Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 54

Archive 50

←

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

→

Archive 60

researchers with Mexico's Sistema Nacional de Investigadores

Please forgive the cross posting... I originally posted it at the WP:Biography talk page with no response and checked the notability page for academics, which gets even less traffic. Below is my Q

If I read the notability requirements right for academics, "The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association" (at Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)) should mean that any professor who is a member of Mexico's Sistema Nacional de Investigadores meets the notability requirements of Wikipedia. I wrote the article on the SNI yesterday to help with determining notability for some of the professor articles I have worked on. However, the SNI has levels of membership and it seems to me that the criteria for Levels II, III and emeritus clearly indicate notability, I dont think candidate level does and Level I is iffy. Anyone care to weigh in? Thelmadatter (talk) 02:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 September 2013

I have an article published with A.Schinzel so my Erdos number is 2, I'd like to be on the list, respectfully, Edward Dobrowolski

154.20.3.84 (talk) 07:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Which list would you like to be on? There is no relevant list of people at Erdős number, and there is no mention, that I can find, of Erdos numbers at WP:Notability, of which this is the talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe the OP is referring to List_of_people_by_Erdős_number. Reyk _YO! 06:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

GNG and opinion sources

My apologies if this has been addressed in the archives but I can't find the answer there. I think it would be very helpful to add additional clarity to WP:GNG on the question of whether opinion sources (e.g. editorials, op-eds, notable blog posts, etc.) can be used to determine notability. WP:GNG isn't completely clear on whether opinion pieces are allowed in GNG analysis. Moreover, WP:RSOPINION doesn't explicitly say that opinion pieces are unreliable, just that they require attribution.

My own feeling here is that opinion pieces requiring attribution should not be used to determine notability, as these pieces lack editorial review of whether their subjects are noteworthy, i.e. they represent simply the personal interests of the author and nothing more. If a subject receives enough attention in opinion pieces then perhaps it will attract attention in the non-opinion news, in which case it might then become sufficiently notable to satisfy WP:GNG. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The question isn't really suitable to a bright line. Opinions come in all colors of reliability, from the NYT Editorial Board's editorial, to opinion pieces in major publications, to blog posts by your next door neighbor. If the NYT Editorial Board wrote an editorial on a subject, that editorial would almost certainly count as a source towards notability. If you next door neighbor wrote the same in a blog post, it almost certainly wouldn't. But what about a widely recognized blog, run by publicly identified and highly respected Academics, who maintain high editorial standards, including public corrections etc... What about the editorial Board of your local paper? It is probably better to avoid the issue and find sources that are less subject to dispute in terms of reliability, but if this type of source is necessary, we need to evaluate it on a case by case basis. Monty₈₄₅ 19:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Oy. I understand your view but it doesn't provide make for easy resolution. The classic case is where there are several opinion articles and blog posts by noted columnists and bloggers, all of the same political persuasion - but the news media hasn't picked up on it at all. Let's say there are a few editorials by small-town newspapers. What then? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I think this question has more to do with WP:Reliability than WP:Notability. Blueboar (talk) 12:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, GNG requires in-depth coverage of the subject of the article by the qualifying sources. An opinion piece (if really just an opinion piece) is typically not in-depth coverage. Or conversely, if it is in-depth coverage of the topic, it isn't just an opinion piece (even if biased) North8000 (talk) 12:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Interesting points both, thanks. I'll mull them over. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Presumption vs prerequisite

In the sentence:

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."

There's a significant problem with "it is presumed": its use here is so nonstandard and opaque that it then requires the explanation of Wikipedia's use of "Presumption" lower in the policy. Too late! To be comprehensive and comprehensible, it should be immediately modified by the language "does not guarantee inclusion", but this only exists much later in the policy as written. This lawyerly "gotcha" flourish is a direct disservice to our readers and editors, especially non-native English speakers, and it is a completely unnecessary diversion which has complicated WP:N for too long. A better way to go, IMHO, is to write about these conditions as "prerequisite", as in "required before" (and also as in "most important"), while implying nothing about sufficiency. "Presumption" implies sufficiency and misleads editors who then use the words "presumption of suitability" as if that were the policy, rather than precondition; that impression of sufficiency is taken away by a blizzard of later, not proximate, clauses. Suggested rewrite:

"A topic requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject; this coverage is a prerequisite for inclusion as a stand-alone article or list, but not a guarantee. Other requirements, listed below, and in topic-specific subsidiary policies and guidelines, apply."

There simply is no assumption of notability or assumption of suitability, and there should be no presumption of either; we should not be planting pithy concepts in readers' heads if they do not really exist. If meeting a subsidiary policy satisfies GNG, which does not guarantee suitability as an article, then we should use that phrasing or the like. Please, let's simplify this policy where it can be simplified, and assert its primacy over, or foundational nature beneath, the subsidiary topic-specific policies; in so doing, eschew obfuscation. Of course, if this has been covered before, lemme know. --Lexein (talk) 03:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

It has, you'll likely need to look in the archives, but the short answer is that "presumed" means that the notability factor can be challenged later. It is impossible to prove that a topic is not notable (you can't prove a negative), so the best we can do is tell editors to show us best how a topic is notable, and in good faith we presume that as long as the sources given meet the GNG, then we can presume notability and a stand-alone article - this is also how the subject-specific notability guidelines work. But if the sources just barely meet the GNG and no new sources ever appear, then that presumption was wrong and we can delete the article. Changing "presumption" to "prerequisite" changes this practice - making it difficult to challenge articles on grounds of notability if they barely pass the line, or if the situation changes in the future. --MASEM (t) 04:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Mmm. "Just barely meet"? The sources are either reliable or not, or enough (quantity) or not, or independent or not. The book authors are known in their field or not, the magazines have editorial staffs or not, the topic was discussed over time or not, and in depth or not. To what difficulty are you referring? I see people loading significance which doesn't belong onto this policy point, and the whole "presumption" notion as contrived, a weasel word, and unnecessary. If an article slips in with sources which appear at first glance to satisfy GNG, that early perception doesn't contractually bind Wikipedia to forever retain that article. If closer, later, examination exposes flaws in those sources, numbers, verifiability, or independence (say, due to external events, or facts later coming to light) we deal with it then at AFD, where, if possible, the article's sourcing is found improvable, and is improved, or if not, the article is deleted. I don't see any need to resort to language like "presumption" at all. For an example of the unpleasantness I'm beset with, see, Wikipedia talk:The answer to life, the universe, and everything/Archive 1#Misleading and redundant, where the whole miserable notion of presumption is treated as a thing unto itself. It isn't, which is my point. There should be nothing wedged in between an article and its immediately measurable compliance with GNG, even with respect to subsidiary topic-related N policies. I, for one, don't want to be burdened with some lawyerly whitwizzle about presumptions to a struggling English-as-a second-language student when I'm just trying on IRC to get them to use independent books and other sources, when they want to create a new article. The stated prerequisite is a minimum requirement which can be met, or unmet. It never goes away, but the non-compliant article certainly can. The word "presumption" isn't really helping anyone. And as already noted, satisfying the partial prerequisite (which is what it really is, not the full prerequisite) is not a guarantee of acceptability; I'm advocating making that distinction more clear, up front. --Lexein (talk) 07:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I would have to oppose the proposed change to the wording of this guideline because in my view there is or ought to be a residual category of "things that ought to be included in an SNG that hasn't been written yet".

For what its worth, my reading of the archives is that the relationship between GNG and SNG isn't a settled question. My view of GNG is that it ought to be construed as a means of including topics that are not obviously worthy of notice. An example of a topic for which GNG is a wholly unsuitable test is the laws of Northern Ireland. In 1979, the Royal Commission on Legal Services reported that there was a severe shortage of text books on this subject. This had nothing to do with the importance of these laws. It was due to commercial considerations based on the number of people living in Northern Ireland (ie potential customers). And that is, I think, the sort of consideration that should not be allowed restrict our content. Because we are not a business. James500 (talk) 10:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

User:James500 has illustrated a vivid example of overloading significance on N which doesn't belong there. N and GNG do not alone, and never have, comprised the totality of criteria for suitability or includibility, so I'm asking for it not to be treated as those separate, encompassing concepts. GNG is the first hurdle which all articles must pass, to be considered for includibility: a step on the road. I agree surmise that the 1979 RCLS NI laws textbook shortage is not a suitable article, even though it may pass GNG (it may not be a substantial enough historical crisis from what I've seen so far - expanded upon below). That doesn't make GNG a "wholly unsuitable test" - GNG was never intended to constitute the entirety of suitability tests. That's why GNG is not, and never was, the last word on suitability. It remains the first word. --Lexein (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

