notability guideline, then we can reach a common understanding as to why lists are an important way of providing information and context to the reader.

I might be jumping the gun a bit, but I would like to discuss what might be the outcome from the RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Inclusion criteria for Lists. Although the RFC has not ended, I can see that lists should be not be treated any differently from articles, and they should not be exempted from the requirement to demonstrate that they are notable topics in their own right.

Having said taht, if lists are barebone artices, then surely only barebone (i.e. outline) evidence that a list is notable needs to be provided? It seems to me that to require "significant coverage" from lists is overkill or too onerous, given that the coverage they contain is not extensive. As the level of coverage in a list increases (e.g. List of Heroes characters), then the requirement to demonstrate notability should be increased from a mere outline evidence to significant coverage.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

No, clearly not needed. If we go by the prevailing opinion of the RFC - that a list article is shown notable by the notability of the subject of the list and not necessarily the list itself - then there's no need to require any more stringent requirements on notability otherwise. Given that most lists are present due to SIZE issues, summary style and are supporting or broken out from a larger, notable topic, there is no reason to otherwise require any additional notability requirements on the list article itself. Of course, it may be necessary to require elements of said list to be notable to avoid indiscriminate listing, but that is only when it is necessary. --MASEM (t) 22:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps there is no need to add additional requirements... but a clear statement explaining how the current requirements apply to list articles seems in order. Blueboar (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

If there's no need to add requirements but only make it clear that the topic that the list covers is notable, I don't think the change needs to be made on WP:N, since this page is set to say "one a topic is notable, you can make an article for it"; we're usually talking about an additional article to the existing main topic one. Instead it should be reflected at WP:SAL. --MASEM (t) 23:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree... at minimum we should point people to SAL, but I think something needs to be said in WP:N. Blueboar (talk) 02:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

One way or the other, there needs to be an explicit statement in WP:N that either lists are no different from any other article topic, or that they are fully exempt from the guideline and subject to some other set of inclusion criteria. The half-truths about size issues, common attributes or discriminate list topics are mere smoke screens, or devices for obfuscation. If an exemption is justifiable, then there must be statement to this effect with a clear rationale as why it would benefit Wikipedia.

The closest to such a statement has been put forward by Jaymax at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Inclusion criteria for Lists#Throwing thought out there. However, no editor has bit the bullet by stating that their proposal represents a exemption per se. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Calling lists as exemptions is extremely contrary to the consensus view, so it is not good to think of them this way.

As to what we can do in WP:N, let me suggest this. Right now, all of WP:N is gears on the *forward* logic that if a topic is notable then a standalone article is appropriate. It should not mean to imply the reverse, necessary, though there is one line present that does state this: "Article topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice." and clearly this is what happens at AFD a lot. First off, "must" is the wrong word as no policy or guideline is prescriptive, only descriptive, but that's a minor point. Instead, I would suggest a new section that is about what articles should have notable topics, and include normal mainspace prose-filled articles (what 95% of WP is), and also, based on the list consensus, that topics of articles that qualify as stand-alone lists should also be notable (the topic of the list, not the list itself). "articles" like navlists and disambig pages would be specifically excluded from this. That way we capture the forward logic and the reverse logic, and the result from the list RFC. --MASEM (t) 14:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If using the "E-word" is a problem, I am happy to meet you half-way and ignore this for the time being. I am also happy to drop the reference to subjective importance for good measure. But if you are going to put forward a proposal that would result in a new set of inclusion criteria for specifically for lists, then you have to drop the reference to notability if the new inclusion criteria are not based on verifiable evidence; lets be clear and agree that lists are notable only if they have been "noted" in accordance with WP:N. Call the new set of inclusion criteria for lists anything you like, but do not refer or attempt to associate the proposal with notability, as that would be dishonest. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If you want to try to argue more on the inclusion of lists, that discussion is at the RFC. This is about how to reflect the consensus that is clearly there to here. --MASEM (t) 15:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me propose the following language as a new section to WP:N

Identification of an article's topic - As a result of a notability topic meriting its own article, it is generally expected that an article will be about a notable topic. This is often considered during the deletion process to determine if an article should be kept or not. The topic of most articles in Wikipedia's mainspace will be trivial to determine: it will be the topic and repeated in the first few words of the article's lead, and will be the only article that is primarily about that topic on Wikipedia. However, it is often necessary for a topic to be split across multiple articles in summary style to meet article size requirements, leading to several articles that fall under a notable topic. Such articles can include both stand-alone lists and tables, and subarticles of a topic. For evaluation of notability, the parent topic that these types of articles support is generally considered as the primary target, thought it may be possible for the subtopic itself to be notable. Notability of the parent topic for these types of articles does not assure that they will be retained; other factors outlined in summary style and stand-alone lists and tables should still be met. Articles in mainspace used for navigational purposes, such as disambiguation pages and navigational lists, are not expected to have a notable topic. (yea, that probably needs wordsmithing) --MASEM (t) 15:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Masem, for heaven's sake, lets not go over your proposal for spinouts again under the guise of WP:SIZE - it is already prohibited by WP:AVOIDSPLIT. It is a general consensus on Wikipedia that articles should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment, with each split normally lowering the level of notability. All topics that get mainspace page have to be notable, even if they are sub-topics of another notable topic. There are no exemptions for lists in this regard. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

My suggestions falls perfectly in line with how summary style is handled on WP. Yes, it strongly cautions against spinning out outside of notability without trying other steps first, but does not say that if a spinout is still needed, it has to be notable. It is absolutely necessary to note that a notable topic is not limited to having only one article (since notability cannot limit content). --MASEM (t) 15:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. If there's so much stuff about a topic that's non-notable in a parent article that it's making that article unwieldy, it's time to trim that down, not to split it out into a non-notable article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Technically, it's not possible for article contents to be non-notable in the wikijargon. Notability only applies at the level of the whole article topic/subject. If something is too trivial to include on a given page, then it's WP:UNDUE rather than non-notable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, (following from WhatamIdoing's comment), because we are also parts of specialized encyclopedias, almanacs and gazetteers, there will be inclusion of information that may not be "notable" but appropriate per consensus for inclusion in Wikipedia. Of course, I will strongly stand behind the statement that articles should not be broken out until all other steps have been done to keep content in one article; too many people say "hey this is a large list, certainly it must be a separate part", or "this topic, which is just like mine, has a separate list, I should get one too!" and build out a singular topic from the wrong direction (e.g. see WP and minor fiction characters circa 2003). However, we clearly need to allow splits when all other options are exhausted. --MASEM (t) 05:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Even if we want to split hairs about whether it's notability or undue weight that requires the trimming (and the two are closely related, if something is barely notable, it should have little mention), notability matters the moment you do perform the split. If you just created a non-notable article, it's going to get redirected right back to parent. We certainly don't "clearly need to allow splits when all other options are exhausted"—the other option is to trim, and that's never exhausted, it just means it hasn't been done yet. If a topic's not too notable, and its subparts aren't notable on their own at all, we shouldn't have ten articles just because fans like to write a ton about it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

What if SIZE allowed for articles up to 125k of text? 200k? 500k? 5M? What content we include should never be affected by the necessary but artificial SIZE barrier on articles, otherwise that is missing the point of WP being paperless. This doesn't mean that if you have 5M of text to write about a topic, you need to fill 5M of space. Topics should be covered to comprehensiveness dictated by two metrics: the types of details that consensus has come to determine is appropriate for a topic of that type, and the level of coverage - particularly of material outside that box of what's expected - that sources provide. If that can fit in one page, hey great - it is certainly unnecessary to create a split article just to expound on details that are otherwise unnecessary per consensus (eg this is why the video game project uses WP:GAMEGUIDE to avoid inclusion of details only of importance to the specific player and not of encyclopedic value). If you need 5 pages to do that effectively, then that's what's needed. Once notable, the amount of coverage that we give a topic is no longer bound by notability, only by other content policies. That is not to say that any spin-off article is acceptable, and I agree that if it is the type of spinoff that doesn't match what consensus agrees with, it will be quickly deleted or merged. This doesn't mean that all spin-outs are not acceptable. --MASEM (t) 10:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

SIZE is not a hard and fast limit, and while "not paper" is true, it's also often misused. That doesn't mean anything goes. As to the part about "well what if there's a lot of source material on each topic", no problem! There's a lot of source material on nearly every aspect of, say, World War II, so splitting and splitting again (even down to the level of individual ships) is no problem—since notability is source coverage, and the sources are there to support the subarticles, they're fine.

