Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

The wisdom of the merge/rewrite

This merge/rewrite appears to have been done wholesale, when there seemed to be agreement against doing this. It has completely overwritten all that was there before, without including its major points, and has apparently produced considerable disagreement. This could have been avoided by a gradual change that would allow for objections to each addition to be directly met, rather than having people react with blanket disapproval that hastily extends the principle altogether. If there is a complete rewrite of a guideline, there should usually a temporary page where it is worked on before it is dumped in. —Centrx→talk • 07:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• That is a falsehood in three respects. First, there was actually agreement on the talk page for doing a merger (albeit that in fact I only merged the few specific things that discussion on the talk page covered, not everything, as I noted on the talk page at the time). Second, if you look at the actual edits you'll notice that contrary to your statement the major points (addressing both merger and deletion) were retained, that the introduction was touched not at all, and that nothing was "completely overwritten". Third, the actual wholesale changes, completely overwriting things, were in fact done by you yourself. Uncle G 06:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I was erroneously basing part of this statement on other changes that happened after the edits you made; the rest on closer inspection preserved the previous content. Regarding the merger: there was agreement to do the merge, but there were reversations about doing it drastically, because of the uncertainy and uproar the might result (and which did happen but which could have been unrelated specifically to the merger). My changes were mostly re-organization and re-wording, along with a partial revert of some changes to the introduction and re-adding the Rationale that was removed (all after your merger). The diffs for these changes were divided so that it is clear what exactly was changed, if you look at them particular rather than taking a diff of all the changes, which looks like a substantial over-writing because of some section re-organization. Anyway, the page is fine. —Centrx→talk • 06:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Three key points...

Hi.

I'm going to bring up three important points that I think, based on what I've read (I've been posting here on WP pretty much just to discuss things and ask questions...), if consensus is found on just one could go a long way towards resolving the ongoing dispute. Here they are, and I'd like your opinions:

Point I. Subjectivity.

Is WP:N, and especially the "Primary Notability Criterion" (PNC) too subjective? If so, how?

• Response to Point 1: Read Uncle G's essay "On notability". It specifically deals with this concern. --Jayron32 04:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Uncle G's answer to that question is to specifically define what "notability" means. The simple fact is that people generally do not conform to Uncle G's definition, and most of the tens of thousands of contributors to wikipedia will never hear about Uncle G's definition. This is *exactly* why I disagree with the words usage as either policy or guideline. Fresheneesz 06:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I have more faith in the ability of the Wikipedia community to spread memes among ourselves. The community is pretty good about remembering just what "vandalism" means here, in our Wiki-particular definition, for example. Knowledge of new essays, especially when they have catchy WP:shortcuts, spread like wildfire. Just in the last couple of weeks, I've seen people quoting the PNC in deletion discussions, and they're people I never saw on this page. Why not give it a chance, and see whether we can get an objective and useful definition of notability to replace the subjective idea that some people are throwing around? All it takes is a lot of repetition, explaining a few hundred times that "notability at Wikipedia means nothing more than blah blah blah blah...." You could even make a template, if that seems easier.
    • I would suggest that popularizing a better definition for a popular word is much more likely to work than rooting out the concept behind the word entirely. It's kind of like Aikido - you just redirect the energy that your opponent provides. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
      • If people are working by several definitions of the word, then it follows we need a guideline that endorses one particular definition, to avert future confusion. (Radiant) 13:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Precisely. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
          • However, it seems that "SMcCandlish" claims this thing is "totally subjective, biased tar" (at least in regards to WP:N). 170.215.83.4 19:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
            • SMcCandlish has yet to explain what's subjective about requiring that a topic have been covered non-trivially in published sources before we have an article on it. I see no appeal to subjective judgement in that requirement. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • That is a bogus argument and a falsehood. It is a bogus argument because defining what notability means specifically in Wikipedia is not a problem. We redefined "verifiable" to have a meaning that is idiosyncractic to Wikipedia, and editors regularly get it wrong, talking about articles that "have not been verified" or about "verifiable sources". Yet the fact that editors get it wrong is not a flaw in the Wikipedia concept of verifiability, just as the fact that people get notability wrong is not a flaw in the Wikipedia concept of notability. The flaw is addressed by educating editors and by having pages such as Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Notability that explain these concepts and that can be conveniently pointed to. It is a falsehood for the simple reason that a lot of editors do look for multiple non-trivial published works from sources independent of the subject. It wasn't an idea that was invented from thin air. Uncle G 08:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Point II. PNC supersedes other NC.

Does the PNC supercede other notability criteria (NC)? The page does not seem to suggest so. Why do some believe it does?

• Response to Point II. The only point of the PNC is to meet the shortcomings of WP:V; there are many verifiable facts out there to be found, but not all of them are encyclopedic. The PNC is to assure that somewhere are verifiable facts that are worthy of an article. Nearly every business, for example, exists in the Yellow Pages, and thus their addresses verifiable. However, if the business ONLY exists in the Yellow Pages, there are no facts we can populate the article with beyond an address; thus the subject is not notable. --Jayron32 04:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think the PNC supersedes any specific notability criteria. I don't know why anyone thinks it's intended that way. I think the common sense solution is that particular rules trump general ones, or else why would they exist? I support a notability guideline, if "notabile" is understood as "having enough source material to support a WP article", and I certainly haven't got anything against WP:BIO, WP:CORP, WP:WEB, etc. Those particular guidelines give us easy ways in many cases to determine that a topic satisfies the PNC, and they provide explanations for the occasional exception. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • As per GTB, I don't believe anyone is proposing this. (Radiant) 13:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • But it seems that a certain SMcCandlish has been saying something about it "trumping" other stuff. 170.215.83.4 19:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
      • The problem, in response to GTB's "trumping" note, is that yes, specific rules DO trump general rules, which is why specific rules should be very narrowly construed. MOST of the proposed ntoability guidelines out there extend notability beyond what a well-referenced article can contain. For example, in one of the many versions of the WP:SCHOOLS guideline, there was a proposal that "all schools over 50 years old are notable". Why should we be required to keep an article about a school merely because it is 50 years old? There is no compelling reason to keep an article if there are no sources to populate the article with referenced facts. In the RARE cases where an article is to be kept in violation of the PNC, it is for very small, specific, and unique reasons, such as the WP:CORP requirement that an otherwise non-notable company is "keepable" if it, say, makes up the S&P 500, but ONLY to make the Wikipedia coverage of the S&P 500 complete, not for any other reason. There is no compelling reason that wikipedia needs an article on every school 50 years old or more simply for being 50 years old or more. Almost ALL of the individualized guidelines (with the exceptions, perhaps of WP:CORP, WP:BIO, and maybe a few others) contain "trumping" criteria which lead to the creation of articles that have no hope of ever being an encyclopedia article. That is why we MUST be careful, and ONLY use the Primary Notability Criteria except in rare, compelling, exceptions. --Jayron32 04:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
        • However, this seems to reduce the significance of those rules. The rules are there to provide additional criteria that can be used to prove notability and are accepted guidelines for that purpose. Oh, as an aside (not truly related to this discussion), I haven't yet heard any answers to my arguments on the WP:NUKE shortcut deletion debate. I've been expecting some for a few days now. What gives?
• The PNC is simply a criterion that is observably common to all of our notability criteria, having been, in one form or another, in all of them. WP:CORP was the first to have it as currently worded, but WP:BIO effectively had it, as an amalgamation of several criteria, well before that. (Indeed, WP:BIO had some parts of it before Wikipedia:Verifiability was even written.) Whether it supercedes other criteria is largely irrelevant. All of the guidelines state that subjects need only satisfy one of the criteria. However, it is by far the criterion that is the least controversial when it comes to deletion discussions, and thus by far the best criterion to aim to satisfy. Criteria that set arbitrary numerical thresholds regularly generate arguments about systemic bias when applied, in contrast. Uncle G 08:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Point III. N supersedes/contradicts V.

Does notability seem to supersede/contradict verifiability, an official policy here, as opposed to simply providing a higher bar for inclusion, or a clarification of policy? If so, how?

This is actually a mis-statement of the issue. "Simply providing a higher bar for inclusion" is superseding/contradicting WP:V. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:V is not and has never been our sole "bar" for inclusion. (Radiant) 21:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not suggest that it was. What I am suggesting is that if a Policy says "these are the criteria for article inclusion", a new Guideline can't contradict it (by being less or more inclusive). If as you and GTBacchus maintain WP:V is flawed in some way, then WP:V needs to be modified directly. See WP:HCP. I don't see why this has been difficult to convey. This analogy might help: If the Supreme Court of the United States says that web sites deserve the same level of First Amendment protection as paper-based books and magazines, then the California Municipal Court in San Francisco cannot contradict the SCotUS by adding "but only if... [some additional criteria here]". — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) SMcCandlish, I find it counterintuitive to use "contradicting" to include "extending". Knowing what you mean, though, my response is this: Verifiability provides a criterion for whether or not specific content may be included, but it is doesn't say that all verifiable content must be included. Indeed, there is verifiable content, that we do not want, because of WP:NOT. The contents of the yellow pages are verifiable. When I made this point earlier, you said that I should read WP:V more carefully, and that it wouldn't allow such information; I checked and replied by asking you to point to the clause on that page that says my address and phone number aren't verifiable. You haven't done so. I just checked again; there is no such clause. [— who?]

If people wouldn't improperly archive active discussions, I might not miss requests like that. As to your first point, I think my Supreme Court example should make it clearer. It is not the place of lower courts to "extend" or otherwise contradict higher court decisions, but rather to apply them to particular circumstances; it is not the place of Guidelines to "extend" or otherwise contradict Policies, but rather to apply them to particular circumstances. As to your second point, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources, in conjunction with WP:NOR and WP:NPOV make WP:NOT rather redundant. WP:NOT is a convenient shorthand for a lot of policy reasoning, because it summarizes many different arguments, with salient examples. And it's also a Policy, not a Guideline, so it has equal weight with WP:V, etc. But, I would not have a problem with WP:NOT being deleted, honestly; while convenient it is not essential. The fact that it is redundant but has survived and is even a policy now does not militate for the creation of additional redundant guidelines; others have argued this point already, so I won't rehash that. Anyway, yes, WP:V in conjunction with WP:NOT definitely do indicate that while all material must be verifiable, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included. Ergo, we don't need WP:N to tell us this. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

If WP:NOT contradicts WP:V, then so does WP:N, but WP:N, when not abused, is nothing more than WP:V + WP:NOT. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Which is why so many of us keep saying "WP:N is not needed". — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

But it's used in deletion, so then if someone needs to find out what "NN" means, why not have a page that explains it? Also, if you don't like it, why not nominate this page for removal? Probably because there is at least a rough consensus that it should exist, even if not in the form it has now? This is something that requires consensus.70.101.146.27 21:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

WRONG. WP:RS according to your logic "contradicts" WP:V because it raises the bar on what souces to use. All notability criteria (NOT JUST WP:N, but WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, etc. which have way more agreement than WP:N) "contradict" WP:V and should be dumped, according to this logic. Heck, even WP:NPOV with it's "undue weight" thing that ensures only "significant" POVs appear on an article is sort of a bar for inclusion.WP:NOT is definitely a bar. So I guess we'll have to scrap those too, because they raise the bar above WP:V and therefore "supercede and contradict" it. I can see, however, how one might reach the conclusion that "raising the bar" is contradicting WP:V because it says "The threshhold for inclusion is verifiability". This is obviously not the case, as I showed above (and I think that this statement should be changed). Even WP:DP forces the bar higher. 70.101.146.27 21:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Response to Point III: Verifiability applies to facts. "XYZ Business is found in Anywhereville, USA and was founded in 1923" are facts. "Consumer Reports named XYZ's widgets as the highest quality in the industry. XYZ business was involved in a patent-law case which is a case-study in several law textbooks" are ALSO facts. Assume, for now, that all of these facts are verifiable. Notability applies to subjects. The first set of facts does not make XYZ business notable. The second set does. If all we have is the first set of facts, we cannot write an encyclopedia article about this business, since it will ONLY contain trivial information as can be found in the directories, and wikipedia is not a directory. The second set of facts makes for encyclopedic content. verifiability is a necessary, but not sufficient condition to create a worthwhile article. notability fills in the "gaps". --Jayron32 04:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The part about notability applying to subjects, rather than information, is something I addressed under the header "The problem with notability" two topics up. Applying notability to entire subjects is not a good way of deciding what can appear on wikipedia. Fresheneesz 06:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand, Fresheneesz. If "notability" means "capable of being covered in a manner compliant with WP:V and WP:NOT", and if merging is our first choice when we have a non-notable subject with any verifiable information at all, then what's the problem? Isn't that precisely how we decide which articles to include? -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, "capable of being covered ..." assumes that we know what can and cannot be done with a subject. Instead we should be evaluating the information in an article - as to whether or not that information *is* or *is not* compliant with WP:V and WP:NOT. In my view, it is not up to content policy to decide whether an article *will be able to be* compliant. Neither wikipedia nor its users, are crystal balls. Fresheneesz 05:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This isn't actually a problem. If we allow time during an AfD for people to come up with sources, and they don't, then we conclude that we haven't got any sources, until such time as somebody finds one. We can't keep content around hoping it will be sourced someday, so sources we can't find are as good as no sources, until they're found. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

If we say that '"notability" means "capable of being covered in a manner compliant with WP:V and WP:NOT"' then we don't need WP:N, since WP:V and WP:NOT already define what is "capable of" being covered in a manner compliant with them. Also, as someone else pointed out, "capable of" is crystal-balling in contravention of WP:NOT. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Then why do most seem to agree that non-notability is a good criterion for deletion? Furthermore, why bother with keeping the "uncontroversial" guidelines, anyway? 70.101.146.27 21:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the current defense of this monster is that it is an obfuscated form of existing policy. Not a good idea to me. Trollderella 13:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Trollderella, I think that's an unfair characterization of the argument some of us are making. Far from obfuscating existing policy, I see a appropriately undersood notability guideline as a way of focusing a particular application of WP:V and WP:NOT, an application that comes up over and over again in AfD discussions, hence the natural desire for a shorthand. Thus we have a word that represents a direct and focused application of policy, as explained at the guideline to which that word links. If people have been misusing "notability" in a subjective way, that's an argument for correcting those people, not for scrapping the whole guideline.

Also, like I told Fresheneesz: from a purely practical point of view, you'll have a much easier time correcting people on the definition of notability than you will convincing them to give up the concept entirely, because lots of people find it useful. These people will be much more amenable to adapting to a new, more focused definition than they will be to abandoning what they see as a useful idea. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• This guideline obviously does not supersede WP:V since a guideline cannot supersede a policy. Neither does this guideline contradict WP:V because it has been established that the two terms are related but not identical. The opponents of this guideline tend to claim that it's redundant, but that is not a strong argument as we have lots of guidelines that are partially or wholly redundant. (Radiant) 13:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "we have lots of guidelines that are partially or wholly redundant" yes, and that's a bad thing. The last thing we need is more vague, subjective, unnecessary and counterproductive guidelines that add fuel to the fire for AFD misprocess. Trollderella 13:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Then it's a good thing that notability is not subjective, as the page says. Uncle G 08:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
    • You may consider it a bad thing, but it is not an argument against this particular guideline. As stated above, this guideline is neither vague nor subjective, and your assertions that it is counterproductive, that AFD is a misprocess, or that this is a fire that can be fueled are not backed by any actual evidence thereof. (Radiant) 13:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I think it's pretty clear that redundant policies are a bad thing. You assert that this concept is not vague or subjective, but that appears to be a matter of opinion, it certainly looks vague and subjective to me. I think that if you can look at AFD right now and not conclude that it is a bonfire of misprocess, then no evidence that I can present here will convince you, and we'll just have to agree to differ on that one. Trollderella 13:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
        • To repeat, you may consider it a bad thing, but it is not an argument against this particular guideline. Whether something is vague or subjective is a matter of definition (and also, it's not an argument against this particular guideline, since Wikipedia as a whole has no problem with guidelines that are vague or subjective). You have so far cited zero evidence about AFD being misprocess, despite heavy participation of the community therein. Unless you have evidence, your statement only amounts to FUD. (Radiant) 13:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Since it explicitly states that it isn't subjective, I suggest re-reading the project page more thoroughly. If you still think that it is subjective after actually reading the project page, I suggest that you provide an actual concrete explanation of how it is subjective, rather than vague assertions of "It looks subjective to me." — which, ironically, is the very sort of subjective argument that the project page explicitly excludes from notability. Uncle G 08:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• The fact that it is redundant is certainly an argument against this particular guideline, since this particular guideline is a member of the class of redundant guidelines. I don't think your argument has any logical force - you might just as well say 'speed limits should not apply to this car, since other cars speed'. As I said, if you can look at AFD and not conclude it is a rampant abuse of policy and process, then we will have to agree to differ. That point is not key to the problems with notability. Trollderella 13:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • That car statement is an obvious straw man and non sequitur. However, the assertion that AFD is a "rampant abuse of policy and process", is important, since it is the keystone of your reasoning. Consensus does not agree that AFD is abuse, as evidenced by the fact that AFD is run by consensus. And hence, consensus does not agree with your reasoning. (Radiant) 13:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • The car statment is relevant because you claim that the presence of other redundant policies makes this one ok. As I said, we'll have to agree to differ on AFD. It is clear to me that the 'concensus' is in breach of policies, but this is not the best place to have that debate. Regardless of whether 'notability' cuases AFD problems, it is problematic on it's own terms. Trollderella 13:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
      • You are misinterpreting my words. Also, if consensus in in breach of policy, it follows that policy (or at least, your interpretation thereof) is incorrect and needs to be amended. Consensus makes policy, not the other way around. (Radiant) 14:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Not at all. Concensus on the policy makes the policy. If there is a wikipedia wide concensus that a piece of policy should stay policy, then a small group of deletion enthusiasts reaching 'concensus' among themselves that they don't want to follow that policy is not appropriate. But, as I said, we seem to eb living in different realities here, so I would suggest that we move this discussion elsewhere, and confine this discussion to what is wrong with 'notability'. There's enough to work with without mentioning AFD again. Trollderella 14:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • No, consensus makes policy (see also WP:PPP). At any rate, for the sake of this discussion let's assume that AFD is working fine, and that any suggested amendments to it should be discussed on its own talk page. (Radiant) 14:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree that consensus makes policy, but it is the consensus of the whole group, not a small quorum of lynchers, who make policy. The fact that a group of vandals might suceed for a while in vandalizing a page does not legitimize their actions against the view of the whole of wikipedia. Likewise the actions of those voting on a particular AFD are not making policy that overturns the expression of consensus that is things like WP:V. Let's agree for the purposes of this discussion that we disagree strongly about whether AFD is working fine, but that that is not key to our discussion. But I digress. There is no need for Notability, and it causes harm. That's the basic issue. Trollderella 14:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
      • In other words, consensus of the majority, ie. a democracy. The small group of disagreers do not affect the policy, only the majority opinion, right? 170.215.83.4 19:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Erm, I'm not sure where you're going with that. I think that policies like neutrality and verifiability are there to prevent a small group of enthusiasts from claiming a 'majority' in a certain forum and pushing through actions that do not enjoy widespread support. Trollderella 02:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• FIRST of all, it is beyond a doubt that most people think that "mostly redundant" guidelines and policy are a *very* bad thing. Tell me in what way a redundant page is useful to us radiant. I can't imagine what you can come up with. Oh and btw, Trollderella, Radiant is of the opinion that it doesn't matter what people think of a policy, it only matters what people do elsewhere. He thinks that since the word notability is used so much on AfD, that somehow means its a guideline. Fresheneesz 19:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • That is not "beyond a doubt". I, for example, doubt it. I agree that redundant pages can be useful. For example, WP:NFT doesn't introduce any new rule, but people find it very useful. It takes some ideas from WP:V and WP:NOT and elaborates on them, in a way that's particularly tailored to AfD discussions. That content would clutter the policy pages, and the thread from the policy pages to the point of application is long enough that it's easier to point to a shortcut than to retrace it every time. Redundancy is useful because there exist arguments, based in policy, tried and true, and burdensome to repeat in full. Those arguments should be summarized on pages that are entirely redundant with other policy pages. They'd better be, or they would represent new rules. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I think that "Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day" is exactly the kind of rubbish that is damaging Wikipedia. As far as I'm concerned, this sprawling patchwork of essays, 'guidelines', quasi policy and joke pages that have questionable acceptance and legitimacy create a confusing and contradictory environment that prevents clear and objective standards. Trollderella 02:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Ok, saying that's your opinion is one thing. Saying that "it is beyond a doubt that most people" agree agree that redundant policies and guidelines are "a *very* bad thing" is rather unwarranted, though, and that's Fresheneesz' statement that I was responding to. It is a fact that there are people who disagree with this point in good faith and with considered reasons. Claiming that one position is obviously the only correct one is not a good way to advance the conversation. It appears you disagree with a lot more than just this guideline. As far as thinking in a results-oriented way, are you more likely to convince everyone else to drop the way they think and agree with you, or are you more likely to bring about small, incremental changes for the better? I suggest incremental changes, and I suggest starting with helping promote the idea that "notability" must only be about the existence of sufficient sources, and nothing beyond that. That would be a step in the right direction, no? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