That isn't what I said and you are not helping your cause by misrepresenting what I said. What I said is that the laws of Northern Ireland are worthy of notice even if (for business reasons that have nothing to do with the actual importance of those laws) commercially published books fail to discuss them. James500 (talk) 12:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me if I misread a fragment of what you wrote, but you did write: "My view of GNG is that it ought to be construed as a means of including topics that are not obviously worthy of notice." This is overloading a purpose onto it for which was never intended. Your view does not reflect any sort of consensus. "Obviousness" is subjective; things can only be obvious after they're seen. Only real research can determine the relevance for inclusion of a topic, in the context of all available independent RS of the period. For you to find no Ind.RS, but to do the research yourself, in law books, and try to source an article from that, risks being WP:OR from WP:PRIMARY sources. We want others to have already written about the experience of the shortage, or the long past history of the event, and not just in books btw, in all RS. An example of such others might include WP:notable independent individuals of the day writing letters about the matter, whose letters are published then or later. But if no Ind.RS can be found, the best hope for article inclusion would be as a smaller section in an article about an encompassing topic. GNG is a go/no-go scale (ultimately, after AFC/AFD discussion) which weighs significance as measured by discussion by independent others over time, and culls that which is insufficiently sourced or of insufficient notice in its time. How can you infer any sort of permission not to cite independent sources? That would position Wikipedia as the authority, when our policies, in aggregate, are that the voice of Wikipedia is the voice of its sources. --Lexein (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

You know perfectly well that I am not talking about the notability of a shortage of books. You know perfectly well that I am talking the notability of certain laws. James500 (talk) 15:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC) In this case there is no OR issue as there is legislation that is a reliable source. Indeed, because of the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, it is sometimes a source that quite literally can't be wrong. There may be an issue about independence, but if there is, it is a silly test that should not apply. And that is one of the reasons why GNG doesn't work. James500 (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

"Presumed" is the word that bridges the balance between assuring there is enough coverage for a topic to give it a good encyclopedic article, and that there is no deadline. Less with the GNG and more specific to the subject-specific ones. For example, one of the NSPORT presumed notability criteria is that a player has played at a pro level; as long as that fact can be sourced, we allow an article, with the idea that if the player has reached this level there are sources from his past career (in collegiate or amateur level sports) to have made him a pro player, in addition to his pro career. But locating enough sources for this, particularly on pro athletes pre-Internet, may take time. This often means that these articles float around as stub for years. We're presuming that if someone when to find sources, they would be successful and could fill it out. BUT it is still a presumption. If I decided to take up that task and exhausted all available sources, finding the person's pro career was short and non-eventual and there's no reliable sourcing from his past, then that presumption failed and I could put it up for AFD. This is completely accept - it is better to have stubs that may linger indefinitely but allow for anyone interested to be built on, than to use the word "prerequisite" which assumes the notability bar was passed, breaking the subject-specific guidelines and preventing stub articles from being created. Also, notability is not a black-or-white aspect, and it is something that can't be measured. If it was this, we would never close AFDs on "no censensus". --MASEM (t) 13:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Something that has not been raised yet... something that I think directly relates to why the word "presumed" is important... even when a topic is extensively covered by reliable sources, we don't actually have to have a stand-alone article devoted to it... we can make the editorial decision that the topic is better presented within the context of an article on another related topic. The fact that sources exist means we could have an article... but we are not required to have one.

For example, let's say we can find five reliable sources that discuss a particular sports player... but they all say essentially the same thing (that he played for the "NY Skyscrapers" Moofball team from 1895-1917, scored 420 points, was and awarded Player of the Year three years in a row). There is enough for at least a stub right there... BUT... we may not have enough for more than a stub based on just those five sources. If this article were sent to AfD, I could easily see us reaching the consensus that it is better to not have a stand alone article on this player... and instead MERGE the stub into a section within the article on New York Skyscrapers (Moofball team)... or perhaps within a sub-article New York Skyscrapers (notable players).

The point is... having a presumption of notability does not (and should not) be seen as a guarantee of a stand-alone article. It does mean that Wikipedia should discuss the subject/topic somewhere... but not necessarily in a stand alone article. Blueboar (talk) 14:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Also to add: from above from Lexein: " GNG was never intended to constitute the entirety of suitability tests. That's why GNG is not, and never was, the last word on suitability. It remains the first word." This is true and why we have language in WP:N that while a topic may pass the GNG for inclusion, other policies, particularly NOT, may restrict us from creating a topic on it; the Laws example is a perfect case of likely failing WP:IINFO despite being notable. And to add again: WP:N is a guideline, and switching from presumed to prerequisite would incur the wrath of those that have fought hard against deletion as they are right to point out that there are mushy edges (more than IAR would allow) to when inclusion is allowed, and thus we don't want to make this even close to appearing as policy. --MASEM (t) 14:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

My answer to that would be that if any policy or guideline says that we can't have articles on the laws of Northern Ireland, there is something obviously and seriously wrong with that policy or guideline, namely that it is manifestly absurd. James500 (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The way to assess these policies and guidelines is to apply them to something that obviously should have an article and see if they produce the correct result. If they don't, change them. James500 (talk) 15:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

That said, I can't see how IINFO could possibly apply to the example I suggested. James500 (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

IINFO would come into play in the Irish law example (I assume that's what you mean), in that we would certainly have a law that broadly covers the history and context of the laws (which I would readily assume is notable), and likely individual articles on specific laws, but to have a detailed list of all the laws would be IINFO. --MASEM (t) 16:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not it would be practicable or desirable, a list of all legislation applying to a particular jurisdiction would not be indiscriminate (which means random). Neither would a list of all rules of common law. James500 (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes it would be, since the list is expected to be rather large. Indiscriminate includes both issues with open-ended lists ("Lists of people from X" would be unmanagable if we didn't add a notability requirement) and lists that may be finite but large. Remember, we are not the end-all, be-all of information -we are supposed to be summarizing and providing added resources, but not outright repeating. Details of the broader organization of laws would be fine - like in United States Code which lists the various titles which USCode is broken into, and even we have the broad contents of each title (eg: Title 1 of the United States Code), but that's as deep as we go, as then all specific chapters in those titles are links to .gov sites with the laws. --MASEM (t) 22:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

That is complete nonsense. "Large" is a subjective and therefore meaningless concept. It cannot be used to limit the length of a list because it is not a length. We do in fact already have lists with hundreds of thousands of elements, and there is no reason why we should not go higher still. There is nothing indiscriminate about that. And see NOTPAPER. James500 (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is subjective. But it is a very real mechanism by which we use to determine when lists may be indiscriminate. The only list that large that I'm aware of is List of minor planets and that remains a controversial list to include, since that's basically duplicating the primary sources. --MASEM (t) 23:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no such mechanism and there ought not to be one. In any event a list of legislation would not duplicate a primary source (and it would have to be the whole of one primary source reproduced without modifications to violate NOTMIRROR). No piece of legislation contains such a list let alone is such a list. There are lists, but they are all secondary. Conversely, if you were to take the short titles directly from Acts of Parliament, that would be a compilation of very short extracts from a substantial number of sources and that is not a mirror either. James500 (talk) 08:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC) "Lists of people from X" is a bad example because it has nothing to do with length. It is because Wikipedia is not a phone book, register of births, baptisms, marriages, deaths and burials, electoral roll, etc, for any area. It is because we specifically exclude certain types of source. James500 (talk) 11:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC) I think that a list of numbered minor planets is perfectly appropriate provided that it is accurate. Unless the accuracy of the sources is disputed, I, for one, am not interested in that kind of argument. James500 (talk) 11:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but we do have problems with large lists that are just pulled from primary sources which are otherwise immediately available elsewhere. Unless we are adding to that data in some way, repeating is simply frowned upon. But this is less a notability issue and more a WP:NOT issue. --MASEM (t) 13:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I am unable to follow this line of reasoning as I am not sure what type of situation you have in mind. James500 (talk) 14:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm saying that one can likely show the notability of a long list of items like a country's laws without problem, the issue of whether repeat every detail of those falls under polices at WP:NOT, not WP:N. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I am unable to agree. I personally consider a list of notable X, as oppossed to an index of articles about X to violate CIRCULAR if it really means a list of X that have articles or that are deemed to satisfy some guideline of Wikipedia, especially GNG. James500 (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

"Presumption" is a minefield. If it's going to be interpreted as "passed some more permissive notability criteria based on a bunch of good faith assumptions", for pete's sake say that, and not this lawyerly "presumption" nightmare. It's just camouflage for AGF, as it stands, while still using the name "notable", unmodified. That's bull. Call it what it is: non-N, non-GNG, but still allowed with some weak-ass logic to remain on Wikipedia with one non-independent source.