As to "consensus" overriding notability, that's a violation of undue weight that indicates a fix is eventually needed. If sources indicate to us that a subject is not notable, by writing little or nothing about it, we should follow their lead—even if the subject is an Olympic athlete, album from a notable band, village, etc. If sources indicate that it is notable only in the context of a parent, by only writing blurbs about it in the context of writing about the parent, we should follow that lead and write about it only in context of the parent. I don't worry about that stuff too much, since it tends to get cleaned up sooner or later. It took years for schools, fiction, etc., but if that can get done, anything can. Ultimately, only source coverage determines notability, so I don't know why you're worried about "if there's a ton of source material about it"—if there is, the subtopic is notable! If not, it's not, and if there's an excess of material, it probably needs a good trim and tightening. There's nothing wrong with cutting. Especially on a project like this, with multiple people throwing in different things, prose often gets bloated and needs a good trim. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Intriguingly (well to me, anyway) WP:SIZE and WP:SPLIT is the one area where I can see some sense in real special handling for lists - Take for example List of Nobel laureates. This list would be improved (better for the encyclopaedia) with the addition of a short summary and perhaps even a pic for each laureate. However, that could well push it over a reasonable size limit. The notability of the topic is clear, the value of the list is clear, the encyclopaedic improvement from additional content and context for each entry is clear - but perhaps the list would then require splitting into different articles on an arbitrary basis (by year? by discipline? by surname?). It would be a wrong to force notable, lengthy and useful lists to be less encyclopaedic due to mechanical size constraints. ‒ Jaymax✍ 18:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Notability requires secondary sources. There are numerous topics that likely can be sourced quite well from numerous different sources - say, any single NFL football game - but none of them secondary to pass notability. Similarly, there are parts of notable topics that are covered in similar manners - lots of sources but none secondary. And when we talk about the other parts of Wikipedia's goal, that of being parts of specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers, most of this type of information is just information that needs or requires additional secondary coverage. I agree if you start flooding a topic and its subarticles with information that isn't from secondary sources and beyond normal coverage for that type of topic, that's a problem and needs fixing. But when it is part of routine coverage of a topic compared to all other similar topics of that field, and still meets V, OR, NPOV, and NOT, notability should no longer be part of the picture. --MASEM (t) 18:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I would challenge you to find me a single NFL football game that was not covered extensively by secondary sources. If nothing else, the local paper in both hometowns both cover them extensively, many sources will provide statistical and analytical information, etc. That would be about the minimum level of coverage an NFL game would ever get, and should be more than enough to make it notable.

The "almanacs and gazetteers" thing is another hideously overused bit, so it always makes me cautious to see that used. It usually means "I want to claim notability by category". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

And yet we don't have articles on every single game played, an there's a reason for that; that is because that while they are well sourced, that sourcing is not secondary, and generally fails notability because they are just news reports (for all practical purposes). Stats and recaps are not secondary information, they may be third-party (the minimum for WP:V) but don't perform the job that we want secondary sources to do w.r.t to notability - analysis and transform information. (I will say, however, that they generally will be secondary towards player performances and overall team performance). There are some notable individual games (obviously each Super Bowl, but then you get non-playoff games like Snow Bowl (1985)). But this doesn't mean that the games aren't including on WP: there is generally brief coverage of each game in specific team seasons at a basic level of detail, eg 2009 New York Giants season. Again, being sourced to meet WP:V is one thing, being sourced to meet WP:N is entirely different. This is why it is important to know where consensus sits for a given field (not in isolation) for type of information that could be coverage as part of WP's mission, and recognize when hard-nose application of policy/guideline towards this content is problematic. --MASEM (t) 18:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that we can be more strict than just notability, as we are with NFL games, and that for organizational purposes, organizing NFL games by season rather than with a separate article for each game makes good sense. Where I disagree is that we should be less restrictive than notability, just based on some vague idea of "Well this is notable if it...". In other words, notability is necessary but not sufficient for an article to exist—every article we have must pass notability, but it also must pass all our other content guidelines and have consensus to exist. Consensus is also necessary but not sufficient—if an article has consensus but fails a content policy or guideline, it must go anyway. But passing notability doesn't mean an article must stay, that is just one of many tests to determine if an article is appropriate. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It could be said that several of the SNG's are basically a codification of exactly this requirement for consensus beyond the GNG. ‒ Jaymax✍ 01:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Contrary to popular beliefs, there is an explicit exemption for certain types of lists from the usual notability guidelines. It's been enshrined in WP:NOT for several years now. Collections of internal links that assist with either "article organization" or "navigation" are specifically and directly permitted by WP:NOT, with no mention of notability or any other considerations (although presumably other parts of NOT, like the prohibition on indiscriminate information, apply with equal force).

The notability guideline must not contradict or attempt to overrule this specific authorization: A list that assists with navigation, even if it does nothing more than list bluelinks, is permitted (at the community's discretion).

If you don't like it, you need to convince the community to remove this 'inclusion policy' from WP:NOT. Unless and until that effort is successful (and I doubt it will be), we should not be trying to contradict it here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's quite right in two regards. Firstly, it's not an 'inclusion policy' - it doesn't say such lists are a-ok, it says that such lists are not excluded by the general exclusion on articles consisting of internal links. Secondly, while obviously NOT overrides N, this wording in no way implies that this is an exemption to N, because it's focus is tighter than that, per above. Now, what the INTENT of the sentence was, I do not know - but I would think in any case we only need, or should allow, indexing list articles which relate to notable topics. ‒ Jaymax✍ 11:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The watering down of WP:NOT is merely a cosmetic exercise. I have noticed one or two "exemptions" related to lists pop up recently (they were not always there), but they do not get around the symmetry between W:N and WP:NOT in reality. If a topic fails one, it is going to fail the other, despite what some editors would like to think. If a linkfarm fails WP:N, that is because it contains zero encyclopaedic coverage, because it offers no information or context to the reader. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

"If a topic fails one, it is going to fail the other". But this is _not_ (logically) now it should be. Notability is necessary, but not sufficient for an article. There are multiple reasons in NOT that could deny the right of something otherwise passing N to be included. Notability is just that, and should not be defined to be symmetric with NOT - they serve different, if overlapping, purposes. (I would say that N serves to encapsulate, for the main part, the aspects of NOT that relate directly to the real-world meaning of notability). ‒ Jaymax✍ 17:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Exemption from WP:NNC for lists

There is no exemption for lists from WP:NNC that I am aware of, so I removed this from the guideline[7].I don't see how lists can be exempt from any policy or guideline just because they are lists; they are content pages just like ordinary articles. If anything WP:NNC is highly pertinent to articles such as List of Heroes characters which is probably one of the most needlessly detailed lists in Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with removing this section, but for a different reason. It seems to me to be utterly redundant. It stated, essentially, that the sole exception is when editors agree to make an exception. Well, duh! That's true of anything. Reyk _YO! 12:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
• The point of that statement was not to declare an exemption for lists, but to declare that some lists can evoke a limit on what content should be included (per SAL) to prevent them from being indiscriminate such as by limiting to entries that are notable (have their own article). The statement makes no attempt to assert the overall notability or the appropriateness of such lists. --MASEM (t) 13:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The first point to note that it is your statement, introduced by Masem, without consultation. Since when was such as exemption (or "exception") ever agreed upon? And since when was "the content of such a list will be limited to notable subjects"? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Er, I didn't introduce that, that appears to be from User:FT2 [8] with further edits to tidy it. --MASEM (t) 15:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, it looks like Fr. Goose's creation[9]. Either way, I don't think that lists can be an "exception". The inclusion criteria for a list is determined by its defintion, not by the notability guideline. Please remove the section. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

But you're still missing the point of what this section infers. It is not talking about the notability of a list. Instead, it is saying that while in most cases, notability cannot limit article content, it may be appropriate for some stand alone lists to restrict entries to those that are notable even if there are many more possible elements that could meet it (eg list of people from a specific place). Whether or not that list itself is notable, that's a different question and one not addressed by the text. --MASEM (t) 16:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps what the section was intended to mean was the following:

There are de facto two functions (and thus types) of lists.