On WP:NFT : "doesn't introduce any new rule, but people find it very useful" - I agree that its useful. I disagree that it should be a guideline. It should be an essay that is refered to for clarification, or examples of guidelines. Think about how wikipedia is set up as opposed to wikibooks. Wikipedia provides the bare information, while wikibooks analyses that information more in depth and gives examples and other help. Thats how guidelines should be split from essays. Guidelines are the bare rules we should generally follow - essays should be there for support, explanation, examples, and other helper things. Making separate guidelines for the same thing is *redundant* - as you yourself agreed. The things written in WP:NFT are not guidelines, they are examples of how guidelines are used. Making redundant pages is akin to instruction creep.

On the word redundant: 'Redundant' is a synonym to 'unneccessary' or 'useless'. I really think you (GTBacchus) don't think NFT is redundant, you really think it is a helper page (just like I do). You think its useful, same as me. Our only difference in opinion is that I think that guidelines should be clear-cut and easy to learn (by virtue of being terse and to the point), while you think that guidelines should be anything that helps people understand how to use wikipedia. Its a small difference, but the line is a great divide.

The real difference is that some people hold the significance of guidelines higher than others. I think bad and redundant guidelines should be dissolved (or changed to essays) just like bad and redundant laws should be repealed. Why have a law for "leashing your alligator to a fire hydrant" when "danger to the public" covers it? Fresheneesz 20:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• The point is that you misunderstand what guidelines are. We frequently use guidelines to complement policy (which is why we have a few dozen policies and a lot more guidelines); any random rant can be an essay. "Danger to the public" would be a policy; if lots of people cause danger in a specific way (e.g. with alligators and hydrants) we create a guideline to cover that. "Bad guidelines" is simply your personal opinion. "Redundant guidelines" is an overstatement since in fact they are overlapping but not truly redundant. (Radiant) 20:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I didn't say it was redundant. 70.101.146.27 21:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Abritrary break

There you go. You can answer "in this post" if you want (put your responses under each point description above), which would make it easier to organize this discussion. 170.215.83.4 23:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

However, it seems that there is some degree of consensus that notability, in some form, is a valid criterion for inclusion and deletion. The fact that so many use notability does suggest some sort of degree of consensus in the community! 170.215.83.4 19:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If a policy doesn't make sense, editors generally ignore it; or rather, having not necessarily read every policy, they do not know about its provisions and simply do what makes sense for an encyclopedia. A small group of editors could make or change a crazy policy in contradiction with consensus, but no one would follow it. (Only with the general principles of NPOV and verifiability, being so essential to Wikipedia, would there be a situation where a core group of people would forbid some major consensus of POV pushers from being enacted; this is unlikely though, because the people who stay around and edit Wikipedia know its purpose, and half the POV pushers would hate the POV of the other half.) —Centrx→talk • 16:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The notability concept is breach of NPOV, and is being promoted by a determined group of POV pushers. Trollderella 16:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Not as I understand it, it isn't, and not as it's worded in the current guideline it isn't. Please explain what's "POV" about insisting that non-trivial sources have to exist in order to sustain a a verifiable encyclopedia article? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep, it seems related more to verifiability and WP:NOT. 170.215.83.4 19:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that your understanding is not the one used most often. Notability is used as a way to shape inclusion criteria to exclude things that the current crop of editors are not interested in. So we have discussions about whether a particular verifiable person 'deserves' an article, or whether they are 'interesting enough', and claims that 'boring' articles that are not of interest to editors should be deleted for that reason because they are 'not notable'. The definition here is redundant, because it restates verifiablity, and the definition actually used is damaging, because it erodes the idea that editorial preference should not shape which articles go into the encyclopedia. Trollderella 19:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Trollderella is partially right. Although the intent of notability criteria is not to delete based on someones interest in the article, it can, and has been, abused in such a way - and many others. I disagree that notability violates policy, but I do believe that making this article a guideline does indeed violate consensus (which is I think what he might have been trying to say). Fresheneesz 19:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Trollderella is correct that my understanding of this guideline is not the one used most often. That's why I'm trying to promote it. I share you guys' objection to the prevailing attitude about notability, but thinking strategically, I suspect it's much easier to get a bunch of people to change the definition of a word to something less subjective and more consistent with policy than it would be to get that same bunch of people to drop a concept entirely, giving them nothing to substitute for it. I'm speaking as a teacher here - people respond much more willingly to "don't think of it that way; think of it this way" than they do to "just don't think that way". The former gives them something to work with; the latter tends to make them stop listening. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you say. However, we do already have something else to give them - WP:V, and WP:NOT. Trollderella 21:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem with WP:NOT, and I have stated this before, is that it is too long, and often self-contradictory. When referencing a policy/guideline, having to weed through a long, drawn out page to find a specific policy isn't very helpful. Also, certain aspects of WP:NOT are self-contradictory. Not paper is a statement of Wikipedia's infinite capacity. Not a collection of indiscriminate information is a statement that there is a baseline level of worthiness for a piece of information to be considered "discriminate". The problem with combining these too ideas is that the larger the capacity, the lower the threshold for worthiness. Infinite capacity means infinitessimally low threshold. We need a short, concise, and easy to understand policy/guideline page that clearly spells out in simple terms, what makes one article of verifiable information worth keeping, while another article of verifiable information should be deleted. The PNC allows us to decide on the difference. --Jayron32 05:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see 'not paper' and 'Not a collection of indiscriminate information' as contradictory. I am concerned at the value judgement of 'worthiness' though, it is exactly what worries me about this. We should not be judging whether a topic is 'worthy', we should be looking at whether there is enough verifiable information to write an article on it. Notablity one of those appealing answers that is short, apparently simple, but wrong. Trollderella 19:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

There it is. Right there. You just said it. That word "enough". Right before the word verifiable. The wikipedia definition of "enough" is the Primary Notability Criteria. Notability is not about worthiness, it's not about importance, it's not about who cares, or any other subjective opinion. The entire point of Notability, indeed, of the Primary Notability Criterion, is defining, in simple terms, for all to see, what "enough" means. Do you get it now? --Jayron32 04:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia:NOT gives the critera when it says that WP is not a directory. If there is enough verifiable material to write an article that is not a directory entry (or one of the numberous other things in there) then that's enough. No need for more rule-cruft. Trollderella 20:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Radiant's revert

Hi there. I changed "This requirement ensures that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable article about the topic." to "Wikipedia's verifiability policy ensures that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable article about the topic." Radiant reverted this, with the comment "undo circular reasoning". Unfortunately, the circular reasoning is in the essay, not my correction of the facts. Radiant - my change was a simplification, and a correct statement of the facts. Can you explain why you oppose that? Thanks, Trollderella 13:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Your change implies that "this requirement" (referring to notability) is the same as "verifiability". That is incorrect. Your statement about verifiability basically says that the verifiability policy is ensures verifiability of articles, which is tautological, or semantically void, or circular. (Radiant) 13:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No, my change implies that the verifiability policy, rather than 'this requirement' ensures that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable article about the topic. That is the truth of the matter, since it is verifiability, not this requirement, that is the policy that deals with verifiability. If your thinking is circular, that's not my fault, I didn't write it, I'm just correcting the facts. I agree that the statement is meaningless, and should be removed. That's an opinion that I would extend to the whole circular, vague and subjective essay. Trollderella 13:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• So we are in agreement that your version of the statement is meaningless, and that's why I've removed it. Let's keep it on the prior version, which is a meaningful part of the guideline. (Radiant) 13:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No, the statement that "this requirement ensures that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable article about the topic" is factually wrong. When the facts are corrected, the circularity of the claim about notability is revealed. Your revert reinstates a factual error. Mine shows the ridiculousness of notability when the facts are corrected. Trollderella 13:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Calling something "ridiculous" is hardly a valid argument for anything. In effect, you're begging the question. (Radiant) 14:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

All I am trying to do is correct a factual error. "This requirement ensures that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable article about the topic." is factually incorrect. It is "Wikipedia's verifiability policy [that] ensures that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable article about the topic." Why are you opposed to fixing the facts? Oh yes, when the facts are correct, notability looks a bit silly. Trollderella 14:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• You're still begging the question, and that was a loaded question fallacy. (Radiant) 14:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm really not. I'm correcting a factual error. If that makes your argument look silly, there's little I can do about it. The facts are incorrect in the current version. Trollderella 15:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• It is "circular reasoning": Verifiability ensures by definition things are verifiable. So your statement is a tautology, it affirms itself, like "This sentence is a sentence" (well, DUH!!!!! Of course it's a sentence!). 170.215.83.4 19:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The original sentance said that 'notability guidelines ensure verifiability'. I corrected it to read 'verifiability policy ensures verifiability'. You are confusing the concept of verifiability with the policy of verifiability - they are not the same thing, so no tautology is committed. Trollderella 19:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no factual error. The verifiability policy, by itself, does not ensure that there is enough source material to write a verifiable encyclopedia article. The key is that we are writing an encyclopedia. Many things are verifiable but do not belong in an encyclopedia. Notability operates at the intersection of WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:NOT, and ensures that we can write an article that adheres to all four policies. It easy to write a block of text that adheres to WP:V but fails one or more of WP:NPOV, WP:NOT. Similarly, it easy to write an article that adheres to WP:NPOV but fails WP:NOR and WP:V. The relevant sentence should be "This requirement ensures that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable encyclopedia article about the topic." The best form of this explanation I have seen is the essay Wikipedia:Independent sources. A shorter form of this is already on the page at Wikipedia:Notability#Rationale GRBerry 15:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

But what you quote above is not the text of the proposed guideline. The sentence in question says nothing about suitability for an encyclopedia articles, or what belongs in one. The statement as it is written is incorrect, and your arguments are about different statements. Again: "This requirement ensures that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable article about the topic." is factually incorrect. It is "Wikipedia's verifiability policy [that] ensures that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable article about the topic." We are not talking about WP:NOT, we are talking about the policy that ensures that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable article about the topic. Trollderella 15:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, that is why I changed the sentence to what it ought to be. WP:V does not achieve what you claim, so you are incorrect. GRBerry 15:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, you have removed the most glaring stupidity of the statement, which is an improvement. I now simply disagree with it, rather than it being a glaring factual error. Trollderella 15:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

GRBerry, the word "encyclopedia" was a good addition, that I wish I had thought of the first time around. Thanks for that. Trollderella, I already said this below, but the verifiability policy doesn't ensure that anything exists. Requiring, of a particular topic that it have been covered in sources does certainly ensure that sources exist for that topic. The verifiability policy, together with WP:NOT, makes such a requirement necessary. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the notability requirement is too high and creates for a white-only (racist) hegemonic culture in which published work is privileged over personal experience. In Africa, stories were told from generation to generation and this was history. It took a long time for the white man to recognize that was unwritten history was in fact history (and call it "oral history"). According to Wikipedia's notability requirements, Africa basically has no history. Jasonfb 17:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That's ok, notability requirements are a way of codifying "what I like". They have the effect of introducing new systematic biases based on what current editors think is important, rather than what can be verified and documented. That is their purpose. Trollderella 18:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This is false. It has nothing to do with what current editors think, because the only criteron we're allowed to use to determine notability is the question "has it been independently documented in a verifiable manner?" There is no appeal to personal opinion in that criterion. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Trollderella, you seem to be agreeing with Jasonfb while silmultaneously contradicting him. You say it should be based on what can be "verified and documented", yet he wants to include "personal experience", which clearly can't be. If someone else studied "oral history" and documented it, then Wikipedia could include it (and nothing in the guideline contradicts that). Are you criticising the guideline itself, or its usage in AfD? Trebor 19:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with some of what he says, but not all. He is correct that the notability requirement is a systematic bias, but I do not follow his argument everywhere he wants to take it. Trollderella 19:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

When used correctly, how is it systemic bias? Trebor 19:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

When used correctly, armor piercing bullets are not harmful to society, and yet we outlaw them because they so rarely are. This is a concept similar to that - while it is possible to imagine it being used in a way that does a little, rather than a lot of harm, it virtually never is. Add to that there is no real benefit to it, it should go. Trollderella 20:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't delete something just because its been misused. The redundancy argument is more compelling, but I still think this guideline provides a useful link between several separate policies, into a guideline on deletion. Sure, people could piece it together from WP:V, WP:NOT et al, but this makes it much clearer, and also makes obvious what notability is not. Added to that are the few exceptions in the specific guidelines to the PNC which consensus has determined should be included - where else would they go? And you still haven't explained why the notability requirement is a systemic bias. Trebor 21:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Trollderella, I'm not aware that anybody has, until the last couple of weeks, tried to fix the definition of "notable" and make it into something less subjective. That's precisely what some of us are trying to do right now. Why not give us a chance, and see if we can promote the improved definition of "notable"? I have faith in the ability of this community to recognize a change for the better, and go with it. Let's see how it goes, eh? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Trollderella, I'd like to explain the sentence I added, which you consider erroneous. If I may dereference a pronoun, the sentence reads: [Requiring of a topic that there it have nontrivial converage in multiple independent sources] ensures that enough material exists to write a verifiable encyclopedia article about a topic. Now, WP:V says that each fact we include here must be verifiable. That requirement doesn't ensure that there exists anything at all. Requiring of a particular topic that it have been covered in sources, does indeen ensures that we can cover that topic in a verifiable manner. If the only verifiable thing about a business, for example, is its address out of the yellow pages, then that's not enough to write a Wikipedia article, per WP:NOT. If we say that we need a couple of non-trivial sources, then we guarantee that we'll be able to comply with WP:V and WP:NOT. I don't think this particular understanding of "notability" is particularly controversial.

What is controversial is the way that "notability" has been used in AfD discussions by some Wikipedians. The actions of those people are not the same thing as the notability guideline, as you can see by reading the guideline, and noting that it's wording does not in any way condone an argument like "Non-notable - I've never heard of it". There are people who abuse any guideline one provides, but that's not an argument against providing guidelines, it's an argument for being clear about it, and taking steps to combat abuse. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT already covers this. An article which is solely a Yellow Pages entry can be deleted per NOT, no new rule is required. The existance of this disputed 'guideline' lends credence to those who erroneously use it to push their editorial POV. Clarifying that it is not necessary, and is indeed damaging, is the best way to clear up the confusion. Trollderella 19:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT does not explain what qualifies as a "directory" entry, and Wikipedia:Notability applies to more than pure-directory articles. —Centrx→talk • 19:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems apparent to me that your example of a Yellow Pages entry is a directory entry. If you want to choose an example that isn't a strawman, that might help. Let's take a look at a real life example of an article you'd like to delete that need notability criteria to do so. Trollderella 19:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Trollderella, I agree with you that no new rule is required beyond WP:V and WP:NOT. This is why I'm suggesting that the best way to understand WP:N is not as a new rule at all, but as an encapsulation of a common argument that appeals to already-existing and already-sufficient rules. As for an example of an article I'd like to delete that I need notability criteria to do there, there are none. Every article that needs to be deleted, per the "notability" argument, should be fully deletable per WP:V and WP:NOT. It's just that the argument one uses to apply those policies is worth writing down, and a guideline like WP:N seems like the right place to do it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

So we actually agree on quite a lot: Existing policies and guidelines are suffient to prevent inapropriate articles proliferating. I disagree with you that there is a benefit to forming a kind of 'summary' guideline. Either an article should be deleted because it is not verifiable, or because it violates some part of NOT - I don't see what's wrong with specificying which (or both) it is. The negative consequences of the idea in practice far outweigh any possible convenience factor for me. Trollderella 21:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

What typically happens when an article on a "non-notable" topic comes to AfD seems to me to be this: At first, the article has problems with verifiability. Verifiability is a problem with content, not with the article itself, and verifiability problems are addressed by sourcing any information that can be sourced, and removing everything else. IF, after all unverifiable information is removed, there is not enough left to get us past WP:NOT, then the article should be deleted. The article, as brought to AfD, doesn't violate WP:NOT, but it's in a state where bringing it into compliance with WP:V would cause it to fall afoul of WP:NOT. It's not a situation of violating one policy or the other. The reason to bring the article to AfD is that it's in that particular checkmate between those two policies. That checkmate is what I'm suggesting deserves the name of "non-notable".