I'm just not convinced we need it, and it doesn't help editors get to work. Sourcing and inline citation requirements have strengthened over the years. It's time this "presumption" sloppiness is firmed up somehow. I'm not buying it anymore (if I ever did), and I'm an inclusionist. --Lexein (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Trust me, there are those that do agree with you, myself include. If WP were to start fresh today, no articles at all, WP:N would be a requirement before an article could be added to mainspace. Unfortunately, we have 4M+ articles, and to apply that stricter standard to all existing articles would be a logistical nightmare, much less the backlash from editors. We have to balance here, and the presumption concept is the clearest concept to get across. --MASEM (t) 14:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

You mean, worse pushback than when reliable sources started to be required? Hrmph. Doubtful. I say, toughen up and do what's best for the encyclopedia's credibility, independence, and neutrality now. I don't think we'll lose many editors over it. Gradualism still works, so what logistical nightmare? --Lexein (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I've been in the middle of inclusionist/deletionists battles. Even suggesting a grandfathering approach over a year or so to more strict notability requirements will be met with cries of anguish and any attempt to stop that, based on a combination of DEADLINE and NOTPAPER. And anyway, such a step would require making WP:N policy and even many deletionists would agree that's a bad idea waiting to happen. --MASEM (t) 15:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I am probably much more in line with Masem's thinking now than I was in years previous (and we've had some battles), and I can see some merit in your position, Lexein. But you are begging the question here. There is no indication that your proposal will affect Wikipedia's credibility, independence, and neutrality in any meaningful fashion. Resolute 22:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, strengthening sourcing requirements will improve WP's credibility, for each article which is properly sourced. That's one of the motivations for requiring ind.RS at all. Jeez, ask Jimbo if you think I'm wrong. (btw credibility, independence, and neutrality is my rallying cry for when I get really gung ho.) Anyways, it's time to get bold, and get the whiners on board for improving notability requirements. If strengthening N doesn't get continual attention, article sourcing will continue to degrade. I would like editors like James500 to be able to read N and GNG without getting confused about its true core purpose, and to avoid going off into the weeds of ever weaker sourcing requirements. As long as "presumption" exists, N is part babble, and weak as hell. Unacceptable. --Lexein (talk) 05:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Fixing WP:N to strengthen requirements will not solve the perceived issue of WP being unreliable; that's an issue with WP:V. And again, you are certainly free to start an RFC to move WP:N to a policy or the like, but I will tell you that that will fail faster than you expect in the current environment. --MASEM (t) 05:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

OMG how can strengthening N's requirements not lead to better quality, better sourced articles, not reduce the number of non-notable articles, and not contribute to better credibility? Lazily leaning on WP:V is not the answer here. N must be strengthened, even if it's not policy. Sheesh, now you're just folding your arms and declaring your version of reality. --Lexein (talk) 12:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

What you're describing is a great idea, just like WP would be great if we didn't allow non-free content to truly be a free encyclopedia. But at the same time, given that I've spent the last 6+ years involved with notability and with NFC, that both those are pipe dreams in the current consensus. There is so much inertia against both ideas that I would be wasting everyone's time to suggest that. WP:N works happily right now but it's taken a lot of time to get it there. I'm being practical, as I've wasted a lot of time trying to find other mid-points to have them completely fail. --MASEM (t) 14:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Also keep in mind: we write our policies and guidelines as descriptive of current practices and not prescriptive to introduce novel approaches unless that has undergone a significant amount of discussion. The presumption aspect of notability describes our current practices appropriately; what you want is something that needs massive vetting before changing, and that as I've stated is likely a futile effort. --MASEM (t) 15:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Lexein, I have not advocated weaker sourcing requirements. One source is not necessarily less reliable or neutral than multiple sources. You can have a single source that is perfectly neutral, objective and balanced. You can have multiple sources that are all prejudiced and all share the same prejudices. I am under the impression that multiple sources will not produce a representative sample because you need a random sample of at least a thousand people for that (which I presume is not practical and would be OR anyway). The effect of a requirement for corroboration may be to produce two lying witnesses instead of one.

It is not apparent to me that significant coverage has anything to do with accuracy either. James500 (talk) 13:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Balderdash. You have directly advocated that articles can have only a single existing source, and still meet our definition of notability. This tells me that you don't comprehend notability per Wikipedia's usage, academic usage, or general usage. Nothing's notable if only one person noticed and wrote about it. This is ridiculous. Your deliberate manipulations (shifting to "neutral, objective and balanced", when nobody was talking about that), assumptions of bad faith ("lying witnesses"), and deliberate misrepresentations ("a thousand people") are now mere trolling. Nobody's talking about generic "people" - the focus is on WP:RS (that's published sources), and enough of them over time for a topic to rise to a level of notability. You're trying to derail and distract. Your "concerns" are directly addressed in WP:IRS. We can and do assess sources for their reliability as judged by others. Why is that not apparent to you? There are limits to what editors can do in terms of evaluating sources, but there should be no reduction in what editors should endeavor do to. Declaring a single source enough is simply abrogating responsibility. Multiple independent RS are our sole best hope to build an encyclopedia, not a blog. --Lexein (talk) 12:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Lexein, you are not doing your cause any favours by systematically misrepresenting what I have said (whether deliberately or because you can't understand English). "Lying witnesses", for example, referred to notionally reliable sources that not in fact accurate. It was only a metaphor (because GNG is analogous to a requirement for corroboration and I thought you might be suggesting that it is one). It was not an accusation of bad faith against any source. It had absolutely nothing to do with you or any other editor. That ought to have been very obvious from the context.

Neutrality is an issue because WHYN says that is the reason that GNG refers to multiple sources. If multiple sources are not in fact necessary for neutrality (and in my opinion they are not) GNG can be relaxed by ditching the requirement for multiple sources. And that is what I am proposing.

The reference to a thousand people is because I am under the impression that is the minimum sample size required for an opinion poll because someone once told me so. I apologize if I am wrong about the actual number but the concept is relevant to the question of the number sources required for neutrality.

And we are discussing whether GNG should be changed, so I am not changing the subject by suggesting an alternative way in which GNG might be changed.

I have made no references to a "single existing source" (my emphasis). GNG is about the number of sources that can be found before the end of an Afd discussion (which probably won't be all of them if GBooks is missing 100 out of 130 million books) and that is what I have been talking about. James500 (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Weakening N or GNG is not the way this or any encyclopedia should be going. The fact that you want to add content supportable by a single extant source period, has been your case from the start. And nobody cares about Google Books, either. Further, you did, in fact, do everything I claimed, precisely as stated, no matter how you choose to backpedal. If you wish to take me to DR, please do so. Does nobody else here see that James500 is interpreting "presumed" in exactly the toxic, bloggish, any-old-source-will-do way I'm warning against? --Lexein (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

James, for meeting the GNG , you need significant coverage. It is very unlikely - but not out of the realm of possibility - that one source would be sufficient to provide significant coverage, which is why we require multiple sources. Once you have shown multiple sources, then we talk about the presumption of notability, but not before. --MASEM (t) 18:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Masem, if that is the reason, then WHYN should be rewritten, because at the moment it says that the reason is to comply with NPOV and doesn't allude to any other reason. James500 (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Lexein, twisting my words and calling me names like "toxic" is not going convince anyone that I am wrong. James500 (talk) 18:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

WHYN outlined the situation perfectly, nor does it let you get away with a single source for meeting the GNG. --MASEM (t) 19:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

James... relax... Lexein is not calling you toxic... he is saying that he thinks your interpretation of the the guideline is toxic... there is a difference. The first would be a personal attack, the second is not. Blueboar (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Lexein, what exactly are you talking about when you complain that James wants to "add content supportable by a single extant source"? This is an important question, because GNG is not about content... its about entire topics. It is OK to add content based on one single source. The question is whether that content should be presented on its own, in a stand alone article devoted to it, or whether should it be presented in the context of some other article, on some related topic. I would generally agree that if there is only one single source that discusses something, it is probably not WP:Notable enough to give it its own stand alone article. However, it could well be note worthy enough to be mentioned in some other article. The latter is an editorial decision (governed by WP:RS and WP:NPOV)... it is not governed by GNG. Blueboar (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

(Sorry, distracted for days, wasn't notified). User:Blueboar, when I wrote "content", I was staying in context, and referring to whole articles, as you surmised. This whole discussion has been about whole articles being based on a single source (not how we do it), and whole articles being based on a primary source (also now not how we do it). I was of course referring to whole articles. I was strongly advising that the best-practice way to preserve the desired content (about the textbook shortage), if those are the only available sources, is to add it to an existing article of an enclosing topic (education in Ireland). -Lexein (talk) 03:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC) Revised --Lexein (talk) 05:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The desired content is not a textbook shortage, it is the law of Northern Ireland. James500 (talk) 15:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• This "presumption" business? User:Masem, it's not a bare presumption. It's a "qualified presumption", or "conditional presumption." Any "presumption" implies that there is a defined prior state: a starting condition before which nothing, or some naked minimum, is presumed. And usually, presumptions are made within a context of a defined process for negating the presumption. In law, the presumption of innocence (the prior, unqualified condition) is tested by jurisprudence, and can be negated or modified to some other condition. Here, the "presumption of notability" is predicated on conditions being met before the presumption, and that's the logical tangle which vexes me. Our so-called "presumption" cannot be without prior conditions being met, so "presumption" by itself is simply the wrong word. Since it's based on meeting Has Significant Coverage in Reliable Sources that are Independent of the Subject over Time(HSCIRSTAIOTSOT) (or Discussed In Multiple Independent Reliable Sources Over Time (DIMIRSOT)), it's really a qualified condition. Because it's qualified, I propose calling it "qualified notability" - the notability is always tied to the qualifying conditions, which can be re-evaluated. Saying "presumed", when "qualified" is what is meant, is flawed. "Presumed" always tangles the tense of what is meant. --Lexein (talk) 03:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The process is challenging the assumption of notability at AFD - eg we presume notability until we can prove otherwise (or in notability, best conclude there is an absence of additional sources). Mind you, yes, there is a preliminary requirement, that some sourcing exists for this, but the presumption aspect is based on how that notability can be challenged. --MASEM (t) 03:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

And I will point out that we've had previous discussions on exactly the form of presumption we're talking about, and still agreed that the word "presumption" is the best description of practice. Even using "qualified" is too strong a word for a guideline. --MASEM (t) 03:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, apparently "qualified" is understood in a variety of ways by different people. Of course I'm using "qualified" not to imply suitability, but to indicate clearly that one hurdle has been conditionally passed, subject to further review. Now that I've settled on the clear fact that our use of "presume" tangles tense and logic and is therefore incorrect use, I'm pretty confident that further discussion of the word "qualified" or "conditional" will be fruitful. --Lexein (talk) 05:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

But again, I point out that "presumed" is necessary to be able to challenge articles where we initially assumed notable but believe no longer to be true - if you just use "qualified" or "conditional", editors will take that if you pass that bound, you can never deny the article notable. "Presumed" or "assumed" is the right word to show that it is not a guarantee of a topic being notable forever if you only have a handful of questionable sources. --MASEM (t) 05:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Resolving the conflict?