• Some lists are about a notable topic (i.e. the list per se is notable) and inclusion in the list may be equivalent to a statement; for these lists notability is established in the normal way, and notability does not need to be established for the text, including the items in the list; if the item links to an article, obviously notability will have to be established for the linked article.
• Other lists are mainly "navigational" in nature; they are there to help readers find the individual articles by grouping them in some way. These lists are similar to categories (there may be reasons for using a list instead of or in addition to a category), disambiguation pages, or soft redirect pages. For these lists, it could be argued, because the notability criteria for the list topic are "relaxed", the individual items in the list should all link to actual or potential (redlink) articles, and should therefore be notable. --Boson (talk) 20:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of having that language there is to note that it is okay for lists to use notability as an inclusion criterion; otherwise there would be many times more noise when people try to make notable-only SALs into linkfarms, get mad when people revert them, and then claim that NNC means their entry doesn't have to be notable. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

A quick point... Yes, it is OK for a list to limit itself to notable items (or not, that depends on the list). However, we do want to avoid implying that because all the items listed are notable that means the topic of the list must be notable. There is a difference between the notability of items listed, and the notability of the topic. Blueboar (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That's the point I'm trying to make: we have two measures of notability, one to assert the notability of the list (which this statement in NNC has *nothing* to do with) and the other to use notability to limit the content of the list (which is only what this statement is posed at). --MASEM (t) 21:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

To avoid confusion, I have changed the wording to avoid the word "exception"... while we do want editors to understand that lists may be limited to notable items... we don't want them thinking that all lists are exceptions to WP:N. Feel free to revert or further edit my change. Blueboar (talk) 00:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

This wording is based on a notability fallacy, i.e. if the content of an article is verifiable, then the list is notable, and that is not the case:

"This does not limit situations where editors agree upon limiting a stand-alone list's membership to subjects that have their own article, either to keep the list at a manageable length or to maximize the relevance of its entries. By definition, the content of such a list will be limited to notable subjects"

Essentially what this section is saying is that WP:NNC works in reverse, i.e. the contents of a list are limited by notability, because a list gets its notability from other articles.

What this is ignoring (or trying to get around) is that notability is based on verifiable evidence, i.e. the sources cited in an article provide coverage of its topic directly and in detail . Instead, this section is stating that a presumption of notability exists if the list's members have been been the subject of coverage in another article.

It is silly to pretend that lists are limited by notability. Many lists contain items which are not notable, e.g. List of works by Joseph Priestley contains many publications which are not notable. Rather, what is important is whether the list itself is notable. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not what it is saying. The statement makes zero attempt to discuss the notability of the list itself and that is a separate question that has to be answered. This statement, instead, irregardless if the list is notable or not, says that NNC can be superseded to only notable elements if the list would otherwise be large. It does not implore that the list itself is notable because the elements therein are notable. And this is an optional aspect for lists; list editors can include non-notable works if it doesn't broaden the list too far. But there is no attempt to address the notability of the overall list itself in that statement. --MASEM (t) 13:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It is in fairness. The statement that editors are responsible for "forging a consensus to restrict the members of a stand-alone list" = lists are not based on verfiable evidence, but on subjective importance. In this case, the meausre of subjective importance is whether a list contiains items that are the subject of another article.

Just because one or more items in a list is notable, that does not mean there should be a list about those items. See Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

But importantly, this language by itself makes no attempt to address if the list is notable. It presumes that if you've got a proper SAL list, the question of notable of the list topic has been passed. The statement does not make the connection of "notable list members" ergo "notable list" that you seem to be reading that it does. --MASEM (t) 14:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It does in fairness: it is presuming that WP:NNC works backwards as well as forwards. "If a topic is notable -> its content is not restricted" is not the same as "If the list contents is notable -> the list can be restricted". This language is misleading, as it Begs the question, why should a list be resticted in the first place? There are notable lists such as the New General Catalogue that run into thousands of stars and clusters of stars, many of which are not notable. What you are trying to do is create a rule which is not supported by conent policy, nor common sense. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Gavin, you are reading far too into the words and not the concept (there's a reason our policy and guidelines are not rules); Remember this falls under "notability does not limit article content", and all it is saying that there is one case where it does - specifically where lists may only include notable elements. Whether that list is worthy of inclusion is another question altogether and one that is not begged of the text. Additionally, this is a rule supported by both consensus, content policy, and common sense, particularly when it comes to lists of people of a shared characteristic. --MASEM (t) 16:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

If the rationale behind this section is that "notability does not restict article content", then how come some lists must be "limited to notable subjects"? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a good example of how the title of an article is distinct from the topic of an article. While the title may be List of people from X the topic is "Notable people from X". Blueboar (talk) 13:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

To achieve a discriminating list and avoid indiscriminate inclusion. Without such, "List of People from X" would include any John Q Public that had access to a web browser. --MASEM (t) 13:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

What core content policy says that list has to be discriminating or not? Where is discriminating or indiscriminate defined? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:IINFO, and where the line is drawn is based on concensus; the reason this exists is because past consensus agrees that limiting a broad topic to only notable members is a means of moving the list from "indiscriminate" to "discriminate". --MASEM (t) 13:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Masem will find that WP:IINFO prohibits indiscriminate collections of information, and a "List of People from X" (such as List of people from the Isle of Wight) is such collection (its a "Who's who"). "Indiscriminate" in this context is not whether or not the list contains verifiable members, but whether the list itself is both verifiable and notable.

Infering that lists must be limited to notable items is not supported by WP:IINFO. It does not limit the content of such lists, it prohibits them. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that's not indiscriminate. A common people of information is knowing the country and city of origin of people as a means to demonstrate what famous people have come from a specific area. Establishing such a list in conjunction with that country or city from information already established on each person's page is certainly not indiscriminate, it is simply refactoring information in an different view. --MASEM (t) 13:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, I need to stress: this is a necessary line here: it justifies why both SAL and BIO import that lists of people of characteristic X can opt to be limited by notable entries only. It is necessary both from a BLP and from editor vanity and the like for certain types of lists. (eg someone could create List of Criminals and then drop down a random name of someone they don't like, which can harm that person's reputation if it is even the slightest bit true). That's why it is specifically limited to lists of people to comply with BLP. --MASEM (t) 13:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

What you are saying is based on circular reasoning: "Only a notable list would contain notable people. The fact that notable people already feature in Wikipedia articles and lists proves this."' Simply because the people featured in a "Who's who" are notable is not evidence that it is discriminate: that would be an example of using Wikipedia as a source to justify the inclusion of a list. The only way to know if a list is discriminate or not is whether it has been both published and is notable, e.g. Forbes list of billionaires. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not what this is saying. First of all, the statement does not ask or beg or require the list to be notable; it presumes that is met already, and when a list is notable is what the RFC on lists is going over. The statement requires one to presume that the list is appropriate for inclusion on WP. It certainly does not say a list is notable because its elements are. --MASEM (t) 19:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

A link from a list to an article about a notable topic does not confer notability, nor does indicate that the list is discriminate. The presumption that an article or list is suitable for inclusion is based on verifiable evidence, not links to another article. Likewise, inferring that a lists is discriminate because it is linked to a notable topic is not supported by WP:IINFO, which prohibits indiscriminate collections of information regardless of whether the information comes from Wikipedia or not.