As far as the negative consequences of the idea in practice, I'll repeat that I'm not aware anybody's ever tried to fix up this definition and make it something objective, as we're doing now, for the very purpose of combating the abuse about which you're complaining. Why not give us a chance? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the problem is the legion AFD listings of things that are verifiable, and are of interest to a relatively small group of people, but not to a majority of people who hang out on AFD and seem to make it their business to be the arbiters of taste on what topics 'deserve' and article, or are 'worthy' of mention. That's when WP's neutrality policy is becoming eroded by notability. Things that are of interest to the denizens of AFD are preffered over more objective criteria. Trollderella 19:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean by verifiable. Quite a few AfDs have no sources other than the primary source's website - is that verifiable? Some have data only able to verify that the person exists - but that's essentially WP:NOT territory. I'm not sure where you get all the "legions of AfDs that are verifiable but get deleted as nonnotable". Could you name some examples? ColourBurst 20:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that one primary source website would be suspect, it's this kind of thing that I am talking about Alexander Hilton - a well verified article about an election candidate - the case made is that he is 'not notable', but the article is well sourced and verifiable. Trollderella 20:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good example. That article refers to no non-trivial coverage in independent sources that satisfy WP:RS, at least none that I see. One may disagree with WP:BIO and WP:RS, but for contesting WP:N, this makes a poor test case. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The reason listed for deletion is 'fails WP:BIO' - WP:BIO is a self-described "notability criteria guideline", "MER-C" votes "Delete - non-notable failed election candidate.", "Nick Graves" votes : "Delete. No non-trivial coverage in independent sources to establish notability." The rather esoteric use of the word you advocate does not correspond to usage. It's a totally relevant example. Trollderella 23:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You see, when I read those same comments, I saw Nick Graves using unpacked version of the argument, rather than the abbreviation "non-notable", possibly in response to the fact that when he arrived, someone had made a claim of notability, and it made good sense to spell out just what is lacking, rather than repeating "is not" back at you. I see this AfD as an example that people are applying the notability criterion in a way that simply means "we need non-trivial coverage in independent sources, else we say 'non-notable'". That's a good thing, isn't it? It seems a good example of abuse would involve some AfD where there really were non-trivial coverage, and yet people were still claiming non-notability for some other, subjective reason. I'm not seeing that here.

Most importantly, despite this example, I haven't claimed that my definition is the prevailing current usage. I'm suggesting that it be promoted as such. It looks like we're further along than even I had hoped. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

A good thing? I don't think so. What these people are saying is that they are not interested in verifiable (by non-trivial sources) politicians who stand in national elections. I for one, am. We can verify the fact that he stood in a particular race, that he polled 27% of the vote, that he held a council seat, and many other things. If this is all that can be verified (and I am not sure) then he should be merged into a list of Labour politicians. The problem is that he is not being deleted because of any lack of verifiable facts, but because of a lack of interest in that topic. Trollderella 02:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

As I commented in the AfD, I followed all the sources provided in that article, and none are the reliable sources you describe. First, we've got [1] and [2], which are not independent; they're articles by him, hosted at the blogsite he runs. Next, [3] is an internet radio series where he's a panelist. Next, [4] is a directory listing; [5] is a podcast interview. His blog is [6]. Another directory listing at [7], and that seems to be it. Nowhere in there is there some independent entity publishing an article about this guy. I'm sure he's a great guy, but the world hasn't given him the kind of coverage we're looking for, at least, not as far as I can see.

If you're interested in this article being kept, and more importantly, if you're interested in getting people to stop thinking about subjective "notability" and start thinking about sources, then you should argue, in that AfD, specifically which sources provide non-trivial independent information. Then, if anybody says non-notable, you can point at the definition of that word and prove them wrong. Why aren't you doing that? Why did your "keep" !vote contain no reference to sources, but only the bare assertion that he's verifiable? Show the non-trivial coverage in independent sources, and you'll sure as hell win my support for keeping the article. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that there are no reliable sources. The Guardian article is not a 'directory', it is a list of candidates. Likewise the Counsillors UK establishes his role in that respect. The combination of these that show he both was a councillor, and an election candidate, make the article not simply a directory listing. WP:NOT does not prohibit WP from using directories as sources, simply articles that are nothing more than directory entries. Those two things, without anything else, are non-trivial sources that verify his role in UK politics. His role in running significant blogs is something that can be established by those blogs (although little else should be taken from them without other sources). There is plenty for an article, and, if there wasn't, it should be merged and redirected. This is an example of "I'm not interested in it, so it's not notable, so I want it deleted". Anyone who reads the article can see that it is verifiable. But that's not the point for those wanting to delete it. Trollderella 02:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Why aren't you arguing from sources in the AfD? If you want people to focus on sources instead of their subjective ideas of notability, why aren't you focusing them, given this opportunity? Maybe you can make a case that we have an article's worth of verifiable information on this guy. Like I said, I can be persuaded. What we haven't got, which would be great, is an actual article about the guy. Lacking that, we can verifiy a couple of facts about him. (In order to verify that his blog is "significant", we would need something other than his blog saying so. Got anything?) Why isn't your AfD argument source based, pointing out to people what can be verified?

I do not share your belief that people are saying "non-notable" based on lack of personal interest; the evidence does not compel such a conclusion. I see people looking at the provided sources and not seeing much. I read the article, and followed every link, and it wasn't clear to me that the facts in the article were verifiable. It's a borderline case at best. Make an argument from sources at the AfD, or you're promoting a superficial approach to notability just as much as anybody else who uses the word. If you want to get past that talk about verifying facts in sources. That's the only thing that matters; I'm surprised your argument is nothing more than "keep - notable", which to me is as poisonous as "delete - non-notable". You didn't even suggest merging and redirecting; you just said "keep - notable". Like it or not, that's not a recipe for convincing anybody of anything. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I see that you've gone back and made more specific arguments. I'm interested to see how people respond. Cases like this are great opportunities for encouraging people to think of "notability" only in terms of sourcing, which is what I think we all want. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

There are clearly enough credible sources there to write at least a short article. The only reason anyone would make to delete it is based on 'I am not interested in it'. Trollderella 05:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No, there are other reasons. The one that occurs to me first is that people see the available sources, consider them trivial, and understand that to mean that we shouldn't have an article. Clearly it comes down to a definition of "trivial" and it's neither clear nor obvious that everyone shares the same definition. The next step is to talk about what it means for information from a source to be "trivial". I really see no need to jump to conclusions about anyone's motivations. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious to me that the Guardian and the national govt website on councils are not trivial. Trollderella 20:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. It seems "pretty obvious" to others that they are trivial. To be more precise, nobody's claiming that The Guardian itself is trivial, but that its coverage of Mr. Hilton is. For readers unfamiliar with the details, this is the coverage we're talking about. You know, WP:BIO says that politicians need to have significant press coverage to be considered "notable" enough. Perhaps you should be objecting there, if that criterion bothers you. As has been pointed out on this talk page repeatedly, this page in no way supersedes or obviates the specific criteria such as WP:BIO. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you can forgive my confusion, given that they both call themselves notability guidelines. Trollderella 00:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Notability as a reason for inclusion

This is one thing that seems to be ignored in some of the above discussion about notability being equivalent to verifiability and which is not currently included in the main page but which was previously discussed in this talk page. Whereas verifiability as a fundamental principle requires that we must be able to verify an article, it does not require that an article must indeed be verified, with explicit references or citations to high-quality published sources. We can, however, verify that the subject is likely to be the subject of multiple non-trivial published sources independent of the subject, based on few or unreliable sources, such as those found on websites, despite there not currently being such sources referenced in the article. If we were only to base inclusion on whether the standard of highly reliable sources were currently and explicitly met, many articles would be deleted that warrant inclusion and which can in the future be brought up to high standards. That no one steps up to document these excellent multiple sources in a 5-day AfD is not a reason to delete an article, and this is implicitly understood in deletion discussions related to notability. So, what sort of wording could be added to the page to make this less subjective? We could make reasons for inclusion be "likely to have multiple independent non-trivial sources"—it is not so bad that there be some subjectivity in deciding to include an article on the provision that reliable sources eventually be added. However, for example, an article related to a website, pop culture, current events, or some other subject which would have reliable sources online should not be kept so subjectively (or based on fans saying "I think it is likely there are sources") if there are not sources to be found easily, whereas for example an article on a historical subject for which we can find rather unreliable mentions on personal websites, but which would need books to be found at a major library in order to have reliable sources, should be kept. —Centrx→talk • 23:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:V is not about the hypothetical "ability" for an article to be sourced at some unspecified time in the future. Verifiability is about a readers ability to verify the info in the article - meaning that it has been sourced so that people can scrounge those sources for verification of information. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, and neither is verifiability. Fresheneesz 09:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Between Google's stable of sources (Google Books, Google Scholar, Google News) and offline sources, if nothing can be found, I think that's the best reason to delete an article. Quite frankly, lack of sourcing is the single biggest problem in Wikipedia today, and notability should not be used as a grounds for keeping an article despite a lack of verification. People certainly can use their discretion where information is likely to be true (hence the {{fact}} tags), and the process of nominating any article should begin by checking to make sure there are no good sources available that have been overlooked, but yes, no sources = a clear delete, regardless of notability. Ziggurat 01:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this is often how notability is used in AfDs at the moment - as a measure of the likelihood of finding sources. And in many cases that's all you can do; you can't conclusively say there aren't any sources, merely that you haven't found them. So any unsourced article could be brought to AfD, and if not sourced during that time, could be deleted. It can be recreated later if/when sources have been found. I don't think you can judge articles on being "likely to have sources" because it would be so subjective. Although I agree that a failure to find sources online for a "modern" article is more damning than for a historical one.

Ziggurat, I would say "no sources = a clear delete" because of notability (i.e. the measure of an article being notable is that it has sources). Trebor 01:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Notability = enough non-trivial information in sources to write an article from. Thus, no sources is BY THE DEFINITION OF NOTABILITY, non-notable. A subject without any sources cannot be notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jayron32 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Please read the comment again. There are reliable sources for such a subject, and some sources can be found online, but the sources that can be found online are alternatively unreliable, trivial, or few. If several Google books have passing mention that a person was the king of Sumer, there are certainly multiple non-trivial sources on that subject, but they may not necessarily be found online. If we find only a single book on Google for a subject that otherwise has indications of notability, there would be multiple sources but they cannot be found online. If we find several personal websites by amateur historians, these sources are not especially reliable but there nevertheless are likely to be multiple non-trivial sources to be had. —Centrx→talk • 05:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Then they should be found and cited. I don't have a bias for online sources, although they do make things easier. But sources of some kind still need to be cited; the belief that such offline sources exist isn't enough, and an article that relies only on this belief should be deleted. Ziggurat 07:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources are already cited in the article, but not multiple non-trivial highly reliable sources. —Centrx→talk • 07:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

There are venues to correct this. Deletion review is one of them. A deleted article still exists forever, it is just unreadable by non-admins. A deleted article can be restored via deletion review, and unlike AfD there is no time-limit on debate or statute of limitations on an article. Theoretically, an article could be restored even years later if reliable sources are eventually produced. Also, there is no rules against recreating an article with the same name, if the new article is substantially better than the deleted article. If sources are found and an new article written from those sources, the new article should be kept, even if those sources only exist in print. There is no requirement that reliable sources exist online. If you find a reliable print source to write an article from by all means do so. If we take as an arguement "I know the article has no sources now, but someday someone might be able to find something" then we can delete nothing, as this arguement can be applied to any debate. If, during the 5 days of the AfD, you find print sources, provide them so that others may see that they exist. If after the AfD the sources are found, bring the issue to DRV and provide the sources. The potential of existance of something is too tenuous or too subjective. Either the evidence has been provided, or it hasn't. We should not base our decisions to delete an article based merely on the potential that sources might exist. --Jayron32 06:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, what is more common is that an article is created on top of the deleted one unknowingly by another user—it is a legitimate encyclopedic topic. Being a new article created fresh, it is then inferior to the previous article and is duplicated effort that could have been spent improving the previous article. More work is done on it, then 6 months later someone notices that there was an older deleted article—even users that know about the deletion log do not check it for every article—and there has been substantial redundant work done during that time, and then more work to merge them. Then someone thinks it should be deleted for not having highly reliable sources, the cycle repeats with steps backward and forward, and then eventually someone with book in hand comes by and creates a new article. In all this, there is a tremendous amount of redundant work, there is no doubt throughout that the topic warrants inclusion in an encyclopedia, and the deletion process actually serves to leave a weaker article on the encyclopedia than the one deleted. The issue is this: Articles which do not have multiple non-trivial highly reliable sources do not belong in the encyclopedia, but there are very few articles that meet this standard, and the only way to improve them is to keep them on. The use of notability in the deletion process takes this into account, but this guideline does not document it. —Centrx→talk • 07:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• what sort of wording could be added to the page to make this less subjective? — You haven't actually explained what is subjective in the first place about being unable to find sources. Your argument as a whole appears to be based upon the misconception that a subject should be judged at AFD solely by the sources already cited in the article. Nowhere does the page say that, and with good reason. Neither notability or verifiability are, or should be, judged solely by the citations in the article. One of the very purposes of having multiple editors involved in a deletion discussion process is that multiple people will attempt to research the subject, thereby ensuring that there is the best reasonable chance that if sources exist they will be found. (Conversely, copious citations, of non-trivial published works from independent sources, in the article itself are the best argument that a subject is notable.) If multiple editors perform such searches and fail, then the criteria have not been satisfied. We can only base our decisions upon what editors, after reasonable searches, do find, not what they might find but in fact have not.

  Yes, it is thus incumbent upon all AFD participants to do the research. Those that don't are not helping Wikipedia. The cases where AFD goes wrong are where no editors bother to do the research. The definition of notability given here is not the problem, and arguing against it is not the solution. Indeed, it is the lack of application of this definition of notability that is the problem, and the solution is to persuade editors to apply it; which involves performing reasonable research to check that no non-trivial published works from independent sources exist when asserting that something is not notable, and citing such published works when asserting that it is notable.

  If you want to add some wording to the page, "Do the research!" is an idea to consider. ☺ Uncle G 09:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Supposing, for the moment, that someone will always be willing to do the research on AfD, and that all the reliable sources in the world are on Google Books, notability as a concept is for more than deletion discussions. Is an individual editor deciding whether to nominate an article for deletion on the basis of the sources currently present in an article, or on the basis of doing an exhaustive search for every single article? Or is he instead deciding based on other criteria—of which there is evidence in the subguidelines—that we know a person has reliable sources because he has done a major thing, regardless of whether those sources are in the article or whether the editor in question cares to find all the reliable ones? We can find sources, just not several major sources of the highest caliber; we know it is not a hoax, and the article can and will be substantiated (and if deleted, someone will re-create it—and not as vanity, fancruft, or spam).

Back to the other point, take for example Aelle of Sussex. The article is tagged at the top as requiring sources, though there are a few links within to mostly random websites. Yet, this is an Anglo-Saxon king, this person was recorded by the Venerable Bede and in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, and Britannica has an article on this person. There are several trivial mentions on Google Books and Google Scholars, and there are a few hundred rather unreliable websites too. I cannot, however, find multiple reliable published works that cover this subject non-trivially, but Britannica certainly found enough information and considers it sufficiently worthy to make an article. If I were to nominate this article for deletion, it would be unanimously kept—and its possible no one would bother to fix up the article right this minute. Perhaps this is a problem with the meaning of "trivial", or the meaning in relation to reliability. There are several books on Google that have a half page that mentions this person, though there may be entire chapters on it somewhere else. If we were to make a half page the standard, though, we would be including all manner of modern-day subjects in the millions of junk books now published. Aelle only gets half a page because there is not much known of him due to the mists of time; if more were known he would be the subject of entire books. With other topics, half a page in a couple of books means not notable. So, a binary notability is inadequate here. Maybe trivial needs to be defined better, or triviality and multiplicity need to be defined in terms of the reliability of the source (a single paragraph in Carlyle is worth more than a boatload of magazine features), or there should be a well-defined allowance for anything that is traditionally important, but triviality is dependent on the historical importance of the subject and the nature of the source. Triviality is, to some extent, a notability wrapped within a notability. —Centrx→talk • 10:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. If editors have a strong suspicion that sources do exist but can't be found "immediately" (i.e. online), then there may be a consensus to keep, despite not having found them. It may be possible to create additional guidelines on triviality, but it would be something that varies so much between article and publications that it would be very hard. It might be easier just to decide on a case-by-case basis - editors using their best judgement as to whether sources exist. Out of interest, do we know how Britannica decides on whether to include something? Trebor 14:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I am uncertain as to what the objection to this article is. Bede is old, but not trivial. Though we may debate his "reliability", the fact that the king makes citation in the Anglo Saxon Chronicle, one of the most analyzed books in the history of the English Language, makes him quite notable. Britannica is quite reliable, and thus a valid source as well. If Britannica editors cared enough to write an article, than notability has MORE than been established. While triviality is something that must be handled on a case-by-case basis, the concept itself is central to the "encyclopedic nature" of a subject. Again, it is vital that "non-trivial" be a criteria for notability, but it should be open for discussion what "non-trivial" means, and that discussion should occur during each AfD or DRV as it applies to each article. --Jayron32 04:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Mising Link

Here's Washington Post article on this policy: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/02/AR2006120201111.html My take is that deleting an article is considerably more easy than writing one, so scales should be tipped in favor of keeping somehow. See also the tidbit on surreality of deletion debate: "There's this debate going on about me, but Wikipedia seems to dislike self-promotion, so saying anything on my own behalf would probably undermine my cause. It's like I'm on trial and I can't testify.". Valters 11:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• That's an interesting story and a reflection on the confused state of notability at the moment (and also some people's belief that Wikipedia's not paper means that anything and everything should be included). But I think that the notability guideline, at the moment, has the scales tipped as far as possible in favour of keeping. If there aren't independent sources, the article just can't exist because there's nothing in there that couldn't be challenged and removed. As to conflict of interest issues, there's nothing wrong with arguing to keep using wiki policy (there's nothing to stop you doing it anonymously anyway), it's merely a reflection that you might not be able to be objective about hte issue. Trebor 14:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I can not agree with the "favor in keeping" argument you mentioned - it seems that currently "notability" burden of proof lies on the article, not on person wishing to delete it. And secondly, for some reason, it seems that folks have very itchy delete finger lately (or speedy delete finger!). Note that formal voting process is not used when somebody decides to blank a section out of article, citing his opinion of non-notability. Destroying is easier than creating. Valters 21:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The burden of proof must lie with the article (and its editors) - there's no way one can conclusively prove there are no sources, so nothing could be deleted. Any unverified statement can be challenged and removed; by extension, any wholly unverified article can be deleted. This may remove some correct information, but that's better than having an encyclopaedia flooded with incorrect data. Blanking sections of an article is a different matter (more to do with undue weight than notability) and should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Trebor 21:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• It's not actually about this project page at all. It's about deletion discussions at AFD, where the scales have always been tipped in favour of keeping. Would that the reporter had known enough to get xyr facts straight! Xe stated that it is only administrators who participate in the process. As the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion clearly says, twice, anyone is welcome to participate if they can make a good argument that is based upon our policies and guidelines. Similarly, would that the reporter had known enough to tell xyr readers how to make arguments about xyrselves! The best way to demonstrate that something is notable is to cite sources to demonstrate that the relevant notability criteria (which for the several subjects mentioned in the article are WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC) are satisfied. Uncle G 14:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• As someone has said elsewhere, the article reeks of bad fact checking. "Wikipedia jettisons more than 100 entries every day", more like 1000+. "There are just over 1,000 administrators at any one time". These are just a couple of the cold hard facts they should have gotten right, and then there are the sensationalist implications. —Centrx→talk • 21:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Entries on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/Today page are numbered. On December 3 there were around 94 articles up for deletion and on December 2 - around 117, but I am not sure how many were voted to destroy in the end. Valters 21:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Some of the problems with WP:N