As I see it, article topics/subjects can fall into one of the following GNG classes:

1. topics/subjects that we know are discussed by sources (these are considered notable under GNG).
2. topics/subjects that we assume are discussed by sources (these might be notable under GNG ... then again they might not be)
3. topics/subjects that we know are not discussed by sources (these are usually not considered notable under GNG)

Our discussions have been about class number 2... And the underlying question is this: How do we deal with the uncertainty of "might or might not"? Should we err on the side of inclusion (allow the article unless someone can "prove the negative"... and demonstrate that there really aren't sources). Or should we err on the side of exclusion (don't allow the article, until someone can prove the positive by demonstrating that there really are sources).

That's where the SNG's come into play. We thread the needle between inclusion and exclusion by examining whether the topic/subject fits certain criteria that normally indicate that sources should exist. If so, then we err on the side of inclusion (presume notability), and if not then we err on the side of exclusion (presume non-notability).

HOWEVER... we now come to the situation where there is a potential for conflict between GNG and SNG... It's rare, but occasionally a topic/subject fits a SNG criteria (so we presume notability)... yet after looking hard for sources we reach the conclusion that there are none ... we actually can "prove the negative" (so we know our initial presumption was wrong). This is where I think GNG has to come back into play. It is in this final step (we looked and there really aren't any sources) that GNG has to "trump" the SNGs. That final step is missing from the guideline. I think it needs to be there. Blueboar (talk) 14:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that's the implication of using "presumed" - we'll give the benefit but if one shows diligent effort that a topic is just not notable via lack of sources, then we can challenge that presumption. But if we need specific language to explain that the presumption of notability can be challenged (via rigorously following the steps at BEFORE), then we should add that. --MASEM (t) 14:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Operatively, "presumed" is ambiguous in a way that is very relevant to actual situations. It could mean either:

1. A deflection against a "show me your sources" challenge when there is a debate on whether or not such coverage exists, I.E. someone has actually raised the concern that such coverage may not exist
2. A deflection against automatic deletion simply because the article doesn't currently have wp:notability-satisfying sources, where no concern about existence of such coverage has been raised or discussed. In short, a defense against robotic deletion where no such concern has been discussed.

I think that #1 is bad and #2 is good. I think that making the distinction would be a good idea. North8000 (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that this is basically agreement with what Masem just said, and a suggestion that we actually implement it in wording. North8000 (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's right (in agreement). Presumption works with the SNG to prevent fast deletion for failing the GNG on the assumption sources will eventually be found (hence the need for SNG criteria to be written towards this end); the notability challenge should only come after someone that wishes deletion has made a rigorous effort to show that the topic fails (situation #2). If no SNG applies to a topic, then the GNG applies, and that means we work under situation #1, that those wishing to keep the article have to show the sources as to gain the presumption of notability, with the caution that a week keep or no consensus close is fair game to be re-evaluated in the future; presumption of notability only comes after you've shown sources, not before. --MASEM (t) 15:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Now how might we implement that? North8000 (talk) 15:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Simple language start would be "The presumption of notability is a good faith assumption that once the GNG is met (through demonstration of some appropriate sources) or the appropriate SNG is met, that editors will continue to add more secondary sources and improve the article in time (given that there is no deadline). However, this presumption may be challenged at a later time by showing, through rigorous efforts of the steps outlined at WP:BEFORE, that no further sources exists or likely will exist. Similarly, articles kept as a result of an AFD may also be challenged at a later time if no sourcing improvements are made." But I suck at starting simple language :) --MASEM (t) 15:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Just curious, why couldn't this effort have been made 13 days ago? Whatever, it's good to be right. --Lexein (talk) 04:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Probably because this has been unspoken or implicit understanding of how "presumed" works, which no one else until now may have though of codifying to explain better (in part that any changes to WP:N, even for the good, often bring in the wrath of editors that are strongly against notability guidelines in the first place) --MASEM (t) 17:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I would state it like this ...

1. A subject/topic is considered notable if it passes GNG.
2. A subject/topic can be presumed to be notable enough if it passes one of our SNG criteria. It is rare for a topic/subject to pass a SNG criteria and not have any sources discuss it.
3. The presumption of notability does not mean the topic/subject is notable ... however, it does mean that the subject/topic is likely to be notable. We take this likelihood into consideration when reaching consensus at AfD. It is appropriate to give such topics/subjects the benefit of the doubt... temporarily keeping articles while we search for the sources that are likely to exist. However, it is also appropriate to renominate if it turns out that our initial presumption was wrong, and sources don't actually exist.

Or is this too simple Blueboar (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Even just meeting the GNG is a presumption; say I have a topic on something current that doesn't fall into any SNG but I am able to pull a couple secondary sources that briefly cover the topic in a manner that I can at least get a sourced stub going and would reasonably expect more sources to come -- but years later nothing appears. We'd likely keep the article at that start, but if someone validly shows no further source seems forthcoming, then yes, that presumption was wrong. Of course, the more sources you have for a topic that meet the GNG, the exponentially more difficult it will be to argue that the presumption of notability was wrong. --MASEM (t) 17:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think this version works, because it doesn't mention good faith assumption. As far as explaining the current unfortunate use of "presumption", I prefer Masem's version above, even though it goes nowhere to fixing the issue I decry. --Lexein (talk) 04:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that the SNG should "trump" GNG. I think that using GNG as a proxy for importance is dubious. The sources to which GNG refers are not infallible and may have systematic biases. James500 (talk) 15:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

SNGs are meant for specific fields, so the GNG is necessary as a catchall as well as a goal. I will say that SNGs are free to set stronger demands for notability than the GNG (for example, NSPORTS does place emphasis on avoiding local-only sources to avoid coverage of highs school and amateur athletes), but that's up to the specific SNG to decide. However, more often than not, what sources are appropriate for meeting the GNG are decided on a field-by-field assessment, knowingly aware that sources that would be acceptable in some fields would not be in others. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone objects to SNGs that set stronger standards than GNG... the potential for conflict is when an SNG sets looser standards than GNG. Ultimately, we do need a Wikipedia wide "minimum standard" that would apply to any and all topics. If that isn't GNG, then what is it? Blueboar (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

(after ec) I think SNGs should be (and currently are) alternatives to the GNG. If a topic passes the GNG it is notable, whatever any SNG may say. If a topic passes a SNG it is notable (unless the SNG uses "may be notable" wording). In some fields sources will exist but are rare, hard to find and almost never online, so an SNG is generally the way to go. DES ^(talk) 15:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

For the most part this is how it is handled, but this is where the presumption comes in. An article that just meets an SNG is likely going to start as a stub with one or two sources ("This person won this award.") We do want to give time for more sourcing to be found, noting as mentioned many will be off-line and difficult to locate or access. But if someone actually went through that effort and said "I looked here, here and here and can't find any more sourcing", and everyone else agrees that those steps exhausted where sources could be found, then the SNG's presumption fails and AFD would be a reasonable step. But again, you are trying to prove a negative (A topic not being notable) and thus in such cases the onus is on those wishing to delete to proof to the best possible extent that sourcing likely does not exist. --MASEM (t) 15:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Amateur Efforts, Notability, and Reliability

Trust me to open this can of worms anew, right? P:D I have some concern that Notability may be shifting in the context in which WP operates, and part of it is a reflection of the growing size, sophistication, and increasing public notability of Wikipedia itself. Wikipedia is now a major and often primary source of information on the Internet. If we presume that many people begin their search for information with a Google search on a term (they do, and this can be measured quantitatively and documented properly by just about anyone), and that Wikipedia is a primary reference returned in a Google search (it is now the featured source), then Wikipedia itself would seem to fit the Notability and Reliability guidelines concerning many subjects, roughly approximate them in others, and be rapidly approaching those standards in most if not all other subjects. That also opens up the door in terms of OR, in that if we don't do the research on a subject (the contents of a published work, say), then those subjects may remain completely hidden from popular attention, simply for lack of commercial interest in making the effort. If Notability, Reliability, and Original Research are the barriers here, is WP not discussing the subject simply consigning it to a death sentence?