On the contrary, there are notable lists such as the List of works by Joseph Priestley that contain many items that are not notable, but their content is not limited in any way. To say it runs contrary to WP:NNC. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

This statement makes no attempt to assess notability of the list itself, period. Before this section can be applied, the list needs to be shown notable. That determination is not the basis of this section. --MASEM (t) 20:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It does in fairness. It presumes that (a) a list can be included in Wikipedia simply because it contains links to notable topics, and (b) editors can limit such lists because of this. On both counts, this his not supported by any content policy, nor does it make any sense from the perspective that notability does not directly limit article content.

A good analogy is the American constitution: just because it says that all men are born equal, it does not justify slavery because some people are not deemed to be men. Get rid of section, for heaven's sake, as it is intellectual Diarrhea. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You are misreading or assumption something that is not being stated. (This does not limit situations where editors agree upon limiting a stand-alone list's membership to subjects that have their own article, either to keep the list at a manageable length or to maximize the relevance of its entries. By definition, the content of such a list will be limited to notable subjects.) links to WP:SAL, thus the list has to be notable before this can be applied. It does not attempt to say anything about what you are trying to assert it does , that the existence of notable elements in the list makes the list notable. --MASEM (t) 21:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not in fairness. This paragraph clearly implies that the inclusion of lists based on a notability fallacy is accepted procedure, but it is actually prohibited by WP:IINFO. There is no mechanism in existence that enables us to know whether a list contains notable subjects or not. I just debunked that myth that lists can be limited in relation to the notability of their subject matter. Get rid of it, please. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 01:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are clearly misreading it. It only talks about list membership, period. Not the relationship of the list elements to list notability, any implicit inheritance of the list elements to the parent, or the like. It neither affirms or denies that a list is notable because it is filled with notable elements; instead it calls to SAL to figure out that line. --MASEM (t) 01:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It presumes that a list is notable because it contains notable members, but there is no evidence to suggest this is true. The inclusion of lists whose members are allegedly notable is based a self-referencing fallacy. It might not say this, but it is implied that this fallacy is can be used to limit list content. If WP:SAL says that inclusion can be based on a fallacy, that is a problem, not a justification. Please, get rid of this paragraph, as it directly contradicts the idea that content pages are not limited by the notability guideline. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 01:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

No, there is no "presume" here. It remains quiet on any aspects of overall list notability, and lets SAL work it out if that's the case. --MASEM (t) 01:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course it is quiet on these issues. If it were explicitly to say it was based on a notability fallacy, it would be thrown out straight away. I suggest that we agree to disagree, and perhaps an RFC would be the way forward to resolve this. Can you suggest a suitable wording that takes into account both our views? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 01:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You're making a assumption that this is a "notability fallacy" that actually appears readily accepted by consensus to allow based on the numbers of these types of lists. There's already an RFC open, you're free to argue against this point there. --MASEM (t) 01:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any policy or guideline that determines the size of lists. We have discussed enormous lists such as List of mathematics articles which are still growing, and there is no limitation on the rate of its growth, let alone on its size. Unless you can spell out what principles the size of lists are governed by, then this paragraph has no intellectual rationale. The existing consensus about list size seems to be "one rule for you, one rule for me", and that is precisely the sort of inclusion criteria that WP:N is trying to avoid. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOT#IINFO. Also remember WP:IMPERFECT - just because it exists does not mean it is acceptable - one has to look not at specific examples but overall trends. --MASEM (t) 12:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The idea of having an article "list" instead of being satisfied with a category listing does not seem like a good idea.

But the article listing mathematical articles mentioned above seems more like a navigational template. Note that it is easier to set up an article than a template. Hadn't thought of that. The problem is, of course, getting to the pseudo-template. Has to be in "see also"s I suppose. Not really a great solution. Not sure I would want this as a nav template either.

This really needs to be addressed. Student7 (talk) 13:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Note that there is no contradiction of the main clause of NCC with the allowance for limitation on lists. Lists can and often will contain non-bluelinked items. But in cases where a list may be extremely large or possibly infinite, such as List of people, consensus may decide to only limit entries to blue links. See WP:SALAT, "List of People" as the way this is handled. --MASEM (t) 04:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

You are just making this up. One rule for you, one rule for me. Notability does not limit article content, Notability limits the content of some lists. When Masem says there is no contradiction, he is talking Doublespeak. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 06:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This isn't really correct. Notability does not limit article content. This stands on its own. (However, to avoid confusion, it may be helpful to specifically think of it as a negative injunction ("there is no need to generically apply notability to article contents") rather than a positive injunction ("we must ensure that notability is never applied to article contents ever").) Then we have WP:SAL, which lays out how to handle lists. WP:SAL, not WP:N, provides for the definition of list inclusion criteria, and specifically allows for using notability as one of those criteria. It is WP:SAL that is providing for the content restriction, not WP:N, in the list inclusion case; WP:N is there being used as a second-order criterion, which is why WP:NNC isn't relevant to that usage. There is no contradiction and no doublethink. The list inclusion usage is only called out in WP:NNC to avoid tedious confusion. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you faith in WP:SAL is touching, and leaves a warm fuzzy feeling in my otherwise cold cold heart. However, in in my book, it is neither a content guideline nor an inclusion guideline, its an exemption guideline. WP:SAL is almost entirely silent on how content guidelines or WP:N applies to lists. This is what WP:SAL should say about lists, but dare not say it:

1. WP:NOTPAPER: Keeping articles to a reasonable size is important, except for really, really long lists that are very big;
2. WP:NOTOR: Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, except for homebrew, made-up lists that some editor thought was a good idea at time;
3. WP:NOTDIR: Wikipedia is not a lists of loosely associated topics, except for lists that come in tabular (list) form;
4. WP:NOTTVGUIDE: Wikipedia is not a TV guide, but that does not include lists of TV schedules;
5. WP:NOTADVERTISING: Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising, except for lists of products, lists of product releases, and List of Apple Inc. slogans;
6. WP:NOTLINKFARM: Wikipedia is not a linkfarm, except for lists of lists, because they are not so much linkfarms, but they super-linkfarms;
7. WP:NOTTRAVEL: Wikipedia is not a travel guide, except for lists of hotels, bus routes and tourist attractions;
8. WP:NOTPLOT: Wikipedia is not for plot-only descriptions of fictional works, except for List of Heroes characters
9. WP:NOTSTUPID: Wikipedia is not a list of stupid things, except for lists, stupid!
10. WP:N: Only topics that satisfy the notability guideline can have a standalone page, except for lists of of minor characters & schools - they are...exceptions.

Overall, I would say that there are a lot of exemptions for lists in our existing polices and guidelines. Maybe we should put them in WP:SAL so it becomes a "List of lists that are exempt from Wikipedia's policies and guidelines"....--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

C'mon, Gavin, stop holding back and tell us how you really feel. I almost begin to suspect you of really not liking WP:SAL! This rather gorgeous outpouring of vituperation aside, though, all I'm sayin' is that that's where the "authority" to limit list content to notable topics comes from, which is why there's no contradiction between WP:NNC and this parenthetical that everybody's up in arms about. —chaos5023 (talk) 00:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Chaos, you have sniffed me out; clearly no amount of sublety or guile can be let to pass when you are on watch. I will confess I am not a fan of WP:SAL; I think it is an editorial walled garden for editors who have invested a lot of their time in homemade lists, which they think are the exception to the rule(s). If Hans Christian Andersen had not written The Emperor's New Clothes, I would have had to it myself. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I have what I imagine to be, a good example of an article with notables only in it. And only notables belong there. The list is included in the theoretical (to avoid controversy there) "Knights of St. Nicholas." A church gives this "Knighthood" to people who are already famous who would appreciate the award. This in turn increases the prestige of the award when it is made to people (who are not notable) who have actually done something (!) to deserve the award, but not sufficiently to merit notability in Wikipedia. The latter, mercifully, are not listed - it would make the list too long for one thing. Does this example help this discussion? If not, apologies. remove it! Student7 (talk) 14:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Information vs. Navigation