I'm not going to try to respond to every single pro and con point raised above, just ask some questions and point some things out:

Objective 'cause it says so

1. WP:N detractors say [and provide reasoning or examples to demonstrate — SMcCandlish, 11:00, 7 Dec 2006] that WP:N is subjective; supporters simply retort that it isn't and that it can't be because it says it isn't. That's faulty logic. Most people accused of crimes maintain their innocence, but that doesn't mean some of them aren't lying. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not think it is as subjective as you think because in my view, it does not look subjective. Your view may differ. If you consider it too subjective, why not modify the page?74.38.35.238 04:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

?!? Um, do you have a response that isn't a tautology? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This was not meant to be an argument (not the "tautological" part, anyway), but rather a statement of my position -- namely that I do not see it as subjective, or at least not as subjective as you want to think: you seem to think that the definition on the page (what _exactly_ are you talking about? The PNC? The thing at the top? A combination of things?) is totally subjective. If it was that subjective we could distort it to say "X is notable 'cuz Zebbeledon Zipzod, my #1 source of info, says so!" But I cannot see how such a distortion could possibly be made in any reasonable way, and thus I do not concieve of it as being THAT subjective! It might deserve some more clarification made, but it's far from totally subjective, and especially being worthless. It's not perfect, I'll concede that, and work does need to be done, but it's not worthess, totally biased "tar" as you called it. 74.38.34.192 03:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I've already addressed, in detail, below (#Two-fold subjectivity) and elsewhere what is subjective about WP:N, so I'm not going to reiterate it here. Please actually read the posts here. I've never said that all of WP:N is "totally" subjective; I've even praised parts of it. If it can't be applied objectively then it is worthless, as a guideline on how to write articles or which articles should be written, which seems to be what WP:N purports to be; I would say that in that sense it is actually worse than useless. It may well have use as an essay or something, but it's not Guideline material at this stage. Again, that doesn't mean I think WP:N should be labelled Rejected or otherwise burned down, I simply think it needs to be seriously re-thought, not just in its wording here or there but from the ground up. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I posted some responses there (which I'm awaiting an answer on from you), and am going to concentrate my discussion there as I am getting lost in this vast maze of posts, topics, etc., especially since the objectivity seems to be the really big issue. 74.38.34.192 19:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

PS: As to why I don't just go edit it: a) because I think that edits to something of this level of dispute should be hashed out in Talk before they are made (the reason that I posted this "Some of the problems with WP:N" in the first place; the discussion has been getting way too personal and tooth-gnashy and unproductive), or they typically just lead to more arguments, editwarring, etc., and b) I don't believe in this Proposal in the first place, and I don't just mean its present particular wording, but its entire raison d'etre so I have no interest in twiddling with it. If in a month or a week or a year I come look here and see that the disputes are resolved and there's actually a proposal in place that makes sense, I'd be happy to contribute to it. Here's an analogy: I recently quit an eight-ball team, and went and joined another one, because the original team were hopelessly in-fighting and unable to get over their personal differences, ineffective as a team (for either internal or external purposes) and unwilling to learn or progress. I'm a lot happier now. Actually that was a direct and total allegory not just an analogy. Hint hint. But I am putting my money where my mouth is. My intent here is to engender reconsideration of this entire proposal, in favor of a much more collective-wisdom guideline (drawing on the previous 5+ [non-]notability proposals and the discussions of them, and just as importantly on current practice (the creation of topical notability criteria, their consensus adoption, and their importation into Policy in WP:DEL). In my view, the appropriate function of a WP:N Guideline is to explain how notability works, from an objective (as possible) viewpoint, as a guideline on the applicability of extant Policy to various situations instead of as a conflict with at least two Policies that is trying to masquerade as a new wanna-be Policy. I have opened this discussion more than once here (earlier only to have it shunted off onto an Archive page while the discussion was still ongoing; if that wasn't bad faith it was definitely a bad move.) So, I re-open it again. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

So then why not just completely rewrite this whole thing? You seem to suggest that a WP:N page should exist (see "In my view, the appropriate function of a WP:N Guideline..." which suggests that you believe such a guideline should exist), but if this is not it, why not draft a full rewrite the way you see it as working. 74.38.34.192 03:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Basically (to answer "why not just rewrite"), because this article is WP:OWNed and no edit I make is accepted, even when it isn't changing the core text of the article. I shudder to imagine the edit-war that would result if I were actually to attempt to change the article in any central way. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

So why not then make your own proposal like others have, even if not forcing a rewrite right here, but writing it in a separate article, or in your user space, then people can discuss that? Maybe you should give that a try, eh? You seem to have some sort of idea, so why not put it out here in full for everyone to see? 74.38.34.192 19:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Because there've already been too many notability and notability-based proposals. As for the later question, I *am* putting my ideas out there, here on this talk page and in its archives. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

That argument cuts both ways. Detractors of notability say it's subjective because they say so. If there is unclarity about what a term means, a good response is to write a page that defines it. (Radiant) 17:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have misread what I said. I didn't say "pro-WP:N-objectivity viewpoints are tautological", I said that the claim that WP:N is objective because it says it is, is circular reasoning. I.e., you are not addressing the argument I actually presented; you've missed an entire layer of the logic here. Another way of looking at it is argument to authority, where the authority being cited as proof that WP:N isn't subjective is WP:N itself, which is by definition not authoritative on the subject since it the debated point in the first place (i.e. it's like saying "Mel Gibson harbors no anti-semitic sentiments, no matter what concerns or evidence are raised, because Mel Gibson says he doesn't, and that's proof"). As for the entirely separate issue of whether the pro-WP:N-objectivity arguments so far are tautological, they do in fact appear to be so, or at very best unsupported. WP:N-subjectivity arguments I've presented have laid out specifics about why this proposal is subjective, and others have raised similar concerns; we're not just saying so, we're showing so. The opposite is not true; WP:N proponents have not demonstrated objectivity, only asserted it without evidenciarily or logically defending the assertion, sometimes attempting and failing to defend it with the "objective 'cause it says so" tautology, and all without substantively addressing the subjectivity counter-argument — as usual around here). And, no, a good way to fix vague or subjective language in a proposal is not to write a yet another proposal inventing a newly-constructed definition for the disputed term, that no one is ever likely to get on board with; a good way to fix it is to replace it with something less vague or subjective. The "additional essay" idea is just a waste of time - both would have to be approved as Guidelines simultaneously, or the explanatory proposal before the one it explains, in order for the latter to ever make sense as a Guideline. <fzzt spark pop> Does not compute...Does not compute! <BANG> NB: I do think it is good and important that WP:N dissuade subjective interpretations, mind you; but doing so does not make it an objective standard if the subjectivity lies in its wording or regular application. It's not "there" yet.— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

So then what do you propose for a change to the wording? Remember, the application derives from the wording. Put these ideas to paper, not leave them in your head. You don't need a full essay, you just need to describe the change to the wording that you believe should be made. 74.38.34.192 19:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I've already made them all quite plain, I think, and I'm satisfied that the discussion is progressing in a more constructive manner on all sides. I may or may not participate in crafting the exact wording of the projectpage directly. I've leery of doing so, frankly, for reasons (internal and external) that I've already raised, but we'll see. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

My conclusion: I've seen some acknowlegment of the concern I raised with this topic, and willingness to see the issue resolved. Yay! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Two-fold subjectivity

2. The subjectivity is two-fold:

  A. WP:N itself defines itself in terms of "triviality", which is simply another way of saying "interesting enough", which I believe everyone here, on both sides, has agreed is a subjective viewpoint. This subjectivity problem is continued with follow-up terms like "depth", "mere", "directly", "trivially", "superficial", "tangentially", etc., none of which are defined in any objective way and all of which are generally used in a subjective manner in English; it seems questionable to some of us whether many of them even can be definined or used objectively, due to their very nature. The second paragraph of the "Notability is not subjective" section doesn't do anything to solve this problem. The text in it is self-evidently incorrect about what this "Guideline" actually says. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

How about if we defined, say, "non-trivial" to mean something like "an article devoted to, or other detailed discourse on the subject" (ie. more than a passing reference). What would the community think of this? 74.38.35.238 04:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

How is that any less subjective? What does "passing" mean? How do you define "detailed"? What is "devotion" in this context? The worm can is just spilling even more. In theory I think that precise definitions could help, but in practice I'm skeptical they are feasible. There's another problem there that I won't get into just yet, because I can't remember the WP: shortcut to it right off hand. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

So then what exactly do you propose, anyway? PS. More "detailed" would be like at least one full, proper article on the subject: a journalistic/magazine/etc.-like article or report. 74.38.34.192 04:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If that's your definition of what "detailed" enough is to qualify as evidence of notability, then I'd have to oppose that definition. Vehemently. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

So what's your definition of what "detailed" enough means? At least a half-dozen such articles in the source? An article that occupies at least 5 full pages? If you posted it here, I didn't see it, what with this big ocean of posts :) 70.101.145.209 08:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm still open-minded on that topic. I think the present draft of the guideline is too stringent in its wording; it seems to suggest that if a book is written about Joe Bloggs, and a whole chapter of that book is about Joe's band, then the book does not count as a source for WP:N purposes because the entire book was about Joe, not the band. Anyway, the gist of my point is that I don't feel that an article or whatever needs to centrally be "about" the topic at hand for that source to be non-trivial in relation to the topic. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Another point! On all the agreed-upon notability guidelines (ie. not WP:N proper), that same criterion of "multiple, independent, non-trivial sources" appears, so I guess that all those are "totally subjective, biased tar" as well even though they seem far more stable than WP:N. 74.38.34.192 04:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it was established that this isn't actually the case; not all of the subject-specific notability criteria actually use UncleG's PNC. I think they should mind you (or should all at least use some consistent standard), and now that I no longer feel WP:N need go away, I think WP:N is the place to establish that. As for your quoting of me back at myself, you're mischaracterizing my argument, which has been that the the topical notability guidelines at WP:N (despite their lack of total consistency) are valid because Policy says they are. The tarbaby here consists of the objectivity faults in the present WP:N wording. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I misunderstood your argument -- it's just that I thought you were referring to notability as a concept, however now it seems you were really referring to WP:N, which is not the same thing as the concept itself. 70.101.145.209 08:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I should have been clearer. To be clearer still, it should be understood that up until early this week I was making almost entirely procedural arguments ("WP:N is bad because it conflicts with policy at WP:DEL"), but I'm now making completely different arguments, in the topics below dating to this week and onward, from a functional perspective instead ("WP:N has a lot of potential to improve understanding of policy and maybe to even change policy so that notability is handled consistently.") I haven't simply reversed my opinion of WP:N (I think it still has problems, in fact), but rather am approaching it from a totally different perspective and rationale, and am willing to turn a critical eye at WP:DEL's NN material when earlier I was not. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  B. WP:N's wording asside, the actual application of it is subjective. The effect has been to provide a "Delete: Non-notable" shorthand for those who used to write "Delete: I've never heard of this" or "Delete: This isn't interesting enough". The actual meaning of these "votes", which do seem to be being treated more and more as votes, hasn't changed any, they've simply been leant an air of non-bogusness. It is instructive to re-read Wikipedia:Notability/Arguments#There is a lack of objective criteria. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

However, this again comes down to the community. This seems to reflect the overall attitude of the community (otherwise it wouldn't continue -- practice here ideally reflects the opinion of every Wikipedia editor), and how exactly would you propose to change that? 74.38.35.238 04:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Chanting "community" as a mantra does not a logical argument make. To get to the substance of the matter, the fact that a lot of people do it doesn't make it right. We have (non-controversial) Guidelines and Policies warning against all kinds of behaviors, activities and thought-patterns around here for the precise reason that many wikipedians make incorrect assumptions and act accordingly. They do treat AfD like a ballot. They do think that Policy is made and changed only by Being Bold and getting enough loudmouths to argue in their favor for a week so that to an incoming observer to the discussion it may look like they have consensus. They do get into edit wars. They do bite the newbies. The overall attitude of "the community" at this very point in time does pretty much seem to amount to an AfD free-for-all of merciless deletion, much of it based on questionable "me too" notability "votes". The mood is sour. This often happens to a community, of any kind, when it is under stress (and WP is under stress, especially from vandals, spammers and WP:NPOV-violating autobiographers, in record numbers). This does not mean that this panicky, knee-jerk response is the most beneficial one. But this is a moot point. Policy is very clear on the fact that AfD is not a vote, and that articles are not to be deleted for reasons that are not genuinely actionable. "This isn't an interesting topic" is not an actionable criterion, but that's precisely what most of the NN !votes in AfD are really saying; very, very few of them can cite convincingly any reason mentioned in the notability criteria recognized by Policy at WP:DEL. Ironically, they don't even have to. Most of the articles that are deleted under NN that should be deleted are deletable for violation of the Three Pillars (often all three at once) or some other Policy. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so what you are saying is that a majority does not equal even rough consensus? I guess this is so, maybe I'm still too hung up on a vote as the fairest way to make a decision when obviously this is not true. I recently told somebody on an AFD discussion who was using notability that it was too disputed to "test the water", so to speak, but I can't seem to find it anymore :( 74.38.34.192 04:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Right; It IS so, according to the policy you cite, and several policies, guidelines and well-accepted essays on the topic. Being outvoted by a sheer headcount does not mean that your opponents' views have achieved consensus. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

A lot of people misuse the word "vandalism" here, too. That's not a reason to drop our vandalism policy, and people misusing the term "non-notable" isn't a reason to trash the notability guideline; it's a reason to correct those people. Have you tried pointing out to them that there's a definition they're disregarding? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of "vandalism" being misused as a term. As a metaphor it works very well, and "BIG PENIISSS!!!!" edits are reverted and labelled vandalism every minute of every day. I can't think of a single instance of any article that I edit regularly enough to pay attention to its history page of a legit edit being reverted as vandalism. The few cases I've heard of have been dealt with swiftly by the community and in some cases administrative action. Non-problem. That is, I deny the validity of your analogy (admittedly on the basis that it doesn't fit my sense of wikireality; perhaps you can convince me that I'm somehow blindly lucky and simply not editing where bogus "vandalism"-revert editwarring is happening or whatever.) Moving on, and excising the analogy, the fact that people are broadly misinterpreting notability (and, ahem, notably much more so since WP:N was questionably promoted in an edit war to the disputed status of Guideline) is a very clear indication that something is deeply wrong with WP:N. As suggested above, I believe this is because there have been at least 5 other notability proposals, ALL of which were more moderate and thus just on a statistical basis alone probably closer represented actual consensus on the issue. As suggested above, I think there could be a place for a document known as Wikipedia:Notability but I think it would better serve us all as a guideline for editors of topical notability criteria on how to do a good job of that, and a general overview of the concept of notability, instead of a new Wikipedia-wide Notability Criterion. Lastly, no I have not pointed out to anyone that there's a definition in this document that they're disregarding, because this document is problematic mishmash of WP:OWN'ed personal stuff, actual practice already covered elsewhere, self-contradiction, vagueness and overbreadth. Instead, I point out that there are REAL, policy-sanctioned notability criteria for many topics in WP:DEL, that where there is not a topical notability criterion recognzied by WP:DEL as valid there remain WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:NFT, etc., etc., etc., and that WP:N is disputed and should not be relied upon. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't see evidence of the word "vandalism" being abused? I deal with that almost every day. Someone calls an edit they disagree with "vandalistic" or something and runs to an admin for help because they don't know how to handle a content dispute. I or someone has to explain to the person that it's not vandalism if the person thinks they're doing the right thing, and that calling it "vandalism" tends to escalate the dispute, etc. Ask any admin whether the dreaded "v-word" gets abused constantly.

I didn't say I don't believe it happens. I tried to indicate that I do not think abuse of the term "vandalism" is a major wikipedia problem. That is, I'm sure the lack of Wikipedian education on the WP definition of this term is a headache for admins, but they can always help improve editor education on the topic, or quit being admins. As an editor not an admin, misinterpretation of the meaning of "vandalism" here is simply a non-issue in my experience. Different topic entirely: As for your side issue, that the term "vandalism" escalates disputes, I agree. I think both WP:NFT and WP:VANDAL need a total rewrite with WP:NPOV and WP:BITE in mind. The "WP:NUKE" shortcut got, ahem, nuked on precisely these grounds, and I've seen several other examples take place over the last few months. Just using the term "vandal" is probably irritating enough to good faith but clueless editors, experimenters who don't understand where the sandbox is (it happens - someone even used the Sandbox (software development) article the other day as the sandbox; pretty funny really), and little school-kid genuine vandals who are having a prank and not really intending harm, per se, that it just makes them want to vandalize again. If you call someone an asshole they tend to act like one in response, as it were. Pretty lame situation for WP. One of the other cases I mentioned that I can think of was a "this page is frequently vandalized and if you'd like to help, Watch the page" kind of page heading template that was MfD'd because it would probably only result in increased vandalism, like a "vandalize here!" beacon. I forget what the others were, but the gist was that there's too much stuff in policyspace that conflicts with WP:BITE, WP:AGF, WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, etc. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

As for why you're so committed to opposing this page tooth and nail rather than improving it, I don't know what's going on there. Perhaps you don't realize that, practically speaking, you're just about infinitely less likely to get it deleted than to help us improve it, however many times that might make you say "grrr". Maybe you just get a kick out of being "against" things, I dunno.