Yes, I do have a specific work in mind, but consider it as being emblematic of a larger host of works: _H+ (Plus): A New Religion_ by Edward de Bono. It reminds me of my concept of "One Good Thing" and a few other essays I've written without ever having read the book. I'm just as interested in this book as many of the others for which there is a WP article. I think quite a few other people might be as well, and that they are the sorts of people that might make real volunteer and monetary contributions to WP. Considering the subject matter of the book, the increasing visibility and authority of WP, and just how it is that WP exists and continues to function, it's hard to see how long the current policies can remain in place unchanged. If someone writes a complete, published work on Wikipedia itself, and no one else gives it a "handle" to be gripped under current policies, what then?

Perhaps I haven't expressed the concepts well, but I think the foundations of current WP policies need to be evaluated fairly soon, as the situation is changing rapidly, and the context is far different from what it was at the birth of WP. Thank you. -- TheLastWordSword (talk) 15:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, by definition a tertiary source - we summarize what other sources say, not create new knowledge that doesn't yet exist. The fact some people think that if they can't find it on Wikipedia means it doesn't exist is a problem with their expectations since this conflicts with our mission; we are not the end-all of the Internet. We need good sourcing to write an encyclopedic, and that doesn't happen just because a work is popular. That's why notability is the way it is, so we are covering topics that have sourcing that we can summarize. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

And to add - by no means do we consider ourselves an authority - the fact that others do is their problem, because we're fully aware that as an open wiki, our reliability cannot be trusted 100% of the time. On the other hand, with sourcing, we can point people to authoritative sources for a particular topic, but if no sourcing exists, its hard for us to do that. --MASEM (t) 15:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Problem is, you don't seem to understand what WP:N or WP:RS say or mean, or what they are intended to accomplish. Not if you are somehow thinking that the mere popularity or visibility of Wikipedia somehow could make it pass either set of criteria. So any discussion of where policy should go is not going to be meaningful if it begins with a misunderstanding of where policy is. postdlf (talk) 15:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Suppose one of those sources was someone like Ory Okolloh? What then? EDIT: I get the feeling I'm wasting my breath on this subject, but my point is that the distinctions you are making between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, or between original amateur research and professional research and opinion may not hold up much longer under intense scrutiny. Please stop being a debate club weenie and consider the possibilities here. -- TheLastWordSword (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

You're talking directly to the point of verifyability and what we consider as reliability sources overall. We do allow self-published amateur sources, but we can't base entire articles on them; there has to be peer-reviewed, editorial-oversight sources so that we can avoid factual problems, writer bias, and other issues that go along with amateur sources. And that's just not only for notability but all sourcing for WP. --MASEM (t) 16:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Masem's 1st post and Postdif. Plus, to point out, wp:notability (which is not necessarily real world notability) is the name for the Wikipedia criteria for existence of an article, which is that it have substantive coverage in secondary sources that meet wp:rs criteria. Making that criteria self-referential (e.g. "if it's in Wikipedia, then that means it should have an article in Wikipedia") would not be useful. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

"Expectations" form the basis of volunteer contributions and donations, and WP ignores those expectations at its peril. I suppose that if you consider WP's stated mission as being more important than its continued health and existence, than closing your eyes to this subject and relying on the definitions of words alone will suit everyone just fine. I suppose that future developments in the wider world will decide these issues for WP if it is not addressed internally. -- TheLastWordSword (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Arguably there may be people that contribute to WP because they appreciate that we are approaching targets with a highly discriminating eye, making us better than the Internet at large or an average Wikia site. I do know that there are lots of readers that would love us to break mission and be something far outside the Foundation's goals, so there's a lot of mis-interpretation of what WP's function should be. If the Foundation told us we need to change our methods to be able to fund WP better, they would have told us long ago about that, because as such, they continue to operate without problems. --MASEM (t) 16:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

TheLastSword, first it should be noted, that you are writing about wp:notability which is the main criteria for a subject to have it's own article in the English Wikipedia Enclyclopedia which is one of the foundation's projects. Could you clarify if you have a suggestion with respect to that and if so, specifically what your suggestion is with respect to that criteria is? Thanks. North8000 (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Remove proposal

I propose to remove the next three sentences from Wikipedia:Notability#Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article, because these sentences concern not only to the content within an article. They should be written in other section.デイナイスホテル東京 (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article.
If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable.
Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability.

Those sentences are in the right place - they're talking about the actual article, and not so much about the topic the article is about. --MASEM (t) 18:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

(Question) In the 1st sentence there is Notability is a property of a subject and in the 3rd sentense there is the subject's notability. Why can you say not so much about the topic the article is about ? デイナイスホテル東京 (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought the main point of this section is to highlight the fact that we have different criteria when asking a) whether a subject/topic is notable enough to have its own article, or b) whether a subject/topic is note-worthy enough to be mentioned some other article. The first is a notability issue (governed by this guideline)... the second is a content issue (not governed by this guideline). Blueboar (talk) 14:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I can understand Mr/Ms Blueboar's opinion that the meaning of the words Notability and Notable in these three sentences is different from that of Notablity governed by the guideline. But, if my understanding is right, it is confusing that the same word(s) is(are) used. There should be used other word(s), for example Note-worthy, as Mr/Ms Blueboar used. Since I am not a native English speaker, I want to ask to native English speakers "How do you feel to use other word(s) in these three sentences ?"デイナイスホテル東京 (talk) 02:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

(FYI, it would be Mr. Blueboar, but no need to be so formal) Yeah, I do think it would clarify things to use terms like "note-worthy" and "note-worthiness" (etc.) when discussing the inclusion/exclusion of content. Blueboar (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I withdraw this proposal and make another proposal.デイナイスホテル東京 (talk) 07:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Professions vs. professionals

This may have been tackled before, but I wonder if there's a set of best practices somewhere for determining when professionals are notable beyond the profession itself (which, to me anyway, seems like it would be the default subject for an encyclopedia). For example there are Architect and Architecture, Engineer and Engineering, but Editor redirects to Editing and Educator to Education (and not to Teacher). Certainly there are a great deal of sources on "educators" so what goes into this determination? PS: What made me realized I wasn't sure about this was coming across Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Early_childhood_educator. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  01:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for word replacement

I propose to replace the word notability and notable in next three sentences with noteworthiness and noteworthy:

Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article.
If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable.
Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability.

After the replacement the sentences will be like this:

Noteworthiness is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article.
If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject noteworthy.
Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's noteworthiness.

Because: The word Notability is used as a technical term in this guideline. It is hard for us non native English speakers to distinguish if the word is used as a technical term or not. So notability and notable in these three sentences used as non technical terms cause confusion.(see upper #remove proposal)

The words noteworty and noteworthiness are only examples of synonims. I do not adhere to these words. Please propose better synonyms if you know. デイナイスホテル東京 (talk) 07:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

No... within the context of that paragraph the correct word actually is "Notability". But I think I see why you are confused... The two paragraphs of the section don't really belong together. While they both discuss article content, they each make very different point about content.

• The first paragraph is talking about how notability does not determine article content (that is determined by noteworthiness).
• The second paragraph (the one under discussion) is talking about how the amount of content does not determine notability.

I have been bold and separated the two paragraphs, giving each its own section heading. Does this clarify things for you? Blueboar (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree to dividing the section. But, the ambiguty that the same word is used as a technical term and a non-technical word is not fixed. I may except notable. But, the ambiguty on notability must be removed. I think that the best way is replaceing notability in general meaning with some other synonim. But I can accept the second best way, to replace notability in general meaning with notability in general meaning. In this way, the words notability in general meaning are concidered as one word. デイナイスホテル東京 (talk) 01:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

But we aren't talking about notability in its general meaning... when we use the word "notability" we are talking about notability as defined in the guideline. Blueboar (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Notability of some churches and mosques

The following churchs and mosques are notable?
Sabkha_Mosque
Hajjamine_Mosque
Soubhan_Allah_Mosque
Al_Haliq_Mosque
Tabbanine_Mosque
Bab_Jazira_Mosque
Bab_Bhar_Mosque
Ksar_Mosque
Taza_Pir_Mosque
Zemra_e_Krishtit_Catholic_Church_of_Tirana
Saint_Procopius_Church_of_Tirana
Resurrection_of_Christ_Orthodox_Cathedral_of_Tirana
St_Paul's_Cathedral_(Tirana)
Holy_Transfiguration_Church,_Gjirokastër
Franciscan_Church_of_Shkodër
Shkodër_Orthodox_Cathedral
Isa_Boletini_Monument
Mes_Bridge
Migjeni_Theatre
Shkodër_Jesuit_College
Church_of_Our_Lady_of_Shkodër //--XXN (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