A point that was raised above, that deserves a separate discussion... I agree that, in concept, we can make a distinction between "informational" (topic) lists (correctly considered "articles", and thus within the scope of WP:N) and "navigational" lists (which are not considered "articles", and would therefore not be within the scope of WP:N). The problem that I see is that, in practice, it is often all but impossible to distinguish one from the other. The fact is, a lot of Wikipedia lists are a blend of both types... being partly informational, and partly navigational. We need to figure out a way to resolve this. Blueboar (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's that complex. If SAL body-content is required to be discriminate through consensus (just like all articles), then one possible list entry inclusion criteria is notability. Viewed from this perspective, there is no distinction between the two 'types'. Indeed, NOT making the distinction, allows a simple 'navigation' list, to be expanded to perhaps include a short description for each entry (for example). I doubt that we have many navigation lists that link to instances of notable cases of something, where something itself is a non-notable topic?? If there is a current exemption from topic notability for navigation lists, I would question whether it is infact necessary (contingent upon the RfC outcome, perhaps). ‒ Jaymax✍ 11:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

One difference would be that every item in a navigational list must be notable, since all its members must be stand-alone articles. If an entry in such a list has more information than would be appropriate for a disambiguation page, then I would say it has crossed the line into being informational. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 13:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

List exception does not belong there

This section:

The notability guidelines are only used to determine whether a topic can have its own separate article on Wikipedia and do not govern article content. The question of content coverage within a given page is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies.

Has absolutely nothing to do with the part some keep adding afterward, which actually contradicts what it says.

(This does not limit situations where editors agree upon limiting a stand-alone list's membership to subjects that have their own article, either to keep the list at a manageable length or to maximize the relevance of its entries. By definition, the content of such a list will be limited to notable subjects.)

This would be used as an excuse for people who just don't like list articles to go and mass delete things in them. The point of WP:NNC is to state you don't need to prove every single thing in the article is notable. If it is relevant to the topic, it should be there. A complete list of someone's books includes all of them that they wrote, not just those that have articles of their own. Same way with films someone has written, directed, or stared in, etc. Dream Focus 03:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Notice the language "where editors agree"; this means that there must be consensus to agree to allow only notable entries, so it would not be able to justify one person running through to remove non-notable entries just because they didn't like it. It is also meant only to manage size or relevancy for a a large list. If you take any "List of people from X" and apply the logic that notability doesn't limit content, these lists could be filled with millions, perhaps billions of entries and be of zero value. In such cases, it makes sense to limit to notable entries only to avoid this. I will note until recently this phrase started out with "one exception..." making sure this was a rare allowance. --MASEM (t) 12:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

What if editors disagree? What then? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Then probably should be treated as the regular NCC clause - allowing no limits of coverage. But as I've noted, it's been established (per SALAT) that list of people generally have also considered this line. --MASEM (t) 12:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the "one exception" phrasing was that it confused the notability of the topic with the note worthiness of the itmes listed... These are separate concerns. Limiting inclusion in a list to only notable items is a function of a list's "Inclusion Criteria" and isn't an exception to WP:N (and the same can be said for allowing non-notable items on a list). I see this as being another reason why we need a brief paragraph on Notability as it relates to list articles. Blueboar (talk) 13:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Dream Focus, this paragraph contradicts the meaning of this section. Either notability does or does not govern article content - not something in between. If an article or list topic is notable, then potentially the coverage given to it could be quite extensive. I don't see how the opinons of any number of editors could limit it if that were the case. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It's called building an encyclopedia by consensus. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with Dream and Gavin. It often happens that when folk fail to get an article deleted they instead try to destroy as much of the contents as they can. Some seem to think a sparse, austere aesthetic will impress their elite friends, and they don't care if their minimalism deprives regular readers of almost all the interesting and useful information. Its only a tiny step from "where editors agree" to "where concensus exists" and in practice the latter means a crew of 5 deletionists might overide 2 editors who have done all the work to compile a list. There is no concensus for the change and the only reason Im not re- reverting is as I don't understand why it helps with SAL & BIO. But could you please think about changing the specific guidelines for those instead? FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

If people go from a keep-AFD to wiping large sections of article contents, that's a battlefield mentality and a behavior problem, not an inclusion/content guideline issue, even if they are twisting the language to justify their actions. Of course, this also largely depends on exactly what was said in the AFD too. If "Keep and cleanup" was there, it might not be as you suggest.

As to why SAL is important, read "List of people" under WP:SALAT. A list like List of people from New York (* which I note, based on the RFC, would be considered a notable list), if not limited to notable people, means that any random IP from NY could add their name to that list, because notability doesn't limit coverage. According to the census data for New York, there's 19.5 M current people living there, and if we go back in history... This is why SALAT, and why this exception here, is necessary to cull appropriate "Lists of people with common characteristic X" to those that are notable. Not always, but more frequently than other non-person lists. --MASEM (t) 16:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph was added because people were arguing that limiting a list to notable items was not allowed (when it is)... the problem with the addition is that limiting or not limiting items based on the notability of the items has nothing to do with establishing the Notability of the topic. As such, the paragraph is out of context. We should either drop it... or (my preference) expand it to place it in context. Blueboar (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

If we are looking for a wording change: Current: (This does not limit situations where editors agree upon limiting a stand-alone list's membership to subjects that have their own article, either to keep the list at a manageable length or to maximize the relevance of its entries. By definition, the content of such a list will be limited to notable subjects.)

Proposed: There is one exception to this, specifically for certain types of notable lists. Editors may decide, in order to maintain the discriminate nature of the list, list length, and relevancy of the entries, to limit entries to only those that are notable (that is, have their own article). This is often done with lists of persons where the possible size of the list considering every person with a given trait could be in very large numbers. When such limitations are made on content, this should be described in the list's lead. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to avoid using the word "exception", as (taken out of context) it can give the impression that lists are an "exception" to WP:N in general... which is definitely not what we are trying to say. Perhaps we need to clarify and expand on the whole "Notability of the topic vs. note worthiness of content" statement. These are distinct concepts. Blueboar (talk) 15:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

And make sure that it says "Editors may decide by talk page consensus", otherwise you're going to run into the one editor removing stuff problem again. Silverseren^C 16:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the exception is to NCC, not N. Out of context I can see the problem, and probably best to make it In exceptional cases, notability may be used to limit the content of certain types of notable list articles as the first sentence, as to specifically make this the NCC exception. --MASEM (t) 16:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is with WP:NNC is that it is an all or nothing section. Either we expand the notability guidline to include content, or we admit that notability does not limit content because it is not a content guideline. The context that is lacking is that this guideline is not about content per se, whether that content is in article or a list.

The reality is, the content of lists is only limited by their defintions which set out their inclusion criteria. Lists are not limited by notability, nor by what editors think, nor by their size. Proof of this is the List of people from California: its a huge list, and its rate of growth is not limited, let alone its absolute size, by anthing. This paragraph does not belong anywhere in this guideline. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

^ I agree with this. Silverseren^C 16:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't. It is valid for lists to use notability as part of inclusion criteria, and so this paragraph is needed here in order to avoid tedious and unnecessary arguments arising from confusion. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it's unhelpful and inaccurate to characterize that paragraph as an "exception" to NNC in the first place. It is not an exception to NNC; it is a notation regarding a case where NNC is irrelevant, but which needs to be called out to avoid pointless problems. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Read both sections. If editors agree that something should not be in an article, then it isn't, regardless of whether its a list or not. So no need to say that. There are some people who stubbornly insist that nothing should be on a list that isn't notable on its own, and argue nonstop and try to delete information. There are list of major characters for video game series, and no matter how important it is to the game, people argue if there is no independent coverage saying the character is important, then they should erase it from the list. Thus the list is incomplete, and that's just stupid. If you have a list of all the alien races in a notable video game franchise, or book series, it should list all of them, not just ones that get significant coverage somewhere. For the movie Avatar some argued that instead of listing all the creatures in it, that half should be eliminated because they didn't get notable coverage, so that list article is now incomplete. For the List of fictional vehicles the guy who nominated it for deletion sending it to its 3rd AFD, then went and wiped out much of the article, arguing nonstop about that. See that discussion here [10]. This happens CONSTANTLY. We need to stop encouraging the mass destroyers, who don't seem to care about the article content at all, and thus shouldn't be editing to begin with. Dream Focus 18:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