The funny thing is, you and I seem to want the same thing. We both want people to stop thinking in terms of subjective "significance" in deletion discussions. We both want people to argue from sources. I'm just suggesting that we redefine notability in a way that makes it nothing more than the good old source-based argument, while you want them to drop the concept entirely. Which is easier to do - change the definition of a word into something harmless, or get people to drop the word entirely? I teach for a living, and I have an idea. -GTBacchus^(talk)

Oh, I never had any illusions that WP:N would be MfD'd! I believe I agree with these goals, and I think there are enough participants at this point, from multiple wikipolitical stances, that someting useful can come of this, which is why my stance is much moderated over the last couple of days. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

There also appears to be a long-standing lack of consensus even among notability supporters about what notability means and what subjective means in relation to it: Wikipedia:Notability/Arguments#Notability is not necessarily subjective, and then see the similarly named but totally different entry immediately above that. At least those with concerns about WP:N are consistent on this topic. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a more objective definition is under development. The work of development involves a lot of ideas getting thrown around, some of which may contradict each other. That's a sign that thinking is going on. Those who say the sky is falling are remarkably consistent, too. It's easy to be consistent with negativity; being constructive requires creativity, which surges in many directions at once. You're being a part of it despite yourself, SMcCandlish, by serving as a foil for ideas that are being considered. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. Being the foil, especially early on, was a large part of my purpose here, and a major part of why I've not made substantive edits to the main projectpage text — prevented me from being accused of doggedly defending my preferred term, sentence, etc., in the guideline content and clouding the meta-points in the debate with "noise" about this text twiddle or that. (I actually was the subject of some akin accusations, I note, with regard to even the non-content edits I made. I think my tactic was justifiable.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

In that case, the disputed tag on the page should replace instead of modify the guideline tag. I wasn't going to go that far, but if one of WP:N's two most vociferous defenders is saying that the text, live and on-the-fly, is experimental rather than believed to be reflecting consensuses arrived at on the talk page, I believe such a change is entirely justified. That said, I agree and even applaud that actual consideration of various views is (finally!) happening. And yes, I realize I'm being a foil for this; I do not wish to directly edit this document other than maybe to fix typos or (way, way earlier) provide links to failed proposals on the topic, because I don't want to lend WP:N my support, at least until such time I think it is something worth my support. But I'm very happy to engage in talk page debate that may bring it within the realm of possibility of said worthiness. If I were totally hopeless about this topic, I'd just go do something else! I've spent more energy and time in here than I have on my favorite articles in the last month. I think that is a sign of good faith, hope and a desire to see a consensus actually develop. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

In that case, it's a pleasure working with you. I'm entirely confident we'll get this sorted out in a way that's good for Wikipedia. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm finally feeling that way too. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, not everything has to be strictly defined here. For instance, "vandalism" and "featured article" are not strictly, objectively, or legalistically defined either, but the community has no problem at all working with them. (Radiant) 17:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

That's wierd... I KNOW I replied to this, but my reply's not here. <pop sizzle spark> Cannot compute how that happened. To reply again: In what way do you find WP:VANDAL subjective? How an article gets to be featured is necessarily subjective, in that it's a consensus decision — a popularity contest, basically — about what articles would be best for the front page; it's subjective by definition, and isn't related in any way to the decision-making processes about what is or isn't of encyclopedic value; so I'm not sure what the pont of that example was. Seems rather apples and oranges on that one. And many of the criteria for getting even considered for FA status are not subjective at all. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

That may've sounded self-contradictory. To rephrase: FA is subjective by its very nature, but to the extent that some of it can be objective, it is remarkably objective (and didn't have to be so), suggesting that objectivity is greatly valued on Wikipedia (an idea strongly bolstered by the very existence of WP:NPOV, WP:COI, and WP:AUTO, among others.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

My conclusion: I see rather limited acknowlegment of the concerns I raised with this topic, and willingness on the part of one to see the issue resolved. Clap-clap. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction on self-definition

3. WP:N contradicts itself (and uses bad grammar, incidentally). It defines itself in the first paragraph, then redefines itself under Primary Criterion [sic] with a tripartite definition that subsumes but goes far beyond the original definition with two additional criteria. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

What if we were to reword it a bit, perhaps maybe change the intro and shrink it down to a single def on this page? 74.38.35.238 04:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think it would be a good start. The main point was that you can't say at the top "notability means X" and then later say "No, actually notability really means X+Y+Z" and expect anyone to understand. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Lots of pages on Wikipedia have bad grammar. Just like we don't delete articles for their grammar, we don't oppose policy/guidelines for their grammar. {{sofixit}}. (Radiant) 17:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Who said anything about deleting WP:N based on a grammar quibble? I just pointed it out so it can get fixed. I didn't call for deletion of WP:N in the first place, have opposed the suggestion. <fizzle spark> Doesn't address the actual point: WP:N is self-contradictory, which is a problem.

My conclusion: I've seen acknowlegment of the concern I raised with this topic, and willingness to see the issue resolved, on the part of a single editor, who says he's leaving WP anyway. I consider this point, therefore, unanswered and unaddressed. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Consensus conflict with existing guidelines

4. WP:N evidences lack of consensus even on the part of notability guidelines' authors: "One notability criterion shared by nearly all of the [topical notability] guidelines [in the list on the right]"... [emphasis added] If some of them don't use this criterion, then consensus on the issue has not (yet?) been reached. Which by the way is one example of how WP:N would supercede longer-standing and noncontroversial Guidelines, several of which have the force of Policy now because they have been imported by specific reference into WP:DEL. I.e., WP:N is over-broad, and in conflict with both Policy and other Guidelines. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It does not have to supercede them -- rather it is providing an addendum to those guidelines that do not have it (Are there any? I looked through all the accepted-as-guideline Notability pages and found that same PNC in all of them.), not tossing out every other criterion. Perhaps the term, "primary criterion" is somewhat misleading, though. 74.38.35.238 04:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

If WP:N adds a requirement/criterion that some WP:DEL-sanctioned notability criteria do not have - if it makes "passing" the "notability test" any harder for any articles - then, yes, it IS attempting to supercede Policy. I've already addressed this previously, with regard to WP:N "just adding to or strengthening" WP:V. It's an out-of-bounds endeavor. If WP:V or WP:DEL are deficient in some way, they should be modified via WP:HCP. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

What if it defines a "notability test"? It can't make that any "harder" until such a test is defined. I do not see how Policy explicitly defines something called "notability", so there's nothing to override! WP:N does not "add to" WP:V, it provides a new criterion all it's own. Notice there's more notability rules than just WP:N, by the way, so "notability" is obviously something else than "verifiability", even if it's designed to ensure it to something. 74.38.34.192 19:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Your defining idea is kind of what I've been getting at when I've said elsewhere that WP:N should offer guidance on how to properly construct notability criteria (I remain unconvinced of the "safety net" argument others have made for WP:N as an actional deletion criterion in and of itself; while I agree that we can't write a tailored subject-specific notability criterion for every conceivable topic, at least not in our lifetimes, I think that BIG-topic subject-specific notability criteria could in fact cover everything, and as the need arises, be narrowed (e.g. the "books" notability guidelines could be adapted into a more general "publications" one, and if enough people thought they were too vague or overbroad for a particlar application, such as magazines or e-books or porno videos or whatever, they could write a narrowing one to cover that smaller topic more specifically. This system isn't a new idea, it's a description of what's already been happening with WP:DEL and CAT:Wikipedia notability criteria, after all, since long before WP:N was "born") Anyway, to return to your point, yes, WP:N does add a criterion all its own, that conflicts with WP:V, WP:DEL, WP:NOT, WP:NFT, etc., etc., taken as a combined whole that we can call "operating policy" (or some other term someone else prefers). I've been slowly convinced (more by my own observations of the players involved than by anyone's individual responses) that this can be rectified. I remain disturbed the apparent unsuccess of some to even understand the point, however. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Guess what? Our guidelines, like our encyclopedia, are a work in progress. We're working on it. It's like you're critiquing this as if it were presented as a perfect code of rules; it's not. We're fumbling towards perfection, and little improvements are the way we do it. If there's a notability criterion that doesn't include a version of the PNC, we talk about it. This isn't a reason to cry havoc and let loose the dogs, it's a reason to discuss the details. In this case, it appears to be a false alarm, because all the subject specific critera do include the PNC. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand that fully. The position I entered this debate with, that WP:N should not have a Guideline tag on it (I never once suggested it should be deleted, I reiterate) was born of the view that WP:N is "too" embryonic to be an effective or reliable Guideline at this point. (I had other points too, especially with regard to process, but that was the major one). I actually (as of this writing, an in after expressing my changes of stance and belief that WP:N should and can be fixed instead of scrapped) still believe this; I think that the Guideline tag should be temporarily replaced with the disputed one, instead of paired with it, until WP:N is substantially improved. I'm "okay" with the present situation, but would wax sorely pissed at at attempts to remove the Disputed tag completely. PS: I don't think I was wardogging; I was simply pointing out that some of the WP:DEL topical notability criteria don't agree with WP:N and that WP:N even says so itself (the former may or may not even be true any longer, but isn't the real point on this subtopic, which was that this guideline is effectively saying "heck, even some of the long-standing notability criteria that are now part of Policy don't agree with me, and I admit it, so, um, uh, why am I am here again? What authoritativeness do I provide? Can I be sanely relied upon? Am I in conflict with Policy? I have a headache..." — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

That's what I'm doing; discussing the details. Recognizing that no Guideline is perfect does not, however, equate to recognizing that every Proposal should be a Guideline. You may not believe it, but I think that the PNC is actually not bad. If there really are no WP:DEL notability guidelines that are missing it any more, I'd say just edit WP:N (grrr, now I'm saying how to improve the thing instead of get rid of it...) to remove the "most" language, and then the WP:N proposal will be codifying consensus practice on that particular point, only, but at least that's one step closer. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

So, then could you post some examples here of how various sections should be improved? If you post it here they can be discussed and won't be mercilessly nuked from the article. 74.38.34.192 19:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The intent of this page has never been to supercede existing notability guidelines, nor does that say so on the page. (Radiant) 17:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

My conclusion: I've seen some acknowlegment of the concerns I raised with this topic, and willingness to see the issue resolved, but remain unconvinced that it was fully understood. Good enough for now. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Vagueness

5. WP:N is vague. It states that "Triviality is a measure of the depth of content contained in the published work" but provides no actual scale with which to make such a measurement, and ergo is abusing the word "measure" as well as suffering from subjectivity. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Then feel free to edit it, and gauge how the community as a whole responds. 74.38.35.238 04:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

As per the above undesire to be one of the direct authors of this thing, I decline. More particularly, I don't think it is possible anywhere near the present tactic to make notability as conceived by WP:N objective. Or even arbitrary, in the positive legal sense, which would actually probably satisfy me and (given the acceptance of other, topical, notability guidelines) many others. Lest that cause any confusion: Arbitrary in legal terms means "having a set, knowable boundary unaffected by personal, commercial or other bias", basically. The topical notability criteria have (or tend to have; some of them are still a bit deficient) a definite line, or more often a set of lines, any one of which will do, to cross for an article topic to be considered "notable". This is in large part is why I think a WP-wide notability criterion is nonsense, rather than a guideline on how to create notability criteria [and a definition of "notability &mdash SMcCandlish, Dec. 9, 2006]]. As a simple example, it might be determined by consensus at some point that sportspersons are not "notable" (solely as such) unless they have achieved some mark of stature in their field. How to define that?!? In pool (i.e. pocket billiards), I can confidently say that any professional player (not otherwise notable for some other reason) is not notable if they have not a) won first place in a national or international tournament sanctioned by a notable (defined elsewhere) organization; b) been in the top three in several such tournaments [but even "several" is probably too vague!] or c) ranked in the top 100 players in their game (eight-ball, whatever) by such an organization or a notable (defined elsewhere) publication in their field consistently for several years (again "several" is probably too vague.) Now let's switch to the NFL, AFL, NBA, etc. I think it is solidly arguable that every single member of these pro sports leagues is notable (even by WP:N's wonky criteria), simply by virtue of the fact that they are in them at all. So what about golfers? Is every single golfer who can, at least once, compete in a major golf event "notable"? Probably not. (What about champion spitters? Is distance spitting itself even "notable"? It sure is to the terbacky-chawin' competitors in it...) I don't know enough about golf to suggest appropriate criteria (and the point is, you probably don't either, but the major "editorial shepherds" of the golf articlespace probably do.) It's very "notable" that the arbitrary criteria for bands, books (that one's still a draft, but it's illustrative), fictional characters, etc., etc., are all radically different on their arbitrary criteria. There are very good reasons for this that WP:N is ignoring and trampling upon. There may be a plausible argument that this is a bad situation for some reason, but to date that argument has not been made successfully, and extant policy at WP:DEL assumes that argument to be false. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I probably do know how to write at least a couple of guidelines for golfspace notability, but I probably won't give it a try. I would also like an explanation of these "very good reasons" that you claim exist for it being very "notable" that all the "notability" guidelines are all "radically different from each other", etc. You know your arguments will be greatly improved if you explain reasons instead of just stating that they exist. 74.38.34.192 19:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I've already covered this multiple times in the last month, and the very post you are responding to self-illustrates the reason, with the differing examples of pool and the NFL and distance spitting. The short version is: What's "notable" in one field or for one reason isn't "notable" in/for others; the WP:DEL NN guidelines account for this and it seems to me that WP:N doesn't. My views on this are flexible, and in fact bending, but I have to observe that the concern raised has not been addressed, in this thread or any other. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, not everything has to be strictly defined here. For instance, "vandalism" and "featured article" are not strictly, objectively, or legalistically defined either, but the community has no problem at all working with them. (Radiant) 17:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

In what way(s) would you consider them WP:VANDAL vague or subjective? (FA is subjective by definition and is not related to article/content survival and thus of no relevance, any more than a beauty pageant is of relevant to whether cold fusion is possible; both of them are matters of debate, and society — our even larger community — can handle both of them. Doesn't mean they are subjec to the same criteria. So, can you restate your point? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

My conclusion: This point is completely unaddressed. Un-yay. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Self-admission of lack of consensus

6. WP:N directly admits that it is not a consensus viewpoint: "The use of notability in the deletion process is one of the more contentious issues in Wikipedia." If a Proposal must reach consensus to become a Guideline, then how can WP:N possibly be a Guideline at this point? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

There must be at least a rough consensus, but I'm not sure on this. 74.38.35.238 04:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, this self-evidently is not the case. This is one of the most diputatious talk pages in all of Wikipedia:, and remains so even when I'm silent for several days straight, so I know 'tain't jus' li'l ol' me. The present Proposal has had no less than five competitors (probably more; I find a new one every time I go looking hard), three of which are cited on the page itself, and two others that were highly improperly deleted and redirected here; they should have been preserved as Failed Proposals; their once-existence is evidenced by their vestigial talk pages, which I have archived off-site lest anyone get any Bad Faith ideas. >;-) This is easily the single most contentious issue on Wikipedia, and even in all of wikidom, since it really lies at the heart of the inclusionism vs. deletionism debate (among others strongly influenced by it). Now, I'm sure that a vote cast on the talk page of AfD or some other place totally dominated by deletionists will show strong support for WP:N, but that's evidentiary of nothing of substance. THIS is where the debate is, for the most part (WP:NNOT still has a few discussions on it, and a recent RfAr named several other places the ArbCom noted the discussion still active), and, well, look: It's a debate! Debate != consensus. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You know, in a way, what's contentious about "notability" is the same thing that's contentious about "vandalism". There's a lot of people generating angst in other people by misusing the word "non-notable". Same thing with the word "vandalism". That's why we need to be vigilant about promoting the objective definition we are pretty close to being settled on, just as we constantly need to remind people that edits that they disagree with are not called vandalism. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm very strongly agreed with your first sentence here, despite (perhaps too virulent) disagreement on other points (I pushed those below to insert this here, because I think the agreement's more important than the disagreement). "Notability" has been through so many renames I doubt another would hurt (the ones I remember off the top of my head are "fame", "importance", "interest" and "significance"; I'm sure there were others.) Right this moment, I can't think of a better one. It would need to convey the idea, but not be as "insulting" in the negative. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm agreed on the tactic, should the need arise, but I have to virulently disagree that it is in fact needed on a systemic basis (I'm sure there are isolated cases, yes), or that misinterpretation of "vandalism in the context of Wikipedia" and "notability in the context of wikipedia" are comparable on any level at all. It's a total red herring. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Um... your unfamiliarity with the constant abuse of the "v-word" doesn't make it irrelevant. If you're active in dispute resolution, you'll see that almost every case begins with User X saying that User Y is making "vandalistic" edits, and demanding that someone block User Y. Nearly every time, it turns out they're both good faith editors, but the discussion has ground to a halt amid accusations of vandalism. People abuse the word because they know that "vandalism" is considered a Bad Thing here, so they want to associate their opponent with it. Sadly, I've seen admins do it.

Meanwhile, regarding "notability", User Z sees an article that he thinks should be deleted, out of whatever motivation makes her want to delete things, and she knows that "non-notable" is a good buzzword to throw out there. Both User X and User Z are using terms of art without being aware of their meanings. We address the content dispute situation by reminding User X that "vandalism" means "clear attempts to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia", and that User Y probably thinks she's improving the 'pedia by making that edit. Similarly, in the deletion situation, we can address it by reminding User Z that "non-notable" means "lacking sufficient sources to satisfy WP:V and WP:NOT". In both cases, once we've dealt with the abused term, we can refocus the discussion on sources, to address the content dispute in one case, and to establish the verifiability of enough facts to clear WP:NOT in the other case.