My gut reaction is: Probably ... but its not guaranteed. Certainly the articles need a lot of work ... they need editing and much better sourcing to establish why the buildings are notable. I would suggest tagging the articles for improvement... and waiting a while before sending to AfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboar (talk • contribs)

• All look to be worthy of coverage. However, as they are so stubby, the coverage would be better structured in merged articles. I would look to merge the mosques and churches, such as by region, denomination and/or age. Not everything here is a mosque or church. Isa_Boletini_Monument, I think obviously belongs in the Isa_Boletini article. Migjeni_Theatre would fit well into the article section Shkodër#Culture. These topics I do not think are notable, as in best presented as a standalone article, but this does not mean that Wikipedia should not cover them. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The Sudans

I'm bringing this here because the notability noticeboard was shut down. I recently created The Sudans, and I wanted a second opinion as to weather it was notable. I thought it most likely was based on these Google searches. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• "The Sudans" OR "two Sudans"
• "The Sudans" OR "two Sudans" OR "North ans South Sudan" OR "Sudan and South Sudan"

Seems completely reasonable as a notable term to describe the combined countries. (it's not a neogolism). Yes, you likely will be deferring to Sudan and South Sudan for the bulk of the information but I see no reason why there shouldn't be a standalone article to at least explain this. --MASEM (t) 18:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

TheDetroiter.com

Hello. This article has been tagged for notability for 6 years, and has resulted in no consensus at AfD twice in last 5 years. Can anyone help solve this one way or the other? Boleyn (talk) 07:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Arguably its not really notable (nothing out there discussing the site itself), but it should be able to be included in Media in Detroit (best guess) with a redirect so that it remains a searachable term. --MASEM (t) 18:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Afd Discussion ignoring notability guideline

It seems to me that in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Choose Your Battles, what are essentially WP:ILIKEIT arguments, and arguments specifically disallowed by WP:NSONGS prevailed. The closing admin explained the close at User talk:Crisco 1492/Archive 46#AfD decision and refered back to that thread at User talk:Crisco 1492#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Choose Your Battles. I remember when the standard at what was then VfD (Votes for Deletion) was primarily numerical, a 2-1 majority was generally thought to define sufficient consensus to delete. I closed a number of AfDs under those rules. But the rules are supposed to have changed now, to favor the better policy-based argument regardless of the mere numbers. Is that realty true, or only something that we give lip-service (or key-service?) to? Is this AfD close and others like it a valid way to make deletion decisions? What do others think here? DES ^(talk) 15:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, consensus has long been about how the policy-based discussion is made by both sides, and not by the number of !votes, save for when WP:SNOW may apply (one against many). And reading through the discussions, and keeping in mind that notability guidelines are guidelines and WP:IAR applies, I'm not seeing any serious problems with that AFD. --MASEM (t) 15:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• As I've mentioned at my talk page, I think this indicates that the guideline in question may still not have strong community support, suggesting that it needs to be discussed further. I do not think that a close of "delete" would have been adviseable in that particular AFD, as it would have come across as a supervote owing to the number of editors who were clearly against deletion. As for whether or not we weight arguments: I generally try, and I know a few other admins do, but that doesn't mean we ignore numbers as well, so long as the !votes are based on some sort of rationale. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

When is one sentence sufficient to establish notability?

At WP:ANI the claim has been made by an extremely senior editor and admin with over 151K edits that a one sentence mention, "Top fashion firms include Jazmin Chebar, Tramando, and Wanama.", is merely "very brief", not trivial, because it was published in a real book and because it identifies these firms as "top fashion firms" and that, therefore, this supports notability. This claim surprises me because it appears to run counter to my own plain language reading of WP:GNG, which requires "significant coverage" as elaborated in the footnote, and of WP:SPIP, which requires that the works "focus" on the topic.

I do not question our guidelines nor do I seek to change them. I am here only to seek guidance in understanding them so that I may follow them correctly. I do my best, but I am human and I make mistakes. If I have misunderstood what constitutes significant coverage, I would like to correct that. Requesting comment, please. Msnicki (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

As the ANI thread you started just yesterday is still active, starting another thread here about one of the points of dispute (your interpretation of notability guidelines) strikes me as inappropriate WP:FORUMSHOPPING. postdlf (talk) 19:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we should wait, but how to interpret notability is really out of scope for ANI, and very much in-scope here. That was really a side comment in the ANI thread, and I doubt any ANI decision will cover the point. DES ^(talk) 19:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Reading the ANI thread, it's not a WP:N issue - yet. It's a behavior problem of nominating an article within minutes of its creation, which has been a long running issue. Yes ,if that's all that was in the article about its notability and the article had been around for months, it fails the GNG, but we're talking a newly created article, so GNG doesn't apply yet. --MASEM (t) 19:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The GNG applies from the instant the article is created, as does WP:RS, which requires that all of our articles be based on content from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This concept of continuing to accept people creating unsuitable content is one thing, but nominating articles that aren't based on reliable sources for deletion is not a behavioural problem.—Kww(talk) 19:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way. But the AfD was closed as keep and I have stated quite definitely that I do not intend to challenge the outcome. I also promised that I will never again nominate a page until at least a week or more after its creation. That's true no matter what advice I receive here. I have zero intention of using anything I learn here as a new argument there. Even if that thread is still open, I consider my own arguments there to be over and to have lost. Frankly, the feedback hurt and I would like to learn from it and move on rather than continue to fight. I am merely asking for guidance going forward. Quite obviously, my understanding of WP:GNG is at variance from what far more senior editors understand it to ask of us. If the advice I received there regarding the specific case is correct, I'm obviously ignorant and I would like to correct that, gain a better perspective and avoid new mistakes. I'm asking how to generalize to other cases, a question which I believe is outside the scope of both ANI and that particular thread. Please WP:AGF because it really is. Msnicki (talk) 20:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you were right. That's about as trivial a passing mention as you can get and certainly cannot be called significant coverage. Reyk _YO! 23:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Suppose you got a lot of similar one-sentence mentions. Would there be some threshold where you'd decide, well, sure, the individual mentions are insufficient, but when you get that many of them, that's good enough? If so, how would you decide? At ANI, one editor indicated that if he got 10 or more, that would be enough for him. Would that be enough for you? Msnicki (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The test is whether you can construct a coherent article from the material contained in reliable sources. If you can, the sources had, in the aggregate, enough material. If you cannot, they didn't.—Kww(talk) 19:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's assume all of the sources are somewhat similar. For example, in the case at hand, we have a number of one-sentence mentions that vary between describing the individual as "top designer" or "trendsetter" but are otherwise somewhat similar in depth of coverage. (There are other sources as well and I do not wish to reargue the AfD, but for purposes of discussion, let's consider only these Google book results.) Does aggregating lots of somewhat similar one-sentence mentions work for you? As a practical matter, what would constitute a coherent article in your mind? (As I understand the term, coherent just means logical and consistent, which all of them are. But is that enough for you or do you require more overall depth?) Msnicki (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

If many sources are only saying one short fact, and the same fact, about the topic, and that's all they say about the topic, that's nowhere near sufficient. Mind you, this begs "where did all these sources get the same fact?" That might be a single secondary source that will help a lot for sourcing, or at the same time, it could be some peacock wording in a press release from the company that is being regurgitated by the various sources. --MASEM (t) 21:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The sentence in question is not, in my view, "trivial". Trivial would be something like an entry in a phonebook, or being cited as a source. It would be something that conveys no encyclopedic information at all. A single sentence might justify an article if (a) it is from a high quality source, (b) it says something that is obviously important and (c) there is no suitable target for merger. This situatuation may not be likely to arise frequently. But see the various SNG. In this case, if that was the only coverage, I would probably consider merger into a list of fashion companies. James500 (talk) 12:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Assuming that's the only clear mention of the company, that is a name drop, and that's trivial. If there was some data associated with it (like "Top fashion firms include Jazmin Chebar, Tramando, and Wanama, with annual revenues of $X billion, $Y billion, and $Z billion, respectively") that would make it more than a name drop. Otherwise, it's a statement without any claim of why it is important, and thus completely fails significant coverage. --MASEM (t) 15:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, just because a fact is mentioned in a high quality source does not mean we need to include it; our purpose is to summarize fact, not fully document them. So the lack of a merge target doesn't mean anything. --MASEM (t) 15:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

You've neglected my proposed criterion (b). My comments (in the sentence where I proposed that criterion) were only intended to apply to information that is too important to ignore (and won't sensibly fit anywhere else). James500 (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't asserting that the source from the AfD falls into that category either. I have no opinion about that. James500 (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• The first point is that the word "trivial" was incorrectly modified here.  (1) As stated at WP:CORP#Depth of coverage, a "passing mention" is only one example of "trivial", and (2) the edit leaves the footnote defining "trivial" as an orphan.  After correcting the erroneous edit, the statement reads, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention..." Unscintillating (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
• To identify the difference between trivial and significant coverage, one approach is to try to write a sourced encyclopedic sentence using the material.  In this case you can say, "Jazmin Chebar is a top fashion firm.^[1]" or "According to the book Fashion Design^[1] Jazmin Chebar is a top fashion firm."  This source shows a broad knowledge of the industry and the less-than-top firms; but the general opinion here is that one source, even a full-length book, is insufficient to satisfy WP:GNG.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