  Absolutely. But hamstringing the ability to ever use notability as an inclusion criterion, or to do so without endlessly arguing with people trying to use NNC to justify turning lists into linkfarms, is not the way to accomplish that. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

  As its written now, it will be used as an excuse to eliminate things from a list, not to include them. Dream Focus 19:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

  Yes, that is its purpose, because it's there to support WP:SAL's specification of notability as one possible list inclusion criterion -- that is, clarifying that NNC does not override that. But neither the paragraph here nor WP:SAL support cases like you describe, where editors attack a list of video game characters, because both clearly say that editorial consensus is required to make notability an inclusion criterion -- it does not happen automatically just because it's a list. And while the video game character list destruction is a bad thing, it's necessary to also keep in mind things like the horror of what would happen to List of MMORPGs if notability stopped being usable as an inclusion criterion there. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

  It says "By definition, the content of such a list will be limited to notable subjects". That should not belong there. There should be the first part that says that notability determines if an article can exist, not the content. Nothing else needs to be said. Dream Focus 19:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

  It belongs there just fine. I mean, you have to read the whole thing; "such a list" refers to a list where consensus supports notability as an inclusion criterion. Basic reading comprehension should make it clear that it doesn't mean any list. Though if there's some kind of recurring reading comprehension problem there, we could work on the phrasing. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• I am being swayed by the arguments that the list definition is what can allow for only notable topics where appropriate, and thus the lack for need for this specific clarification here. Or more to the fact that it is a list definition's responsibility to prevent indiscriminate listings, and one accepted way is through blue-linked articles. and that this is less of asking for an exception from NCC and more simply just a way to define appropriate lists per SAL/SALAT. --MASEM (t) 19:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

  That's all basically right, but if we don't have a call out to the WP:SAL inclusion control here, it'll be an endless mess of people cherry-picking WP:NNC instead of WP:SAL for why their self-promo list entry is okay. Possibly the language should be revised further to basically go into less detail, just say that SAL's guidelines on use of notability for list inclusion are not overridden by NNC? —chaos5023 (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

  Maybe just:

(Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists specifies how notability may be used as an inclusion criterion for lists; this guideline does not override that usage.)

—chaos5023 (talk) 19:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I could agree to that... although I still think that this guideline would benefit from going into more detail on notability as it relates to list articles... one that explains the distinction between the WP:Notability of the topic vs the notability (or note-worthiness) of the items listed. Blueboar (talk) 20:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think Gavin has made it clear that we need a clearer understanding of what's a valid list article. I think that's independent of the SAL/NNC interaction concern, though. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The appropriate of the list is, as been determined, a very different question of NCC's application to the definition of the list. We still need to get some language as to that question, but I think I'm readily convinced we don't need the second para about NCC here; any clarification beyond what SALAT has for it can be put there. (It could be language that "Lists do not need to including only notable elements, though some lists may be strictly limited to notable elements to maintain their size and relevance" - but again, in SALAT, not here). --MASEM (t) 20:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm less convinced. :) What would you think of reducing the volume of language, and more assertively cross-referring to WP:SAL, like I have above, as a less radical step? —chaos5023 (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't think of a single example where this "exception" has been applied in practice; there is just no evidence for it. By contrast, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that all lists are limited by their definitions, even if they are not stated explicitly. I have removed the offending paragraph, but don't accuse me of edit waring, for there is no verifiable evidence that this is how lists are defined in practice. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of lists which are explicitly limited to bluelinks, e.g. List of fashion designers or List of webcomics. I'm sure there are plenty more of these, these are just two I'm aware of at the moment. Fram (talk) 08:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem of bluelinks is that they are not a guarantee of notability. My guess is that a lot of these designers are not notable at all, e.g. Nicolas Putvinski, Juli Grbac. If anything, a lot of these articles contravene WP:BIO. There may be plenty of lists that are limited to notable topics, but likewise, there are many such lists that are not explicit about this at all. In both cases, it is the defintion (implicit or explicit) that limits the list, not notability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Which is a completely different argument than the one you used to remove the exception from WP:N (and which I haev shown to be incorrect), and which is largely irrelevant: for such lists, "notable" equals "has an article". This doesn't make the reverse true, the articles still have to meet WP:N on their own, but for the sake of those lists, being a bluelink is the notability criterium, and the inclusion criterium. Fram (talk) 09:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Since notabilty does not equal an article in every case, its quite clear that these lists are not limited by notability.

In fact, the word "limit" actually means "defined". In practise, there is nothing that limits these lists, some of which are huge. The correct term is that these lists are "defined", not "limited". I think this is the last nail in the coffin for this section: lists are defined by their defintion, not "limited" by any Wikipedia policy or guideline. The idea that lists are "limited" by notability works in a simalar way to Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

They are limited, no matter how you try to spin it semantically. "Lists are defined by their definition" is a pretty empty truism, and "limited" does't qual "small", a limited list can still be huge. Your attempt to compare a statement which you disagree with, but which could easily be true, to a sentence that is deliberatley devoid of any possible meaning, doesn't help the discussion one bit either. Anyway, these lists are clearly limited to articles presumed to be notable, just like Wikipedia is limited to articles presumed to be notable. The fact that many articles fail WP:N and should probably be deleted, doesn't invalidate WP:N any more than the fact these notability-limited lists have articles that should be deleted invalidates the list-exception on this page. Fram (talk) 09:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Put it another way then: lists are limited by their defintions, not by policies or guidelines. Clearly a list is not limited in size by whether or not its members have their own article - some lists are huge by defintion, e.g. List of people from California.

Furthermore, a list's relevance is not determinded by whether or not its entries have their own article; rather they are relevant only if a reliable source says they are relevant, and therefore notable. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Irrespective of the examples where editors have choose to have blue link only lists, we dont need an explicit exception to allow this and several fear the exception could be used as an excuse for the mass deletion of contents. Especially as Masem seems to no longer hold the exception is essential for BIO / SAL , we shouldnt make a controversial change to the guideline until consensus is established. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

But we aren't making the controversial change, you (plural) are trying to remove the section by edit warring. Anyway, the wroding of the exception (before its removal by you) didn't leave room for a "mass deletion of contents" without a consensus on the talk page of the list. A true notibility of lists guideline could lead to such removal, but this exception isn't such a complete guideline, just a small comment (which would probably be better placed in a footnote though than in the main text in brackets). Fram (talk) 11:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree a footnote would be better, if we have to have the exception at all. (and the new wording just added by Chaos5023 looks good to) FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The new wording still does not work. What this section says is that "Notability may be used as an inclusion criterion for lists", but what it means is that "Notability of a list's items may be used as an inclusion criterion for lists". Can we agree to get rid of this section now? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope! The two sentences you have there are semantically identical, by the way, since what the inclusion criteria for a list govern is what items are present in a list. —chaos5023 (talk) 12:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Gavin, there's nothing wrong with that sentence, it means the same thing that list can be defined to limit themselves to only notable elements. --MASEM (t) 12:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Considering that the text is in the section "Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content", it seems clear to me that the text means "Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content ... except in the cases of some lists, where every listed item must meet the relevant notability guideline: for more info see...". Relevant, correct, succinct info, why should it be removed? Fram (talk) 12:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

We are all guilty of playing with semantics, but I don't think we are on the same page. My understanding of WP:NNC is that the notability guideline does not restrict the content of articles or lists. This means that whether a list is comprised of notable items or not, the notability guideline still does not restrict their content. There are no exceptions or special cases to this rule: there are no restictions on content contained in WP:N, because its not a content guideline.