Oops, I've lapsed into the presumptuous "we" again; sorry about that. Anyway, I hope my analogy is clarified now - if you're still doubtful regarding the abuse of the word "vandalism", I can provide literally hundreds of diffs on demand. (That said, I'll be travelling over the next three days or so, and I won't spend that time looking up diffs, however readily found.) -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Addressed this (abuse of "vandalism") with Radiant elsewhere. Short version: I concur that it's probably a major headache for admins, but in my experience is not particularly problematic for WP as a whole (other than inasmuch as it is draining admin time); one's an internal arena, the other external, in a sense, though the dichotomy/dualism is false on many levels, so it's probably a poor metaphor. On a daily basis I am not confronted in any way that has a marked effect on me, as an active editor and quasi-active follower of AfD and other internal processes, by misinterpretation of "vandalism", but am so confronted and directly affected by misinterpretation of "notability", "non-notable", etc. On a side note, I apologize for my sharp tone above (the "red herring" sentence). Back to your main point, I do strongly agree (and I think I even have some rare agreement with Radiant, if I read him correctly) that the non-neutrality of the language is the issue in both cases; "nonnotable" and "vandal" labels simply tick people off. Covered my thoughts on this in more detail elsewhere within the last couple of hours, so I won't rehash. PS: I've even been stung with being called a "vandal" inappropriately myself, but oh well. I leave the {{test3}}, I think it was, template he put on my talk page in place instead of archiving it despite its age, because it says more about abuse of "vandalism" labels than about me. And the views I was advancing actually won the (notability guideline related, believe it or not) debate I got vandal-flagged for. Heh. >;-) That someone mislabelled me a vandal once and only once — despite the fact that I like to Be Bold and can sometimes be abrasive, and have been around for 16 months — is at least anecdotal evidence that abuse of "vandalism" is a pretty internal problem, to me. I can't imagine the legit editor that is being pistolwhipped with bogus vandalism charges all the time. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

That's an awkward phrase, but not a contradiction. Something can be consensual yet have a vocal minority opposing it. (Radiant) 17:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Simply asserting "no its not" without arguing your case doesn't win an argument; it's just silly. I've addressed the "minority" claim elsewhere. Claiming that "opposed by a vocal minority" equates to "one of the more contentious issues in Wikipedia" is so absurd it doesn't need further comment. At least others here acknowledge the contention and want to resolve it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

My conclusion: The point with regard to project page text is moot, since the passage in question was simply deleted; I don't have any current objection to that, since I think the text of the article is better for the deletion. The underlying concern raised remains unaddressed (a bald refutation and and unsupported claim that those with concerns are few and simply loudmouths doesn't constitute addressing the concerns they raise.) A decided un-yay. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Reiteration of existing policy

7. The aspects of WP:N that don't seem to raise any disputation are really just restatements of WP:V and WP:NOT. To the extent that WP:N would attempt to establish inclusion criteria that are more stringent than those in WP:V, then WP:N is attempting to usurp Policy-level status over WP:V. If WP:N's proponents want WP:N to have that power, they need to run it through the Policy creating processes at WP:HCP, not propose a Guideline. Even then, this would simply create conflicting policies. It is being suggested here by several participants that any deficiencies in WP:V, etc., should be fixed in-place, and that WP:N is wholly unnecessary. This is not a new argument, but one that has yet to be addressed sufficiently by WP:N supporters. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

But the fact that this exists, and is used so much in deletion by a great deal of Wikipedia editors suggests that there is an additional bar -- notability -- agreed on by CONSENSUS. 74.38.35.238 04:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Another tautological argument. This reasoning is totally circular. It's the very advancement of this work-in-progress Proposal as a Guideline, which required outright edit-warring to pull off, that has led to the situation you describe as evidence in support of the alleged Guideline. That's like saying that because the Democrats took back the US Congress that all Republican really are wrong-headed Bad People. There are several names for this fallacy, two of them being "putting the cart before the horse" and "inverted cause" (or I guess technically it could be confusion of correlation with causality). I'm too tired right now to go dig up the wikilinks to the canonical names of them, but I recognize them just the same; just go to Fallacy and Logical fallacy and read around (and sheesh, why have those articles not been merged? Gahhh...) Anyway, this summer I took a wikibreak. Before I left, notability arguments were sensible mostly, citing specific notability criteria recognized by Policy at WP:DEL as having achieved sufficient consensus for that level of trust in their wisdom, and things were pretty much OK; notability as such remained a little controversial but it was beginning to get integrated. I came back after just two months of moving cross-continent and getting my life re-situatuated to find a #$%*ing warzone in AfD, an almost staggering number of disputed deletions, a vitriolic RfAr in progress, edit-warrning over conflicting proposed Guidelines, etc., etc., and it has only gotten worse in the month since then, until this guideline was marked (and re-marked) Disputed (it's still bad, but people are beginning to notice and to start posting actual Policy-based issues with articles in their AfD !votes, instead of just saying "Delete NN per nom" and moving on to the next tickbox on their voting hitlist. WP:N has been an unmitigated disaster. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I see the mistake I made in my argument -- "this is OK cuz it exists" (now that I read that out again, it seems dumb.). However, what I really want is an explanation for why it is still used? The fact that some notability-related guidelines are accepted by the community seems like evidence enough to me that the concept of notability has consensus support, even if this particular page in it's present form, ie. WP:N, does not. That is the point I was trying to make -- that the notability concept has support, even if WP:N does not (or at least not as much as it should). I do believe that a Notability page should exist, even if this is not quite it, to describe the concept in general. And I do notice the problem with AFD comments being treated as votes, even though WP:NOT a democracy and is instead based on consensus (consensus != 2/3 majority to do a decision, by the way.). Perhaps notability should be rebuilt to be a clarification and guide to applying and using Official Policy (namely, WP:V plus WP:NOT plus perhaps WP:NOR and a bit of WP:NPOV (undue weight)) instead of scrapped entirely? Notice: guideline. There's a reason for that. As in "guiding" something. 70.101.146.27 09:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Any answer to my question? 74.38.34.192 01:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Which one? I don't see any that I haven't already address one way or another at some point. Super short version a re-response to the main point you've raised: "notability" as supported by Wikipedians generally does not equate to support for WP:N in its present state, or even its present purpose(s). That's a Korzybskian conflation of two related, indeed hierarchical, but nevertheless distinct topics. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, I've replied to this argument in some detail. As I and others have pointed out, WP:V says that in order to be included, material must be verifiable. It does not state the converse of that, namely that all verifiable information must be included. The policy WP:V does not in any way address how much verifiable information is necessary to support an article on a topic.

Our policy WP:NOT does address this question, when it says Wikipedia is not a directory, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. These statements have been understood to mean that we attempt to provide coverage with more depth than a directory listing.

This notability guideline does nothing more than unpack the ways in which WP:V and WP:NOT work together to inform decisions about what kind of sourcing we need to support an article. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I wish that ("...does nothing more than unpack...") were really the case. I actually advocate a WP:N replacement that is a guideline on how to apply extant Policy in relevant situations with relation to notability as codified at WP:DEL. That's not what WP:N is. If I see sufficient evidence that WP:N is no longer being WP:OWNed, I might even help it get there (believe it or not, my position that "WP:N must die" has actually moderated downward about 15-20% in the last week or two based on these discussions, despite having ongoing debates I was making headway in being relegated to an archive page when they were still active). As to your earlier argument, I've already re-re-responded to that too. The fact taht WP:V doesn't say that "everything verifiable MUST be included", and that this obviously does need to be clear somehow, does not militate for the validity of WP:N, because that factor is already covered by WP:V in combinaion with WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:NFT, etc., etc., etc. WP:N is a solution in search of a problem, a hammer looking for a nail that isn't sticking up. Show me the magic. Show me the worthless article that survived AfD only because notabilty criteria weren't applied. I dare ya. Double dog dare. (Though that should be a new topic; I suspect a fair amount of debate about any given example, and quote depth on this talk page tends to get deep very fast.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I can see an editor skirting around WP:V/WP:NOT by applying them separately. Let's say the editor takes directory-style information from a reliable source, then pads it with unreliable information from (primary source, the author's own brain, whatever). Then argues that, "it satisfies WP:V and WP:NOT! It's not a directory entry (look at the page) and it has verifiable sources (look at the source!)" ColourBurst 16:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

But that would be transparent nonsense and it would still get deleted; the material "padding" the list would still have to have reliable sources. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Especially considering that I never understood your "WP:N must die" position seeing how much notability is used in making decisions including deletion. A WP:N page of some sort should exist to define and explain the concept, even if not to be a deletion criterion in and of itself. And there are also consensually-agreed-upon-by-the-community guidelines with more specific critera for notability (WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, etc.), and thus the position that "WP:N" must be GONE COMPLETELY seems illogical. The question is: what should WP:N BE, not should it EXIST or not, as the obvious answer to the latter is an emphatic YES. 74.38.34.192 02:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I longer hold that position. However you (and several others here) seem to continue to engage in the logic mistake of equating "notability" and "Wikipedia:Notability". They are not the same thing. One is a concept, which exists in Policy, and the other is a guideline attempting to codify something about that concept further. At any rate, I am in agreement at this point that the question is in fact what WP:N should be rather than whether it should continue to exist as a guideline. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, this is not a problem as we have many guidelines to supplement policy pages. (Radiant) 17:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You do not appear to have even recognized the argument that was being made (either that or you are being flippant, which equals non-responsive to the substance). I've already covered the important aspects of this argument elsewhere, the passage you denigrated as "legalistic thinking" if I remember correctly. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

My conclusion: I've seen little (though not zero) acknowlegment of the concerns I raised with this topic, and remain unconvinced that it was fully understood; but the issue/challenge (show me the article that should be deleted but can't without WP:N's help) has been taken up by others elsewhere, and I'm less concerned about this personally now than when I wrote it. Good enough for now, though the result is indeterminate as the discussion has migrated to other topics. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The Jimbo factor

8. WP founder Jimbo Wales has unequivocally opposed notability, almost three years ago, in terms that are still completely relevant. One WP:N supporter has labelled observing this fact (originally intended as humor on my part) the fallacy of "argumentum ad Jimbonem", which is amusing too. But WP:POLICY states very specfically and categorically that Jimbo's "declarations" are in fact a source of Policy, and even outside of the consensus process. This is reinforced elsewhere in some other Policies (I believe WP:DEL is one of them). Don't WP:N supporters see this as problematic? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

But only when they actually become official policy (stamped) are they. Jimbo could say tomorrow, "NPOV is hereby void, go and bias to your heart's content", but if the COMMUNITY does not accept that then NPOV is not void. 74.38.35.238 04:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I can see that. I did phrase this one as a question, after all. It just seems likely to me that Jimbo and ergo likely other outside-of-consensus policymakers here on WP might oppose this if it went too far. The question was an honest one, not just in the sense of "don't you fear you might get overridden", but also in the sense of "don't you feel that maybe he has a point, and he really, really, really had a good sense of how this entire operation ought to work?" I've found myself pleasantly shocked by some of the things he's said (and turned into policy, in fact, esp. with regard to living persons) that were counter to the general flow of things, but were coming from such a "meta" point that when you shook your head and looked at it from a more outside perspective make utter sense, contrary as they were to the internal logic. "The Lord of the Flies" is only a plausible story because of the lack of a "Jimbonian" benevolent dicatory influence on the outcome. The more that Wikipedia is left to evolve in its own microcosm of internal regulations the more, I suspect, it will diverge from sanity. However much I could care less about copyright this-'n'-that lawyerspeak wanking, because I just don't go uploading other people's stuff here, I'm really thankful for the frequent copyright-related warnings/notices that pop up; they remind us that this is a wild experiment in the middle of a much more settled world. PS: I will disagree on your codicil; if Jimbo or WikiMedia Foundation as a group said that WP:NPOV was no longer valid, then I don't think the community could do anything but simply ignore it and continue to operate as if it hadn't been said. If it came down to admin (or higher up!) enforcement of something, Jimbo/WMF's word would necessarily trounce that of consensus views. That's just how this organization is set up. No amount of anti-I.P. activism, for example, could get rid of the copyright related policies here, or undo the handling of potentially defamatory unsourced material about living persons. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

What's Jimbo's position on notability more recently? Wikipedia is pretty different from what it was three years ago, and Jimbo's priorities - and the community's - have evolved. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Heck if I know! I have not yet gone through all the talk archives here. Would definitely like to know. That said, if after all the known talk archives on the subject-in-general are plundered and nothing new comes to light, then the logical assuption is that his views on the subject haven't changed since the last testimony we can dig up. Standard investigative procedure. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what definition of notability he was referring to before, but recently he has repeatedly stated that any unsourced information about which there is any question at all should be removed (rather than putting on {{fact}}). Note also that, with the exception of fictional topics, the high sourcing standards of WP:BLP and libel issues in general apply to all usually non-notable subjects, such as persons, bands, and companies. —Centrx→talk • 05:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed in whole as to fact (see above; I was just talking about the same stuff but hadn't even read your post yet), but I don't see the relevance. As people keep trying to bang into my head, WP:V is not WP:N, right? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually I rescind that partial agreement; he was talking about unsourced information about living people. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This is no longer relevant, as evidenced by more recent posts on the subject by Jimbo and Brad (e.g. Jimbo's endorsement of CSD A7, Brad's call-to-arms against self-promotion, etc). (Radiant) 17:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

My conclusion: My question is answered to my satisfaction, though I'm curious about the uncited assertions at the end. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Rationale supportive of other policies, not WP:N

9. WP:N's Rationale section, apart from being down near the bottom for some reason, is simply a reiteration of other Guidelines/Policies with the word "notable" tacked on, and doesn't actually appear to provide any rationale for WP:N. It also, incidentally, should be citing WP:OWN, one of its sources, but doesn't. And it is simply incorrect that notability prevents article monopolization; while many non-notable topics will of course by WP:OWNed by someone, possibly the only person, who cares enough about the topic to work on the articles, many more popular articles suffer from the same miswikipedianism. It's a broader problem, and to the extent that it applies to allegedly non-notable topics, it is already addressed by WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:OWN, WP:AUTO, WP:COI and of course WP:V. Deleting, merging or clean-up of such non-articles certainly doesn't need the extra "force" WP:N could supposedly provide. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Then maybe WP:N should perhaps be reduced to more of a clarification of these policies. Why don't you go and draft a new proposal, and float it here? 74.38.35.238 04:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Already answered elsewhere. I think WP:N should be reduced something like that. It's what I've mainly been arguing for weeks. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:N provides no extra "force", nor should it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure it does. It adds that if the article doesn't have multiple independent sources that it can be deleted as NN, an addl. requirement not found in WP:V, WP:NOT, etc., etc. Cf. #Consensus conflict with existing guidelines above; this is the crux of the argument that 74.something and Radiant and someone else seemed unable to understand at all, and kept calling it just "supporting" or "supplementing" WP:V, et al. Cf. also the so-called "legalistic" argument where I explained this in more detail. At this point I'm not necessarily certain I still think this extra force is "wrong", but it is clearly there and should be handled appropriately so as to prevent policy-interpretation conflicts (i.e., this is an edit suggestion to take up later). Analogy: If Daddy says Little Johnny can go to the park after he does his homework, and then Mommy and Daddy go out and leave Big Sis to babysit, and Sis tells Little Johnny he can't go to the park when his homework is done until he eats three worms and cleans her bike and does all the dishes and gives her his favorite magic marker, then Sis has overstepped her authority and controverted parental policy, and is going to be in trouble when the parents get home. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Once more it is not problematic for a guideline to supplement policy, refer to policy, or clarify certain cases of policy. Indeed, that is one of the major reasons we even have guidelines. (Radiant) 17:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Already addressed elsewhere multiple times. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

My conclusion: Completely unaddressed (the debate that ensued was really just a continuation of #Consensus conflict with existing guidelines above and didn't actually get to the point of this WP:N problem), but mainly a concern for editing the article text, so I'm not too concerned with it right now. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Conflict with WP:DEL and its progeny

10. The apparently almost entirely non-controversial topical notability Guidelines imported into WP:DEL demonstrate an existing consensus that some topics or types of articles would benefit from notability criteria, that groups of experienced editors who work a lot on such topics can and should create such narrow guidelines, on a topical, flexible basis, and that after they have reached consensus there is already a fast and easy process for making them part of Policy in WP:DEL. Nothing about all of that suggests that we need a new Wikipedia-wide notability Guideline like WP:N is trying to be. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

There IS a consensus that Notability, in some form should be a Wikipedia-wide criterion for inclusion and deletion as so many editors use it. The cactions of the community reflect the state of the community. 74.38.35.238 04:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't mean that those criteria should come from here. We have WP:DEL and it's notability criteria for a reason. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

But how does WP:N claim it is a deletion criterion, and not a definition of the notability concept, as you claim it should be, below? Is it because of the "notability as a reason for deletion" section? 74.38.34.192 19:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, obviously. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Any response? Are you saying there is no such consensus? That's why I suggested a poll earlier, to get some hard numbers here! 74.38.34.192 01:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what the referent of "such" is. If you mean the consensus mentioned at "There IS a consensus...in some form" above, I've already answered that. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You seem to once more misinterpret this page as superceding other pages. One might argue that to have notability guidelines in the first place, one needs a page to define that term. (Radiant) 17:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

And you see to once more misinterpret me as opposing that notion. :-) I've already said many times here that I think the legitimate purpose of WP:N should be to do precisely that (in a way that guides Wikipedians in the creation of topical/typical notability guidelines that can be applied with "local" criteria editors can actually use, and which WP:DEL relies upon. The disagreement between us appears to principally be that you seem to believe in a one-size-fits all set of notability criteria as well as a site-wide definition, while I only support the latter concept (and am not too sure I agree with the present implementation in WP:N, but that's a different issue.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

My conclusion: The concern raised remains unaddressed, but at least we've arrived at where the difference of opinion may lie. And I'm actually moderating my opinion on this issue anyway, in light of genuinely consensus-buiding discussion that's been ongoing lately. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:OWNership

11. WP:N appears to be "owned" by a small cadre of singleminded shepherds who have gone out of their way to prevent substantial change to the Proposal, to undermine other, competing Proposals (a recent RfAr did not address much of this, since the topic was WP:NNOT and its promoter, but was critical inasmuch as it did so, labelling these actions "exacerbating of dispute" and "aggressive", noting that one of the partipants in the dispute is elsewhere promoting yet another "Guideline" that others maintain is simply an Essay, and reminding everyone that Guidelines are only arrived at by clear consensus; I submit that it should be looked upon as subtle warning), and to obliterate milder proposals (Wikipedia:Notability/Arguments has quotes from Wikipedia:Importance which no longer exists, having been replaced by a redirect to WP:N; these quotes show a lot more sensitivity to the concerns raised by WP:N critics; the continued existence of the original Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance talk page also demonstrates a lot more open dialog in times past; meanwhile, its article page too has been destroyed instead of retained as a failed proposal, and it too redirects to WP:N. While everyone wants to assume good faith, there seems to be fairly strong evidence of a lot of wikipoliticking going on here, and the result has been a reduction in discussion and consensus-building. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not push for "politicking", rather what I do is try to find out what goes best with the Community. 74.38.35.238 04:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You keep using that term as if doing so ends the debate, but I don't find comments like this very substantive. What is it you are trying to convey? How are you addressing the points raised here (by any party, not just me)? I'm not getting your point. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It means I'm trying to offer input that will eventually lead to a Community Consensus, not "politicking", and to try and find a viewpoint/position that best agrees with consensus. I think that is a worthy goal, don't you? 74.38.34.192 01:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. Wasn't meant as an attack, just an indication that your point wasn't getting through. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

False (and also an ad hominem fallacy), you can clearly see from the page history that it has changed a lot since its conception. If you must cite ArbCom precedent, note that you are misstating the case you cite from, and that this recent case specifically endorses notability. (Radiant) 17:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