GNG says that multiple sources are "generally" expected. "Generally" does not mean "always", and it implies that there are exceptions. James500 (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I have yet to encounter an article where one source (much less how little that one source said) was sufficient to keep the article at AFD. One source is enough to stave off CSD issues but not long term notability. --MASEM (t) 23:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

A high quality 200 page book on a topic (such as a textbook for undergraduates) is probably conclusive proof of the notability of that topic. An article in Britannica is probably sufficient evidence. James500 (talk) 01:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

That would be sufficient to keep away CSD and probably AFD in the short term, as that would imply there are other sources out there. If push comes to shove and an editor researching into the topic cannot find any sources at all with a good faith search, and can only show that one book or Britannica is all there is about a topic (unlikely but play this out), then that means the topic is not really notable as though and AFD is a fair course of action. --MASEM (t) 02:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. In my view that would not be a reasonable course of action. James500 (talk) 09:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

But that's what is done. Again, this starts on the assumption that the person making the AFD nom has done a good faith thorough search of sources. This means not just typing the word into google and say "no hits" looking at one page of hits. If the topic is anything pre-Internet, this means looking for print sources. So if a person actually has gone to the library and searched reasonably extensively and found nothing or any hints to other material, that's a good faith effort and the nomination is proper. That doesn't meant there are not other sources, but that they are obscure and those wishing to retain the article is going to have to show those sources actually do exist. So this is a completely appropriate action that can be taken. --MASEM (t) 17:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

It just sounds like valuing rule compliance over everything else. "Sorry, I know that we can write a NPOV article from that one reliable and authoritative source about this topic that many editors reasonably think the encyclopedia should include, but the text at WP:GNG says 'multiple'. Our hands our tied." The relevant consensus here is the longstanding one that has kept WP:N as a guideline (not to mention the one that keeps WP:IAR as a policy, or WP:NOTBURO). So long as AFD participants are not !voting to disregard actual non-negotiable policies such as WP:V, an AFD consensus is free to make a reasonable decision not to apply notability guidelines (key word being "reasonable") and instead keep an article even though notability guidelines are not satisfied. If your only point is that an AFD nominator should not be yelled at in such circumstances, probably not, but I would still think that depends too on the extent they have thought about more than trying to press rote rule compliance. postdlf (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

This is where things like WP:BEFORE also come into play. Say, hypothetically, I came across an article with one and only one source, this being otherwise a clearly good secondary source. Yes, it "fails" GNG, but it would be completely improper for me to run to AFD and nominate that on the basis "There's only one source". BEFORE asks that I do some legwork to figure out if that really is the only source, or if it is just an article in the early stages of development instead of blinding adhering to the GNG. On the other hand, if I've done that legwork and explain out steps I've done to try to find other sources, and still only find this one source, then that's completely fair. But I have to do that legwork, otherwise, the blind adherance to nominate for AFD besed on only having one source is bitey and assuming bad faith. We have to project forward from the sources "can this article be improved". If it is the case the topic is covered by a major encyclopedia, then likely yes since most encyclopedia have reference lists like we do. Basically, what this is is less about the guideline of notability and more on the proper practice for AFDing articles. --MASEM (t) 17:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I wasn't talking about BEFORE or just the current state of the article, nor did I think you were above. postdlf (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

No, it does apply. Assume we have the hypothetical one-source article. If a nominator takes it to AFD without showing any work to find other sources, this doesn't necessarily invalidate the nomination, but now that discussion should be aimed if there's a reasonable way to expand the article and the likelihood of sources, with the discussion likely weighted toward easy retention if its clear at least other sources exist and simply aren't added. So the article with one source will survive the AFD in this case. On the other hand, if the nominator has shown in good faith there are no other sources, now the discussion, besides potentially identifying obscure sources, should be, is one work sufficient for notability. And while notability is a guideline and consensus can say that, it really is going to depened on that one source. A 200pg in-depth review of the topic? Probably yes. A passing mention? Heck no. But the fact that I have yet to see a GA/FA (our quality metric) where an article has a single source is a good sign that a well-developed but single-sourced article is not likely to ever happen. --MASEM (t) 19:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course it's going to depend on what that one source is. That was already made clear. And there's a lot of space in between the two extremes of deletable and GA/FA candidate, so that's not relevant here. postdlf (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

But again, what we don't want happening is people saying "articles with a single source are always acceptable in the long term". My point is - if there is a fair challenge (good faith effort to show no other sources exist) to an single-sourced article, that AFD discussion has to show the single source is more than sufficient to sustain the article by the GNG that generally requires multiple sources. It's possible, yes, but I have yet to see this. --MASEM (t) 20:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it might be desirable to have an SNG that says that a topic is, in particular, presumed to be notable if it has an article in a reputable encyclopedia, biographical dictionary or similarly organised work of reference. Alternatively, this might be expressly included in GNG. I think this has always been an unwritten rule that most editors accept. James500 (talk) 13:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Too open to abuse. Yes, I suspect that we have an article for every entry in Brittanica, but that would still be inappropriate to make a general rule. Having an entry is sufficient to prevent short-term deletion but since WP should be based on secondary and independent sources, the coverage in tertiary sources is not sufficient for us. --MASEM (t) 17:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. The existence of an encycopedia article is evidence that secondary sources probably exist. There is a difference between basing an article on a tertiary source and accepting one as evidence of notability. The use of tertiary sources isn't absolutely prohibited. A large number of our articles are taken verbatim from Britannica etc. James500 (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

If we limited the list to a small set of works like Brittanica where we know that at the end of every article there is a list of references, that might make sense, but leaving it as a general statement for any such work is going to leave it open for abuse, due to our nature of being more than a general encyclopedia. People will try to justify using off-the-cuff encyclopedias that do not providing sourcing and claim it okay by this. --MASEM (t) 20:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Addressing concerns with Notability (geographic features)

If you have any comments or concerns about the essay Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features), please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features)#Addressing concerns. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 23:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

RfC announcement

Please see the RfC at Wikipedia talk:The answer to life, the universe, and everything/Archive 2#RfC: Is this an information page or is it an essay? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Malware reviews

The issue with "reviews" linking to external malware installers should be mentioned, but I'm completely unable to suggest a remotely neutral POV, cf. CNET#Adware, Download.com#Adware, and their talk pages. –Be..anyone (talk) 01:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment about General References vs Inline Citations in Afc submissions

Dear editors: I have started a discussion at the following location about whether and to what degree inline citations as opposed to general references should be required in Afc submissions before they are accepted to mainspace. My comments there are based on my understanding of relevant Wikipages such as WP:GENREF, WP:MINREF, and WP:Notability. I would appreciate discussion about whether I have interpreted these pages correctly. Here is the discussion:

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/2014 6#Please comment about General References vs Inline Citations

—Anne Delong (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Academics

I notice that the NYT article at the top of this page ("The Geography of Fame") says that only 3% of our biographies are about academics, compared to 9% for politicians, 29% for athletes and 30% for artists and other entertainers. I think this indicates that WP:PROF is too restrictive compared to other SNGs and that WP:GNG is too vague about what constitutes significant coverage. James500 (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed quotebox addition

In this self-reverted edit, I added a quote from an old AFD comment I wrote in 2008:

Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability, not a leading or concurrent one. It's far better for Wikipedia to be a few days or weeks "late to the party" than to have an article here before [the topic is really notable]. [1] [emphasis added]

Since I wrote it, I have a clear WP:COI and since this is a guideline I didn't want to be too WP:BOLD. So, I'm "submitting this for your approval." If there are no serious unresolved objections in the coming days, I'll make the edit for real. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:09, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

From my POV (leaving 2007, returning 2013) nothing's wrong with your quote, just add it if you think it helps. –Be..anyone (talk) 04:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

There's definitely a place for that quote, if both here and on NEVENT. --MASEM (t) 04:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I oppose the inclusion of this quote from the words "It's far better" onwards. Wikipedia certainly is a lagging indicator of notability (often by hundreds of years due to its extensive unsatisfactory ommissions). It is not self-evidently far better for Wikipedia to always be a few days or weeks late in including an already notable topic. In some cases it might be an absolute disaster. There is no distinction between notable and "really notable" (there is no such thing for the purpose of this guideline) either. James500 (talk) 06:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

@James500, Masem, and Be..anyone:I have made the edit live, minus the objectionable text and with the addition of a footnote for those not familiar with the term "lagging indicator." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

My "it's live" edit has been reverted. Discussion? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I moved it to a different place in the guideline where the idea of time/nature of notability is discussed. --MASEM (t) 18:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Your change makes it an official part of the guideline, rather than a sidebar item with no "teeth." I'm okay with that (actually, I endorse this change in status), but if there are objections to your bold upgrade in the wording's status, it will need to be changed back to a sidebar pending further discussion, per WP:BRD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with it given this is a guideline and the broader points covered in NEVENT, but it's a good statement to have here about the nature of notability, hence it should be more weight than a sidebar. --MASEM (t) 18:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:SIGNIF