Where a list is restricted to notable items, that is because the defintion says so, either explicitly or implicitly. Whether "every listed item must meet the relevant notability guideline" is a matter for each list defintion on a case by case basis, not this guideline. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I've been arguing; that list content restriction is by WP:SAL, and the call out to it from WP:NNC serves the sole and entire purpose of making it so that people don't read WP:NNC and think that means it's okay to add non-notable entries to lists defined as restricted to notable contents. —chaos5023 (talk) 13:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This exception is a necessary and simple mechanism to disallow wikilawyering from the sort: "You can't exclude my non-notable entry from your list, because notability is only about topics, not about content". We e.g. don't want every independently verifiable fashion designer on the list of fashion designer, only the notable ones. Whether this is described as "has an article" or "would qualify for an article under WP:BIO" is of lesser importance, the crucial factor is that the notability guidelines are the deciding factor to limit which entries are allowed in such a list, and which aren't. Fram (talk) 14:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You might be able to argue that Notability may be used as an inclusion criterion for lists, but notability still does not restict content. For example you cannot prove that an independently verifiable fashion designer is not notable. Although there is no evidence to suggest that Nicolas Putvinski or Juli Grbac are notable, there is no evidence to suggest they aren't either, a bluelink does not provide any evidence you can include or exclude them from the list. Simply put, notability can't be used to restrict the content of articles or lists because notability can't be used as an exclusion criterion for any content, not even list content. If nothing can be proven to be non-notable, then by the same logic, everything qualifies for inclusion.

I know what you are trying to say: a list might defined as list of articles, or a list of list, but this has not nothing to do with notability or lack of notability, rather it is their existance as pages in Wikipedia that you are referring to. I suggest we remove this section now, because the thinking behind it is very muddled. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow your reasoning at all here. "If nothing can be proven to be non-notable, then by the same logic, everything qualifies for inclusion." This is equally true for articles. And just like with articles, when challenged, an entry has to prove that it is about a notable subject, or be excluded from the list. Of course, having an article is not proof of notability, but it is a decent inclusion criterion: if a subject has an article, it is, for the sake of the list, assumed to be notable. I don't see how your reasoning is any more or less valid for entries in lists than it is for articles in Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 15:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Uh oh, Gavin. You're using propositional logic again. You know that always ends in tears.

I don't agree; I don't see the thinking as muddled at all, and the well-established practice of using article existence as a proxy determination of notability (reasoning that if it isn't notable, it will eventually be deleted) works more than well enough. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice try Chaos, you are a smart cookie, but using article existence as a proxy determination of notability is just too vicarious to be credible. Remember, not every AfD marks a deletion, as the existence of many thousands of redirects will testify. My point still stands, its muddled thinking, or at very best, it is based on a generalisation that does not work in quite a lot of cases. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The trouble with lack of clarity in notability, is that, for most articles, two editors can gang up on one to determine "notability." On a different matter, two editors ganged up on me to categorize a monument under a minor film, a scene from said monument being in the film! My point being that even the stupidest point can be "successful" with merely two editors. A few articles have lots of editors and lots of opinions to the dismay of participants. Paucity can also be dismaying. Being vague about standards vitiates the standards into impotency. Student7 (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not presently aware of vicariousness (!?!) being a feature that disqualifies any long-standing, functioning Wikipedia practice from a weighty consideration in the structuring of policy and guidelines. The practice in question doesn't depend on AfD results all being either keep or delete in order to function; if an article is redirected or merged and redirected, this doesn't prevent the list from being maintained, though it does involve slightly more work on editors' part since you don't get the blazing maintain me now of a redlink. Like I said, it works more than well enough. It isn't perfect, nor does it need to be. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

One source sufficient?

I've posted a note about a difference between this guideline and WP:BIO at WP:BIO#One source sufficient?. All comments are welcome there. Fram (talk) 14:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I can not find that section of WP:BIO... has it been edited out? Blueboar (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Notability is not temporary... or is it?

Just curious... we currently have an article on Walter Breuning... who is notable for currently being the oldest man alive. So what happens when he dies? Someone else becomes the oldest man alive. Walter's status shifts to "former oldest man"... which may or may not be considered notable. Blueboar (talk) 13:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Then he's notable for having been the oldest man alive from 2010-20XX. :) —chaos5023 (talk) 13:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Holding a record for a reasonable period of time (years) seems appropriate and not a temporary event. --MASEM (t) 13:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Would this also apply to any record holder?Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Or any record? Blueboar (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I would assume the record has to be notable. "World's Oldest Person" does get coverage; "Tallest person in Smalltown Elementary" is not. --MASEM (t) 13:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Here another question is rasied, what deffines a notable record? Amount of local coverage, national coverage, prescence in the a (or the) book of records? What about records that at one time were notavble enough to be a the Boozy book mof records but now are considerd trivial records?Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

You do sort of get a roundabout problem here: a person that holds a notable record is likely notable; a record is likely notable if it is well covered by secondary sources which almost always will be about a person that holds that record. The way to resolve this is to consider the overall set of record and record holder: is the person holding the record notable , wholly or in part , for holding that record via the GNG, and are previous holders of the record similarly notable ? If yes, then yes, likely all person that have held that record, and the record itself, are notable. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

But how is that notability established? In your example above it is quite likely that "Tallest person in Smalltown Elementary" will get coverage in at least the local press (and possibly some minor national coverage, assuming exceptional hieght). Thus it would become a notable record, thus the next person to hold it will also become notable.Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Notability would been through the GNG: significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. Local sources covering local events are generally not independent; irregardless of that, even if every local paper covers it, it is not significant since that doesn't go beyond the local community. Thus, someone holding a local record and with no other evidence of notability would not be considered notable, nor would that record.

If we need a simple rule of thumb, I would at least say that records need to be "world" or "country" level records, but you still need the GNG to justify. --MASEM (t) 14:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTINHERITED would seem to suggest that the notability of each record holder would need to be independently evaluated. If they receive coverage because they're the record-holder, then great, but if for whatever reason nobody cares enough about the record to report on them, then they fail notability. —chaos5023 (talk) 14:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

But if the record is notable any holder of that record would be notable. Someone who recives coverage (and thus becomes notabel) for breraking a record is only notable becasue of the record, thus its the record (and not the person) that is notable.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

That's kinda specifically what WP:NOTINHERITED contradicts. If individual record-holders receive insufficient coverage to be independently notable, then if we write about them at all it should be in the article about the record. And when people receive coverage because of their association with an already notable thing, it contributes notability to them, not just the already notable thing. Otherwise you're saying that Olympic athletes aren't notable, because their coverage demonstrates the notability of the Olympics, not them. —chaos5023 (talk) 14:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a differance, wikipeida recognises that being an ol;ympic level athelete establishes notability, do not reall that being a record holder does.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Good point... To what extent is this a example of a "one event" form of notariety (as covered under WP:NOTNEWS) as opposed to true notability? When it comes to records, I can agree with the argument that what is notable is the record itself ... while the person who currently holds the record is only news worthy for a brief time. In other words (continuing to use Walter as an example)... perhaps it would make more sense to expand the article on the Oldest living people (which could be updated when someone dies)... as opposed to bio articles on the people themselves? Blueboar (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Notability derived solely for holding an aging record does seem to be WP:BLP1E. I agree that coverage in Oldest living people would be better. —chaos5023 (talk) 14:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

But this shouold also apply to all records, at the end of the day many record holders are notable for the one event.Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly... my question is intended to be more generalized... I used the article on Walter as an example. Can we make a general "rule of thumb" that record holders should be noted and discussed in an article on the record, as opposed to bio articles on the people. Or to put this another way... When it comes to record holding, notability (as applied to the people) can be seen as being temporary. Blueboar (talk) 15:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I think BLP already covers it, a person is not notable just for being part of a notable event. We just extend the concept of event to cover a string of linied events (such as record breaking). "A person is not notable for being one of a series of persons associated with a given event".Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

After thinking about it for some time, let me assert this:

• It is rare that a record itself, without discussion of the people (or whatever) that hold, is notable by itself. There are rare exceptions, like Four-minute mile, but in general it is very difficult to talk about the record without mention of who holds it. (This is notability by the GNG)
• On the other hand, a record and the cumulative body of people that have held it, as a single unit, is notable via the GNG. Eg Oldest living people is a notable topic that combines the record and its holder. Same with World record progression 100 metres butterfly (and several other Olympic-level events), and even national-level records like List of Major League Baseball home run champions.
• This does not necessarily mean that the individual record holders are notable by themselves, though the fact they are/were a record holder will be a piece of evidence to weigh their notability on and which, if the above point is met, there's likely secondary sources on. To what degree that matters is difficult to judge, it may be all that is necessary, but I would think there needs to be more GNG coverage of that person to be on the safer side should AFD discussions appear. That is, holding the record is a good start but not the whole shebang for notability demonstration. This implies that pages that have notable "records and its record holders", typically as lists, are used to present this.
• Holding a record for a reasonable amount of time is not necessarily BLP1E, just as winning a notable award is not the same thing even though new awards are handed out the next year. It is more tanamount to NTEMP: if the coverage of the award and its winners is something that is widely covered over a period of time, that notability doesn't go away even if that person loses the record. But again, this has to do with how much coverage results from that person holding that record. A few news reports and nothing else, then yes, likely it is a BLP1E and the information should be merged or deleted.

How this applies to the Walter article is that there are additional accolades that Walter's been given as part of his age that are certainly part of GNG coverage of him as a person, and thus he would be notable. It is not the case that Walter should be given his own page just because he is the world's oldest man, of course. --MASEM (t) 15:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Except the key part is "winning a notable award", if a person wins a notable award that can be used to establish notability. But we are ot discusing people who have achived something ntably, you yourself say that the record is not notable. So theyt are notable for achiving something that is ot notble. Thus why are they notable? Just reciving coverage is not enough, the coverage has to be for somethiing notable.Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It's tricky; the record is not notable, but the grouping of "the record" and "people that have held that record" will likely be what is notable. Now, for example, if a new record holder was announced, and their article created, one would have to consider "well, is this a notable record that helps the significant coverage for the notability of the person?" What I'm trying to say that a "notable record" is one where, most likely, the record and its past recieptents, as a single topic, have been considered notable. So, Oldest living people - a list about the record and the people that hold it , and apparently notable - would meant that if Walter dies and the next in line moves up, that's a good indicator that that new person is notable. NOT an assurance, but a strong starting point.

Or the tl;dr answer: judging the notable of an record needs to look at the combination of the coverage that the record and the people that have held it to determine if that is notable. There is no implicit "hold a notable record, therefore notable" inheritance allowance, only that having held the record is a good starting point for notability determination. --MASEM (t) 15:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

But all that still leaves us with the question of what happens to Walter's notability when he dies. We have to account for the fact that when he dies his status changes. And if that status changes, we have to ask whether his new status is notable or not. This opens the broader question of whether notability can, in fact, be temporary... that someone can be notable while they hold a certain status... but lose that notability when they loose that status. Blueboar (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, as I would argue, if you discount all facts that directly state that he is the oldest living person, you still have some evidence of notability left behind , yes, which did tie to his advanced age, but not specifically because of being the oldest person. That is, should he die and the record is no longer his, he's still got some notability - probably not enough alone to be an article. Thus, the combination of his record holding and his other acknowledgment of notability are sufficient that per NTEMP, he will remain notable posthumously. --MASEM (t) 16:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't this all just be based off of the GNG regardless? I mean, it's quite clear that Walter meets the GNG, from the sources. Yes, those sources exist because he is a record holder, but we should be ocnsidering notability from the sources, not the record. Silverseren^C 17:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Not quiiiite. WP:BLP1E is something of a refinement of the GNG for a particular case, and it should be kept in the equation. I don't think Walter Bruening's coverage is enough of a flash in the pan to really be a BLP1E case, though. When he gets ongoing coverage of his activities (which is present in the article), even though that's "because of" his record-holding, it's still coverage of the fact that he was present at a dedication or what-have-you rather than the record-holding itself, so he's out of BLP1E territory. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, being the oldest person in the world isn't a single event...I mean, being old isn't an "event" at all. If he was the oldest person in the world for, say, a day, then maybe you would have a case. But his notability is an ongoing thing with ongoing coverage. Silverseren^C 17:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Kinda. I would say that if all his coverage were specifically "hey this guy is now the oldest man alive", then we would have a BLP1E. But it's been hashed out that if somebody becomes famous for one thing, and then that fame follows them around and coverage of their further activities keeps happening, that clears them of BLP1E. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting issue. Being the world's oldest living man/woman/person is different from most world records, since the record holder automatically loses the record when s/he dies. However, when a world's oldest living man receives as much coverage as Mr. Bruening has received (due in large part to his relative good health), he is at least as notable as a record holder like Peter J. Vita (who is the subject of a Wikipedia article due to holding the world record for the longest working career as a barber) who received less coverage, but whose record likely will hold much longer. Also, it seems that there ought to be some "permanent notability" from Breuning's being one of only five men in history confirmed to reach 114 years or more of age. --Orlady (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

That's what I'm trying to say: while most of his notability is due to being the world's oldest, it has been a record of continuing coverage, and thus beyond BLP1E. As I've mentioned before, this guy lives in a place where coverage will be good; if Walter dies and the next oldest confirmed person is in a isolated village where there is little media coverage, its doubtful that person would be as notable; a line on Oldest living persons is appropriate but not a full article until otherwise more is shown. --MASEM (t) 18:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

And remember that when he dies, WP:BLP1E no longer applies... For this discussion, referencing WP:BIO1E is more relevant. I believe that the coverage for a world record holder (oldest living man/woman) is such that a separate article is warranted, but that for national record holders of the same record, an entry in a list article (with a redirect) is usually a better solution. Fram (talk) 09:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, a world record holder is definitely ore unique than a national record holder (since you would be doing "national" for every country in the world just for that one record.) But, still, it should rely on the sourcing, not the record itself. Besides, even if the record holder has an article, I still believe there should be a list article for all of the past holders of that record, including the current one. Silverseren^C 17:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

While perhaps not overly helpful, something a wise wikipedian (who's name I forget) once said to me seems pertinent here. Consensus can change. While notability is permanent, nothing prevents the community from going back on an earlier decision in this regard. Now, speaking for myself, I'm all for objective standards that can persist 'forever'. But in the real world, it's entirely possible for an article that covers a record holder from year-X-to-Y, once thought to be notable forever, to one day find h'self subject to a merge AfD outcome. And so be it. Notability is permanent, our assessment of it from our current time-point perspective might be wrong. If so, it'll be fixed somewhere down the line. Guidelines are important, but don't spend too much time arguing the excruciatingly trivial, unless that's your thang of course. ‒ Jaymax✍ 18:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The statement about "Olympic level athlete" notability may be correct since it may be explicitly stated in policy. I wonder about teams formed from tiny countries not really able to field or sponsor teams financially. This allows people failing tryouts from the nations fielding "real" teams, to talk a small country into furnishing credentials and sending themselves, thereby winning some sort of notablity, which does not seem justified IMO. (They are not really doing it for Wikipedia notability per se!  :) They do not represent the best and ablest from Tinynation, but rather some opportunist and fast talker from Firstworldcountry. Student7 (talk) 23:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I think there's an error in the logic at the very start of this discussion which makes the entire point moot: "Walter Breuning... is notable for currently being the oldest man alive". No he isn't. That's a classic "person known for one event only" situation and doesn't confer general notability to the subject per WP:BLP1E. He's notable because his (long) life has received in depth coverage from multiple independent sources. The fact that he only received this coverage because he is the oldest man alive is essentially irrelevant from the perspective of the notability guideline.

In other words, the extensive media attention he received because of his age meant he was able to meet Wikipedia notability requirements, it is not of itself the reason he is notable. GDallimore (Talk) 12:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)