What's the ad hominem? I've not attacked anyone's character here. I've only talked about a pattern of activities. If one wants to debate that the pattern is only a correlation without evidence of causation, or question the existence of the pattern at all, that's one thing, but it's quite another to suggest that I'm simply character assassinating anyone. I haven't said anyone acted in bad faith, only that assumption of good faith is harder to maintain in the face of what appears to be a pattern of actions that can be interpreted as wikipolitical rather than consensus-building. That's not an accusation, it's a description of effects. And what part is "false"? Note also that I have not said that the ArbCom are anti-notability, only that what they have said in the RfAr on WP:NNOT aside from the parts that directly addressed WP:NNOT and its main proponent, can be interpreted as critical of some of WP:N's major proponents a.k.a. WP:NNOT's major detractors, or more to the point their actions, not their character (and further I did not say that they were critical of WP:N itself). I do not believe that ArbCom would have mentioned in their Findings of Fact terms like "exacerbated the dispute" and "aggressive", and remarked upon a pattern of promotion of disputed Proposals/Essays as "Guidelines", and then practically lectured everyone about how consensus is formed here, unless they were making a very clear point that was intended to be heard. WP:NNOT and it's main author bore the brunt of the criticism, but everyone majorly involved on both sides was criticized. If it were even possible that the ArbCom were criticizing me, I think I would look very carefully at what I was doing... — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that the full title of WP:OWN is "Wikipedia:Ownership of articles". This is not an article, it's a project page. And yes it's more than a semantic difference. --W.marsh 00:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a curious assertion. Do you have any evidence to back it up? I just re-read every word on WP:OWN and there is nothing anywhere in it to suggest it does not apply to Wikipedia:, Template: and other namespaces (other than User: of course). Cf. the other Policies that relate to editor behavior: Behavioral standards, Assume good faith, Bots, Civility, Editing policy, No legal threats, No personal attacks, Sock puppetry, Three-revert rule, Vandalism, etc.; all of them are applied on a daily basis outside of the article namespace. There are policies such as WP:V that don't rationally apply to a lot of Wikipedia: namespace materials, but WP:OWN is clearly not one of them. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

My conclusion: Utterly unaddressed, but hopefully moot since there are an increasing number of participants here and actual consensus-building going on. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Denoument

Feel free to break the above up to respond to specfic numbered items; please just copy my attribution below to the bottom of the text being split, so that the attribution remains clear. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

How would you propose a better definition anyway? What would you define notability as, that wouldn't be as "subjective" at all? Also, doesn't the widespread use of this in deletion debates indicate consensus (see my thread "Consensus check" here)? 74.38.35.238 04:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Already addressed both of these questions above. Short version: I don't think notability can be made objective at all when applied as a set of WP-wide criteria. And even the topical, narrow ones have problems in this area. But they could be made arbitrary (in the legal sense, as in "arbitrator", "arbitration" - impartial, basically). Next, the widespread (ab)use of "Delete - NN" is a symptom of WP:N, not a justification for it. Only a few months ago, the use of notability in AfD was much more controlled and thoughtful, because it depended on WP:DEL and what WP:DEL says are actional notability criteria. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I just want to say, you've obviously put a lot of thought into this, and though I don't know that I agree with you completely, I do think you've made some good points. FrozenPurpleCube 15:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; my intent here is to get people thinking and discussing and improving. I think my ideas for improvement may be more radical that some, but consensus building is a compromise process; radicals are necessary on both sides to determine what the middle ground is in the first place. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

NB: That was meant as a hint that those with views radically opposing mine might think about trying some compromise too. <nudge, nudge> — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd ditch it. It has no value - it's confusing and counterproductive. Trollderella 20:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Even I don't go that far.  :-) I think there's good material that could be merge into other policies/guidelines and/or that WP:N could become a guideline on how to create the kind of notability guidelines that WP:DEL depends on. Having drafted one, I find the lack of guidance rather hindering, actually. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you think it's easier, from a pragmatic perspective, to get people to shift their definition of "notability" to a source-based one, or to get them to stop thinking about it entirely? Think about it - it doesn't matter how right you are if you can't convince people. Can you get consensus to delete this guideline? If you demote this guideline, will it stop people saying "nn-delete"? The sad irony is that you and I agree completely that the "nn-delete" attitude is bad, but we're here arguing with each other instead of both being in AfDs speaking with a united voice that says "if you want to argue for deletion, you have to talk about sources." Silly, isn't it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so much thinking about what's easier, as what's right. I'm not sure I agree with you about which is easier, but certainly it would be easier to get thieves to only steal from some people rather than all. The easier path is not always the right one. Trollderella 20:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Trollderella, what's "right" eventually has to deal with what's practical, if it wishes to be at all effective. Anyway, since my goal is for everybody to understand that at WP, "notability" means nothing more than "existence of sufficient sources to write a WP:NOT article", can you explain exactly from whom we'd be stealing, if that's achieved? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[outdent]We're stealing from the people who are looking for free and open, factual, neutral and verifiable information that someone deleted because they had some axe to grind about what they think is important. Trollderella 21:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not an answer to the question I asked. In reciprocal spirit, I'll say, "So, you advocate throwing away WP:NOT? I disagree." -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought you asked "can you explain exactly from whom we'd be stealing", I must have misunderstood. I don't see how opposing this multiplication of unnecessary rulecruft logically leads to throwing away any other piece of policy. You'll have to explain that leap of logic a little more. Trollderella 17:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't explain myself very clearly there. You did quote my question, but without the "if" clause. From whom would we be stealing IF people ditch subjective ideas of notability in favor of simply looking for sources, and only getting rid of articles that can't get past WP:NOT? Since you seemed to reply that, by adhering to WP:NOT, we're stealing from people who want access to verifiable information, I was driven to the conclusion that you want to keep all verifiable information, disregarding WP:NOT. Perhaps we're somehow talking past each other? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I am saying that WP:V, and WP:NOT provide all the creiteria we need. They are objective, and sufficient. If you replace the subjective 'I don't like it' with those two, then you're not 'stealing' information from people who might want it, since the things that you're throwing out are things like directory entries. I probably would tend to keep most verifiable information, but see my userpage for a more in depth discussion of my position on that. My argument here is that V and NOT are sufficient, and more rulecruft only serves to obfuscate the situation. Trollderella 17:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Any my argument is that WP:N isn't "rulecruft", because it contains no new rules, and it's a very useful explanation of how WP:V and WP:NOT work together in practice. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

GT, You seem to be writing to Trollderella, but I'll weigh in too. I agree that the concept is ingrained enough that just "stop thinking about notability" is a non-starter. I do think this document needs to be "demoted" to a Proposal or Essay Disputed without the Guideline tag because its nature is far too in-flux and its consensus is to debated to be useful as a Guideline or to validly be a Guideline. I agree it would be a Good Thing to spend more time in AfD correcting abuses of NN, but that doesn't mean this debate is silly. I think it's quite important because of the effect it can have on the future of WP for some time to come. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know you're concerned about how this page is labelled, which I think is a shame, because it distracts from the important topics. I don't care much whether it's called a guideline or a policy or an essay or nothing at all, because I think all those labels are for chumps. The point is to write a free, neutral, well-sourced encyclopedia.

The guideline is "if there aren't enough sources for a topic to write an article satisfying WP:NOT, using WP:V facts, then we can't support an article on that topic, and any such articles should be merged or deleted." When I say that's what the guideline is, I mean that's what it has to be, and if whatever it says doesn't boil down to that, then the text is wrong, and should be fixed. If people apply it to mean something other than thatm then they're wrong. If calling it something other than "notability" will get everyone on board as to what it needs to mean, then let's rename it. I don't see that we've come to that yet, because this PNC is pretty new, and I think it's a significant step in the right direction, and I'd like to see how it goes.

Here's a thought, SMcCandlish: There are three kinds of Wikipedians: those who reject "notability", those who embrace "notability" as meaning "existence of sufficient sources to satisfy WP:NOT and WP:V", and those who embrace "notability" as meaning something subjective like "importance" or "significance". You're type 1, I'm type 2, and let's say Joe Bloggs is type 3. You'd like for Joe to drop the idea of "notability" and just focus directly on WP:V and WP:NOT. I'd like for Joe to focus on WP:V and WP:NOT by shifting his idea of notability to point directly at them. If either of us succeeds, Joe stops applying the bad criteria that we agree are wrong, like "have I heard of it or not?", "does it sound interesting or not?", etc. I'm trying to get the text of this page in a state that I can point at it and say, "see, Joe, it says right here at WP:N that it's nothing more than WP:V and WP:NOT. Now about those sources..."

It's like Aikido. If someone throws a "notability" punch, you're going to do better by using that energy to throw them at WP:V and WP:NOT than you would by trying a "no notability" block. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that I'm emphatically not your "type 1" (I've been a supporter of the NN criteria enumerated by WP:DEL, remember? I've just had issues with this particular document and the way it's been handled!), I get the analogy, and am in <soundeffect type="martial arts" class="Asian" volume="loud" tone="ridiculous Bruce Lee immitation">violent</soundeffect> agreement with you on this. PS, re: "I know you're concerned about how this page is labelled, which I think is a shame, because it distracts..." — It matters to be because WP:N is being cited as if it were policy, and it's vagueness and overbreadth issues are leading to bogus deletions; without it, people would have to rely on the very particular NN requirements enumerated at WP:DEL if they wanted to use NN at all (and I think that would be a better situation than the current one). I think I managed to derail an improper (by my book) AfD by strenuously reminding people that WP:N is a guideline (disputed at that) and that the NN arguments being raised were not responsive to anything recognized as actionable by WP:DEL. All of a sudden the NN "me-toos" stopped, and someone even changed their argument with a comment to the effect "oh, I didn't now WP:N was disputed; I'll try something else". Problem with that approach, to continue with your martial arts metaphor, is that it's like Neo fighting an unending stream of Agent Smiths. I don't have the time to do it (ten of me wouldn't!), and am now solidly in support of the idea that WP:N could define and quantify what the @#$% notability actually means from an AfD-actionable perspective and resolve the problem. Ah, the power of consensus-building. PPS, re: "that's what it has to be" — Abso-infixed-epithet-lutely. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

So you suggestion is essentially that WP:Notability should read "See WP:V and WP:NOT"? I'd vote for that, but more than that is counterproductive. Trollderella 21:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. I think WP:NOT is written in such general language that something should be said regarding its application. I'm suggesting that WP:N should be a page explaining how WP:V and WP:NOT are applied in practice, in the context of deletion discussions. I'd be pretty happy with renaming it to that end. If it's the name "notability" that's bothering people so much, and forcing you to believe that we're talking about some subjective idea of "significance" or something, then by all means, let's get a new name. I think the PNC is good content, by whatever name, because it gives us a very useful, simple, and objective criterion with which to make decisions at AfD. I think we should provide such a criterion, and make it very clear that merging is always the preferred solution for topics for which we have small amounts of verifiable information, but not enough to satisfy the PNC. WP:NOT is a very abstract statement of mission. The PNC is a concrete litmus test for applying that mission statement to particular topics. I think you would rather have people thinking about the PNC than about whether or not they've heard of a topic. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't be that simplistic, Trollderella, but should guide (as in "guideline") editors in the application of WP:V and many other criteria as they apply to the question of "notability" as it is (presently?) called. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I still have yet to get what I asked for, which is a real world example of a case where this is needed. Without that, I'm having a hard time understanding why it isn't unnecessary, damaging, confusing, duplicative rulecruft. Trollderella 17:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've said more than once that the Notability guideline is never needed to delete an article. It contains no new rules of any kind. I contains exposition about how WP:V and WP:NOT are applied in practice, and it's very useful for summarizing an argument that has to get repeated a lot, and it's handy to have it written down in one place. As someone said somewhere else on this page, it's nice to be able to send people somewhere to explain to them why some article they wrote was deleted. Sending them to WP:NOT isn't the best, because that page is written at a very abstract level, and it's nice to have a place where it's unpacked and applied. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

A major issue with the above is that most supporters of WP:N do appear to be arguing that in fact WP:N is needed, indeed that is principal purpose is, for the deletion of articles that otherwise would survive. Agreeing more and more with you (GTB) that I may be, I don't think this has been adequately addressed and I remain supportive of Trollderella's unanswered challenge (for my part not as a demonstration that WP:N is useless but against the "gahhh! we have to have this or Wikipedia will wallow in junk articles!!!" mindset. I don't think that mindset (demonstrably) infects anyone in the present debate, but it's common nonetheless (albeit not with my exaggeratory mocking characterization) throughout the Talk archives here and on every defunct version of notability proposals. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I fail to understand why you want it then. You admit it is not necessary, and that is a restating of existing policy, with some obfuscation that presumably goes beyond it. Better to reffer to the actual policy that supports your contention that the article needs deletion. Of course, this is where the problem comes in, because many times on AFD 'notablity' is invoked in cases where deletion is not supported by existing policy. Bin this rulecruft! Trollderella 01:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I sure as hell didn't agree that WP:N contains "some obfuscation". Please refrain from putting words in my mouth.

I'll say it again - WP:N very useful for explaining what people mean when they say "notable", and it provides something to keep people honest with that word until you succeed in convincing people not to use it. You called it "harm reduction" below. I call it operating in reality. Fact: people are citing "notability" as a reason for deletion. You can either stick to "notabiliy isn't a valid reason for deletion," and you get ignored a lot, or you can tell people "if you're going to cite 'notability', at least read the guideline," and we can have it tell them that "non-notable" is not allowed to mean anything but lack of sufficient sources to clear WP:NOT. I support this guideline because it's a lever that we can use to make sure that every time someone says "notable" they're not talking about anything beyond WP:NOT. As far as I can tell, your approach is impractical, and involves wishing the world were otherwise rather than reacting to the way it is.

You say that many times on AfD, "notability" is cited for the wrong reasons. That's why we're trying to get this page in a state where it only supports citing "notability" for the right reasons, namely WP:NOT. People are citing "WP:N" right now. Unless you know how to stop them quickly and decisively, I'm in favor of a page that explains what they'd damn well better mean by it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I may now be fully on board with this conceptualization of what this page is (well, could be) for, with the caveats I expressed elsewhere about unresolved problems. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

My conclusion (with regard to #Some of the problems with WP:N as a whole; this is the denoument after all): Most of the issues remain unaddressed but are resolvable, as long as everyone works for consensus, in editing WP:N to deal with its problems. I'm no longer an opponent of WP:N's continuance, though I remain concerned with the effects of its present labelling as a Guideline until the issues are resolved, and maintain that until it is substantially fixed it remains Disputed — a situation I've decided I'd like to help resolve. I remain intensely dissatisfied with some of the responses (more to the point, patterns of responses) the concerns raised have received here; they seem like Usenet-style argumentation-for-sport with no regard for consensus-building purposes. But, hey: <plonk!> — there are enough people who want to make progress here that it seems very likely to me to now. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 13:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion

Why do topics/articles on wikipedia have to be about notable things? Isn't the goal of an encyclopedia to gain all knowledge about everything? An encyclopedia is an infinitive piece of work that shouldn't limit knowledge. If the goal of wikipedia is to only gain knowledge about notable things, then it should not be called an online encyclopedia, but a website that has information about notable things that it thinks is significant. Encyclopedias shouldn't be opinionated! --M79 specialist 01:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is contradicting it's own definition of encyclopedia. --M79 specialist 01:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The goal of an encyclopedia is not to gain all knowledge about everything. If that were the case, we would allow original research, for example, and WP:NOT would not include such statements as "Wikipedia is not a web directory" and "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Our definition of what it means to be an encyclopedia is to cover in an encyclopedic manner all things that can be covered in that way. We can't cover topics that we can't get information about from reliable sources, so we restrict our coverage to topics that are documented in reliable sources.

"Notable" isn't a matter of anybody's opinion about anything. If you'll check the guideline, all the word "notable" means here is "having non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources". There's nothing in there about opinions or what we "think is significant". It's just a question of whether source material exists or not. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Notability ignores the thing that sets Wikipedia apart from the other encyclopedia's out there: freedom. There is a strong role for Wikipedia as a FREE repository of the world's knowledge. We cannot say it is the web's job to keep track of 'non-notable' information as in general the web is not free and cannot provide the safe haven for information that Wikipedia does. If Wikipedia is to information what animal welfare is to animals then notability is like the animal welfare declaring that only brown dogs are worth protecting.

It we arbitrarily limit our scope to mirror that of competing encyclopedias we become "a want to be Britannica" instead of carrying out our real mission of freeing the world's information, a cause far more noble than competing with Britannica or Encarta.

A better criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is information/misinformation. Wikipedia's role is a free haven for information but not for misinformation. Misinformation can often be distinguished by its lack of sources. John Dalton 03:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately, our definition of "non-notable" is simply "lack of sources". It sounds like you support the notability criterion, at least, as it's currently written. All it says is, in order to have an article about topic X, there has to exist sufficient source material about topic X.

It's true that some people misuse the word "non-notable" to mean "I haven't heard of this" or "I'm not interested in this", but the solution to that problem is to correct those people's misuse of the term. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Then why not merge Notability with Verifiability if sources is the only criteria? I support Verifiability, but I don't support Notability (unless you are prepared to state straight out that they are one and the same). Notability seems to be Verifiability with some magic dust, of undetermined composition, sprinkled on top. Of course if you state V==N my next question will be "why do we need N?"

If "as it's currently written" non-notable is simply "lack of sources" in what way is it different from veriefiability and why do we need it? Until it develops an identity separate from verifiability notability seems to be merely a place holder. The way to develop an identify is for it to emerge naturally from the Wikipedia community. Natural emergence means someone says "hey how about this" and everyone else says "yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking" and it becomes a guideline with virtually no debate. Natural emergence doesn't mean "hey let's do this" and furious debate ensues to try and find a consensus. Unless it develops naturally from the community a guideline is in danger of being foisted on the community. There seems to be an awful lot of debate about notability.

We don't need a place holder, waiting for an idea to develop. Put a guideline in place once it has developed, without the need for place holders. An ill defined place holder provides an avenue for abuse. "Want something deleted, but can't justify it under Wikipedia's guidlines, why not play the Notability card?" Better to do without the place holder. John Dalton 05:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say V==N. I would say N = V + NOT. When one is considering whether a topic can support an article, one has to ask whether we have verifiable information on that topic, and if so, is it enough to get us past "not a directory" and "not an indiscriminate collection of information". If it passes this hurdle, of having enough WP:V information to sustain a WP:NOT article, then we call it "notable". -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

So N = V + NOT, but you also say 'our definition of "non-notable" is simply "lack of sources"'. Logic seems to dictate that currently NOT=0. That is precisely my argument: that currently NOT=0, so the notability "guideline" is simply serving as a placeholder for some yet to be determined guideline.

Until NOT>0 notability is at best a synonym for verifiability. Actually it is far worse than this as notability is currently undefined (ie. it is internally inconsistent in that you are saying verifiability is not notability but in the next breath the only criteria for notability is lack of sources). As an undefined quantity notability is free to be redefined by individuals to suit their application, acting as carte blanche for arbitrary deletion decisions. Until it has a clear definition notability doesn't deserve guideline status and is open to abuse.John Dalton 06:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I certainly don't mean that NOT=0. In fact, "non-notability is lack of sources" is a slightly abbreviated statement. Non-notability means "lack of sufficient sources to write a WP:NOT article with WP:V facts". (I've definitely said that on this page, although perhaps not in this conversation. Please pardon my laziness with including each detail each time I repeat it.) The policy WP:NOT is certainly more than zero, because it contains such important content as "Wikipedia is not a directory", which is not implied in any way by WP:V. When I said "non-notability is simply lack of sources", I was pointing out that there's nothing about notability that relies on opinion or subjective ideas of "significance" - it's entirely a source-based concept.

As to whether or not "notability" has a clear definition, why not address what's written in the guideline as more important than my phrasing in this exchange? Do you find the definition on the page to be inadequate? Is it not clear from the definition that "Notability" means "having sufficient sources to write an article compliant with WP:V and WP:NOT"? Can we clarify that in the guideline? -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Notability is not equal to verifiability. We can verify, for example, birth dates and addresses from civil records, but that does not belong in an encyclopedia. Also, note that we could verifiability say "Joe Smith's website states that Joe Smith is in fact the rightful President of the United States". We could include verifiable statements about every website online, in the third person, but the proper domain of an encyclopedia is to say "Joe Smith is the President of the United States", if that in fact is corroborated by multiple reliable sources. There are an endless number of examples similar to this and also several other reasons why notability is important and is beyond verifiability. Also, you are mistaken about notability not arising naturally from the community; simply look at WP:AFD to see all the articles deleted every day for lack of notability. —Centrx→talk • 06:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thankfully, we already have guidelines about what makes a good source. No rulecruft required. Trollderella 20:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedians referencing a source that borrowed misinformation indirectly from Wikipedia

Suppose unsourced rumor material appears on Wikipedia first, then suppose after many obscure exchanges, the media eventually used the material by referencing the alledged source of the material (some dude in whateverville). Then we can use the media sources involved as a reference. How about that. A reason why things we reference may itself consist of non-notable material by wikipedians (even by a reputable source that doesn't make all their references public)... Connect with reality man!Kmarinas86 04:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

If, as in the case you described, you have a good reason to believe that a source's information is erroneous, then the best thing would be to not use that source, and indicate on the relevant talk page how you know the source's information is in error. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

See my proposed guideline - Wikipedia is not a place for Wikipedians to reference a source that borrowed misinformation indirectly from Wikipedia. It's important that we make this clear, because a common sense reading of existing policy... oh, wait. Sorry. Trollderella 20:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Notability should be a criterion for neutrality

"Neutrality issues" is not a criterion for deletion as they can be resolved before the article is deleted.Kmarinas86 04:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Not if the only sources available are non-neutral ones. ColourBurst 05:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that a misunderstanding of the meaning of neutrality in the Wikipedia sense? My understanding is that neutrality means Wikipedia article should reflect what the sources say, even if the sources conflict. For example, if source 1 says "A" and source 2 says "B", A not the same as B, the wikipedia article should say something like: "There are two points of view on this 'A' and 'B'". The wikipedia article should not make a decision to present only one of A and B. It should also not make any attempt to present a compromise of A and B by telling half truths.

In short wikipedia neutrality is about accurately reflecting sources, and specifically not about trying to tread some fine "neutral" line as judged by an author. If it is the only source, by definition it is the neutral point of view for Wikipedia, so there can be no such thing as "the only sources available are non-neutral ones". You are not allowed to make personal judgements of neutrality so the only way a source can be non neutral is if a second conflicting source can be found. John Dalton 05:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia articles do not simply consist of he-said she-said statements, and decisions must be made about how much weight to give to different topics in an article. You cannot stack up 50 sentences from mediocre magazines against 2 sentences from books by major historians. —Centrx→talk • 06:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Isn't there an undue weight clause in WP:NPOV? We are making a de facto judgement on the sources. ColourBurst 23:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that assessing the reliability of sources is part of writing for Wikipedia. My point was the "neutrality" must be drawn from the sources. If all the sources are saying "X", and you can't find and sources that say "not X", the only logical conclusion can be that "X" is the neutral line. One can have a gut feeling that "X" is wrong, but to express that gut feeling without a source to back it up is prejudice. Hence my claim that it is illogical to have a single non-neutral source under the Wikipedia neutrality rules.

If you have conflicting sources I think it is fair to judge one as more reliable than the other, but I do not think it is fair to simply eliminate the conflicting source without a very good reason (recorded on the discussion page). That would be like a statistician removing outlying points without good reason. (The way I normally handle it is to write "X is the commonly held view{ref}, but some people think Y{ref}".)

I've always viewed Wikipedia as a form of "creativity with constraints" rather than a robotic job. The constraint is that every fact presented (even the 'obvious' ones) must come from a source, and you cannot pick and choose sources to back your own views. The challenge is to produce an informative, entertaining and readable article within the framework defined by the available sources. John Dalton 00:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

However if there are neutral ones, then it doesn't matter if it's "notable" or not. Unless "notability" is defined in terms of that and does not demand "fame" as an absolute requirement, which has nothing to do with neutrality at all. 74.38.34.192 23:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This brings up the question of "Verifiability vs NPOV", see WT:NPOV#Dispute - Verifiability or NPOV? for more, where something like this actually happened. In order to maintain NPOV in such a case, we would have to add unsourced original research, violating not one but two of Wikipedia's core content policies. On the other hand, if we were to stick to those, we would violate NPOV, which not only a Wikipedia core content policy but also "non-negotable" by Jimbo Wales and a "foundation issue". What a dilemma indeed. It is these types of situations that show inadequacies in present policy. 74.38.34.192 23:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake. You can't write a set of rules about what a good article looks like. Editors will make good sense decisions at some point about what gets more weight. The idea that you could a prior write and immense set of rules that would always produce good articles is just bogus. Rulecruft has to stop. Trollderella 20:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

'See also' section improvement

There's been LONG-standing consensus on this page, since way back when it was just an essay/proposal, to reference other related proposals, guidelines, essays, etc., on this topic. Today I expanded on it a little by rediscovering some "lost" proposals and such, and then organized it carefully and topically. I not only had all of those edits reverted with practically no explanation, the reverts went even further and removed material that's been there for over half a year. Given that the material in question provides information about the nature of the Notability debate, pretty much its full history on WP in fact, I find the reversions totally unfathomable. If there's disagreement that such wikilinks are needed at all, disagreement on one or more of the wikilinks in particular, or disagreement about the arrangement of the section, then let's discuss any such issues and try to work out a compromise, rather than engage in borderline edit-warring right off the bat, OK? I've restored my edits because their reversion was not justified. I'll go first:

In the case of the bulk of the deletion, nothing was said at all about the rationale, though a question was asked: Why bother linking to old proposals at all? The answer to that is blatantly obvious: Because this is a heavily debated and disputed topic, from what I can tell the single most so on all of WP, and has been for 3 years or more, with a lot of relevant material and viewpoints on the issue available at the links that section provides, and has provided for a very long time. The other reversion just said that the deleted items were already mentioned in the main article content. Well so what? The 'See also' links to WP:DEL and the notability criteria category were put in there for a reason (self-explained by the text that went with them). They highlight resources that are not debated. The fact that WP:DEL is mentioned somewhere else isn't of much significance, and the usage of the sidebar template is outright misleading, because not all of those guidelines have the same weight (in fact many are not guidelines at all). The two usages have entirely different purposes. The sidebar is a "roadmap" to current work on notability; the 'See also' subsection that listed the cat. and DEL is saying what is Policy and authoritative on the topic as opposed to dubious or in-progress. Admittedly the cat. link isn't much use in that regard, and I won't mind losing it; it may well be too duplicative of the sidebar. But the link to DEL is important in that particular context, whether or not it is also linked to in the main text and in the sidebar. The subsectioning is justified by how messy and jumbled the section was; I'm not utterly wedded to the subsectioning I chose, but I've not heard any logical objections to it. Please note the great deal of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF I'm bringing to bear here. But if I get blatantly edit-warred with, expect that to become strained. My patience is wearing thin enough, with the goings on in here overall, that WP:DISPUTE mediation channels are beginning to look pretty good. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Saying "vandalism" and "violence" isn't helpful and is certainly not the WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF you say you're bringing here. You added a section; several people edited it and removed parts; why is that a problem? Generally if a new section turns out to be disputed we discuss it on the talk page before adding it again. (Radiant) 12:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Which is what I initiated and which you just ignored a couple of minutes ago in another unjustified revert. Your only rationale so far amounts to "I have a right to Be Bold", but you have to do so within some limits which I believe you are exceeding. You have not addressed one single point I've raised on this topic. Since you have not done so, I'm re-reverting my edit (which changes that I hope may mitigate some of the issues with the original version), and really hope you don't re-re-revert it without actually discussing the issues you have with the material. As for my words, "violence" used in this sense is a legal term-of-art (as in "upholding the lower court's decision would do violence to Miller v California"), often used outside of the judicial context; it's colorful, but not intended as offensive. Rather, it is descriptive of the harm to the recipient (in this case my good faith efforts to improve the article), not of the mindset of the source of the harm (in this case, inexplicable or at least unexplicated wholesale reversion.) And I did not call you "vandal"; that's a straw man; I said "near-vandalism", and I think in the context it is entirely applicable because of the lack of logical (or any, really) justification of your reversions. It's not a personal insult at all, it's a warning that another editor thinks you are crossing (another) Policy-dictated boundary or are hazardously close to doing so; "near-vandalism" in this context is not random ad hominem name-calling, it is a clear reference to specific WP policies with regard to editing practices. Lastly, your characterization of your edit is inaccurate; you did not just revert my changes, nor (to use your words) are you "rewording [SMcCandlish's addition] and removing parts [I, Radiant] consider irrelevant", but lopped out all of the new material and even used the opportunity to remove extant material that has been in place for well-justified reasons for a very long time. And I've already made it clear that I strongly dispute the notion that the bulk of my addition was in any way irrelevant (nor that the other, pre-existing parts you deleted were). Please note again that I am not imputing any motives or agendas. Come on, feel free to disagree, but at least discuss the points of disagreement, huh? PS: It wasn't "several" editors, it was two, and the discernable rationales at this point for the reverts, and why one might disagree with them, are wholly different (and half of one of which I've already yielded on). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 13:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

PS: I'm really surprised at how much you are (without explanation) resisting these efforts to consolidate NN-related information here, given how much work you've done over the last 6 months to make this page the "one-stop shop" for the issue. Do you want to move this stuff into a more narrative ==History== instead? My goal is to not lose the information or have it become buried in such an obscure place it is virtually lost (again!). I don't really care whether it is a 'See also' section, or whether it has longwinded full-internal-URL wikilinks. Totally irrelevant to me; it's the significance that counts. I have a long day tomorrow, so I'm taking a break from this. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 13:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• No, my rationale (as stated in the edit summary) is that I don't see the point in linking to a set of historical proposals. Indeed, many policy pages have an assortment of (semi-)related proposals and such, and generally we keep such lists in the archives. A guideline is not a treatise on wikihistory. I find it ironic that you make revert other people's edits while telling other people not to revert your edits. (Radiant) 13:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not a rationale, that's "I don't like it". I've already argued against this reasoning above, anyway, with no substantive response from you. To continue, WP:N is not a Policy page. It's not even really a Guideline, it's a "disputed Guideline" (i.e. about one proverbial hair away from being demoted back to Essay or Proposal or even Rejected Guideline, though I think that would be going a bit far), and it's abundantly clear from the debate on this and every other related page that the history of the debate, and all of the pro vs. con arguments contained in it are closely bound to coming to consensus on the issue. You are also arguing with a straw man here; I've already said I don't care that the materials be a "list", only that they not be swept under the rug. Lastly, I'm not calling the kettle black, just defending this page from destructive reversions that are not justified and which seem almost if intended to violate WP policy — I'm trying to impress upon you that you are failing to WP:DISCUSS and seek WP:CONSENSUS and are instead trying to impose your personal will and point of view without comprehensible reasons (to the extent any have been expressed at all). This is not your personal page. It is a highly contentious piece of nascent Wikipolicymaking that will affect everyone here. Again, can you suggest something other than a 'See also' list that will still preserve the material in a highly visible way, at least until the notability issue is no longer contentious? If a year from now no one argues about this any longer, I could care less about the historical links. But they're of serious, ahem, notability in the present. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

So you can't hold/discuss/push a personal point of view on the talk pages??? Or are you referring to an edit of some sort to the WP:N page itself? 74.38.34.192 01:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The latter, if I understand your question. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

PS: Another way of looking at it: Saying "I don't see the point..." is not a rationale, it is a question, which I've already answered, twice, and which you have not refuted (successfully or otherwise; you've simply ignored it). Reverting again is simply edit-warring, plain and simple. I've been actively seeking your input on a compromise. Please respond to that, constructively. If you think one of the essay examples is lame, say so and why. If you hate the list format, suggest another. If you honestly think it's possible to demonstrate that the notabilty history isn't of relevance and value, give it shot (good luck!). But please do something other than just repeat your non-rationale again. And I haven't even gotten into questioning why you keep supporting and promoting paritcular essays and ignoring others. That could use some explanation too, though for now I've just been tacitly supporting is, as you should note from the ordering that I put things in in the "list". I've gone way out of my way to represent your preferences rather than mine in that regard. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, you wish to write a treatise on the history and development related to the term "notability" over time on Wikipedia. The best way to go about that would be to create a page Wikipedia:History of notability and write it there. A guideline such as this one is not a treatise on history but a description of the status quo. Your words about "demotion" imply that you are unfamiliar with how policy/guidelines work, since there is no such thing as "promoting" or "demoting" pages; see WP:PPP and WP:POL for details. Your accusations of ownership don't hold water considering the extensive input we've had here and the fact that this page accurately reflects the status quo. (Radiant) 14:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Straw man. I didn't say a "treatise", I said either a "list" as you called it (it's actually a pretty routine 'See also' section, which aside from frankly rather minor changes to it by me today has been in this document for months, and in its erstwhile competing documents, several of which predate it), or alternatively a narrative reformatting of it (heck, it could actually be done in one sentence, e.g.: "The [[...|oldest extant]] page on the topic was followed by [[...|an early proposal]], and a [[...|replacement]], all originally using terms like "fame", "importance" and "significance", until the [[...|"notability"]] term was arrived at, eventually spawning a [[...|"rejected counter-proposal"]] and the present Wikipedia:Notability." Quite simple really. How do you feel about that draft wording? And (second man o' straw in this one) I didn't say it (whatever form "it" takes) would be "on the history and development related to the term 'notability'"; I said I want to preserve prominent references to these pages — why? because they are the rest of the notability debate, of direct and immediate relevance here and the consensus impasse we seem to be hitting. As for actually writing up a real "history" page and putting all of this on there, the idea's certainly occurred to me, but my experience with you today suggests that actually having it referenced prominently from this article, and staying that way while WP:N remains contentious, could be a dicey proposition. I don't see any advantage to genuine consensus-building in allowing half of the debate and its historical backing to likely become marginalized or effectively vanish (too much of that has happened already with the long virtual disappearance of WP:INT and WP:FAME); silencing opponents != consensus, no matter why/how it happens or what motivates it (again, no accusation; I'm just observing effect regardless of cause). As for the rest: I put "demoted" in scare quotes for a reason. Please don't be over-literal. I think this is the third time in a week-or-so that you've not detected when I'm being humorous or ironic; I'm not sure if that's because you just don't get my humor, or because I'm poor at conveying it adequatedly. In case you haven't figured it out yet, I study WP policy processes. I don't particularly use them to get something done unless really, really strongly motivated to do so (cf. my low level of participation in AfD and DR and zero in RfAr) — I'd rather talk things out than demand deletions, overturns, arbitrations, etc. — but I follow them pretty closely. I think the WPspace pages outnumber the articlespace pages in my watch list... Next, I have to completely dispute (and please note carefully that I provide thought-out reasons why, I don't just declare that I don't agree) the ideas 1) that WP:N reflects any status quo as to consensus on policymatters (EVERY talk page even vaguely connected to this topic is rife with debate; see also the ArbCom's recent WP:NNOT RfAr Finding of Fact with regard to the widespread nature of the disputation on this topic); 2) that the status quo of "Delete NN" me-toos, and more substantive NN's that do not reference the notability criteria in WP:DEL (both of which have actually declined since this debate was reignited) in AfD are supposedly causative of WP:N being a valid consensus guidline (rather, they are a direct causal result of WP:N being labelled a guideline in the absence of anything aproaching WP:CONSENSUS; I've already addressed this several times here, with no substantive contradiction that I can find here); and 3) that your and my involvement with each other on this talk page has resulted in any change; the best that can be said for it is that it simply highlights that the disputes and lack of consensus on this topic are lingering, but that it has not devolved into a flamewar — we both do appear to be making honest efforts at being WP:CIVIL. Perhaps some of the fault is mine, but I can't help feeling that when I explain my rationales and concerns in detail but do not get substantive responses from you, that you need to change your understanding of and appoach to what talk pages are for and how consensus works. Speaking of which, I note that you still have not addressed any of the concerns/issues I've recently raised (and few that I've raised, period). Handwaving strawmen at me doesn't make me change my mind (or cause anyone else to do so). Especially when you combine that tactic with ignoring every point, sometimes dozens, but the one you've handwaved at. I detect that technique from miles away. It does not work on me or anyone else experienced at debate. I'll simply refute the handwave (or concede the point if it's not a handwave and valid, or continue the debate on the point if it's not a handwave and but I still question its validity), and restate the unresolved issues, as many times as is necessary to get them addressed. Surely you've figured that out by now? [*] The concerns raised by people who have unresolved issues with WP:N do not go away simply because you choose to ignore them, and until they are resolved consensus has not been reached. I can and will continue to raise the unaddressed concerns, indefinitely. I have almost unbelievable patience in this regard. [*: I am a little behind on catching up with the "#Some of the problems with WP:N" thread in this regard; I'll get there, don't worry.] — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• I would like to see some evidence or statistics for your allegations that (1) abuse of the term NN on AFD is the result of this guideline, and (2) that this usage has recently declined. Note that the existence of lengthy debate on the topic does not in and of itself prove anything; the talk pages of just about any policy page are "rife with debate" because that's what they're there for. Debate that took place a year or two ago is not generally representative to the situation we're having now. (Radiant) 10:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Self-revert in the interest of peace

Well, I couldn't sleep, so I'm back at it. I'm reverting my own edits, and putting the article back exactly as it was before this all started, including the deletions of extant material that you made while reverting my changes (but excepting edits that don't have anything to do with this particular dispute.) Another sign of good faith, remaining calm and various other sensible guidelines, and evidentiary I hope of intent toward conflict resolution. If it takes us weeks to discuss it out, then fine. The last thing I want is for this to force me to feel cornered into going into WP:3RR-complaining and the like. "Let's not go there." The self-revert will take a little while, but it should be done shortly. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Finished the self-revert. Afterward I did a removal of a useless item (as per Centrx's observation that the topical notability guidelines are already covered in the sidebar), and a factual correction (two previous proposals were labelled — by me, 6 or so months ago, if I remember correctly — as "rejected" when they were actually simply surpassed and went historical; so even that part's a self-revert, just a delayed one.) I do not think these trivial changes will be controversial even in light of the debate a subtopic above this. Now, can we talk and work this out? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)