Hi, WP:SIGNIF ends up here, unlike WP:SIGNIFICANCE. It's no important redirect, i.e., it's not listed in the notable (pun) "shortcuts", and there are no relevant links to WP:SIGNIF outside of archives. Actually it goes against the Principle of least astonishment for an existing better suited landing page Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance. How about fixing it, and get rid of one confusing DAB-note here? –Be..anyone (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason why not to change that redirect to Credible claims... if we don't have it listed as a shortcut. Go for it. --MASEM (t) 20:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

@Be..anyone: Until this edit last November, WP:SIGNIFICANCE WP:Significance also ended up at WP:Notability. The history of Wikipedia:SIGNIF and Wikipedia:Significance is instructive: Until 2006, the page now located at Wikipedia:Notability/Historical/Significance was called Wikipedia:Significance. It was replaced by Wikipedia:Notability in 2006. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC) Updated to correct false information. I created WP:SIGNIFICANCE last fall, it has only ever directed to one place. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

If this move is made, please replace the hatnote at the top of Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance

{{redirect|WP:Significance|the now-historical Significance guideline in use until 2006|Wikipedia:Notability/Historical/Significance|Wikipedia's current Notability guideline|Wikipedia:Notability}}

with

{{redirect2|WP:Significance|WP:SIGNIF|the now-historical Significance guideline in use until 2006|Wikipedia:Notability/Historical/Significance|Wikipedia's current Notability guideline|Wikipedia:Notability}}

By the way, I created WP:SIGNIFICANCE awhile back when I noticed that WP:Significance redirected to WP:Notability.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidwr (talk • contribs) 22:54, 29 March 2014‎

Thanks, WP:SIGNIF is now ending up there instead of here. I refuse to check if the old list of shortcuts still exists, WP:BRION was the only shortcut I really cared about in 2006 ;-) –Be..anyone (talk) 23:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Checking notability of a new BLP

Now that the wp: Notability noticeboard has been closed, what is the best venue for querying the notability of a new blp for a barely 22 year old researcher who appears to have had 2 papers (or perhaps variation on the same one) published? The BLP was nominated for deletion, but a not very experienced editor removed it. I am not overly experienced in this particular area (BLP notability) either, hence my query here. - 220 of ^Borg 03:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a BLP-specific noticeboard, here WP:BLPN, that you can ask for help at. --MASEM (t) 03:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

@220 of Borg: I sent it to AFD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, silly me, Masem. I should have known about WP:BLPN (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard), probably haven't been there in a long time.

And thanks for AfDing it, davidwr. I raised concerns about it at the creators' Miller Henry (talk · contribs), talk page. I AGF but feel there is something 'fishy' about the whole thing. Possibly COI or an autobiography. - 220 of ^Borg 04:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Time to close and fail Wikipedia:Notability (products)

This old page still claims to be "proposed". With three or so years of no discussion, I think it's time to mark it as historical, and add a hatnote to WP:PRODUCT? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support closure. It is clearly not an active proposal and, given that the criteria therein were stricken by the author, I would consider it effectively withdrawn. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
• Close without prejudice to someone using this as the seed for a similar proposal through the normal WP:PUMP process. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Significant coverage

I have a proposal for the GNG:

Old	Proposed
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.	"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to write an encyclopedia article on the subject.

The following sentence (untouched) is useful for understanding the purpose of this point of the GNG:

Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian. In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice.) is plainly trivial.

(Notice that the words "passing mention" used to be "trivial" until a few edits ago.)

The GNG does not exist to tell you how to support a single sentence. No violation of WP:NOR would be required to "extract the content" of that source about Clinton's teenage jazz band. But that single sentence is still not "significant coverage" of the band. You cannot possibly write an entire encyclopedia article about that band if all you know about the band is the information in this sentence. It doesn't matter how many copies of this information you have, or if this information is spread across several sources. You need "significant coverage" of the subject to have an article. Knowing the name of the band, the name of one participant, and the approximate years of its existence will never be enough information to write an encyclopedia article. Knowing these three small details is enough to write and support a good sentence in another article. But to write an entire article, you need "significant coverage", which means that you need significantly more information than these three small details.

Figuring out whether you could write an article, not just whether you could verify the content of a single sentence, is the point behind the GNG and its "significant coverage" requirement. I propose therefore that we actually say this (using language along the lines of the proposal above), for the better education of people who are trying claim that this kind of trivial, passing mention is "significant coverage" on the grounds that they managed to "extract the content" from that source without violating NOR, and therefore believe themselves entitled to an entire article about that unimportant band. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You could write an encyclopedia article about the jazz band based on that source. "Three Blind Mice was a jazz band whose membership included, whilst he was in high school, Bill Clinton" would probably be a valid stub. Other encyclopedic works have articles as short as that. GNG creates a presumption that a topic merits an article. This could be an example of the presumption being rebutted by the trivial nature of the topic itself or the fact the topic is more conviently covered in Bill Clinton, since his membership is the sole reason offered for interest in the band. James500 (talk) 10:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The concept of a "valid stub" indicates that there is more to write about it. A WP:STUB is defined as a subject that is incompletely described. If this really is all the information available about the band, then you don't have a stub by definition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:STUB also says that there is no minimum length for a start class article, so, in that case, it would be start class. James500 (talk) 05:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Start-class is defined as "An article that is developing". This is not an accurate description for this example. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I still think this change misses the point of this area of the guidance. The point of this piece of guidance is that the source itself must both address the topic at hand and be explicit about what it says about the topic at hand. It's not how the particular fact relates to the finished article. That there needs to be more than one source is addressed in other parts of the guideline. Your point about how you need a broad range of facts to write an article really should be addressed as part of defining what it means that articles should be "based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", a phrase in WP:RS that most article writers about fiction violate routinely.—Kww(talk) 14:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

No, "significant coverage" is about how much information you need about the subject. It is not about whether the sentence in this source can be understood without guessing. Or, to put it another way: if the goal of this sentence is to say "The source should be sufficiently explicit that you don't have to guess what the source is talking about", then the examples, which have been present and undisputed for years and which are definitely sufficiently explicit that you don't have to guess what they're saying, are singularly stupid.

Take a look at what this guideline says about "significant coverage" lower on the page:

We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list.

My proposed change does not introduce any new ideas. We've been saying this for a long time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I do think you're introducing something new. The GNG is meant to say if we can presume we should allow a stand-alone article on a topic, but doesn't say anything if that is sufficient for proper coverage of the topic. That is in fact an idea encapsulated already that not every GNG-passing topic needs a separate article. Passing the GNG means we allow the article to be created to allow others to help to expand it, but if it can never be expanded past what the GNG givesn, then maybe merging to a larger topic is more appropriate. --MASEM (t) 16:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

That does not seem logical to me. Okay, here's what we've got:

• This guideline directly says that "significant coverage" is required.
• This guideline directly says that the purpose of requiring "significant coverage" is "so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic".
• But somehow, the requirement of "significant coverage" has nothing at all to do with whether the sources (taken as a whole) are "sufficient for proper coverage of the topic"?

Okay, I'm game: What exactly do you think is the goal behind requiring "significant coverage" of the subject, if it's not the explicit reason given in the very same guideline? Please make sure that your reason is consistent with the example given in the GNG statement, and that it doesn't make a mockery of the in-the-same-sentence requirement that the subject be covered "directly and in detail". I'll be looking forward to your examples of subjects that are indisputably addressed "directly and in detail", but it's still impossible to write brief encyclopedia articles about them, because there is insufficient information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

An example (made up, but realistic), would be an SAE article documenting Bosch fuel injector designs that contains a paragraph documenting a particular problem design problem faced by Audi. If it specifically called out the Audi model the problem was in reference to, it would be a fine source for an article about the car, but not a sufficient source for an article about the car. Add to it an article that had a few sentences devoted to the sales of the car, another with a paragraph about the interior design, etc., and you have numerous reliable sources that each address the topic directly and in detail, require no original research to extract the content, and would allow you to write the article. There's no requirement that each individual source be broad, only that each individual source be explicit about whatever is being derived from it. Whether there are enough sources providing sufficiently broad coverage to write an article is more of a holistic problem. The point of this is that the source considered the topic important enough to discuss: the injector, the interior, etc. each got an entire paragraph in this example, not simply in appearance in a "list of cars built in the third millenium". The sources specifically identified what they were talking about, with no one having to guess whether it was an A3 or an A5, so no original research is required.

I like your point. I think it is underemphasized that the content of the article needs to be based on external coverage, and that one should not write an article based on primary coverage and use a few mentions in external source as a fig-leaf to justify inclusion. I just think you are muddling this particular issue with your change.—Kww(talk) 21:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree that significant coverage is about the sum of information in all sources. I don't think that this proposal says anything to contradict that. The opening sentence says, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources". Notice the plural. It does not say, "If a topic has received significant coverage in one single, isolated reliable source, ignoring what all the others say". What I'm trying to do is to give people an idea of what "significant coverage" means. "Significant coverage" is not limited merely to things that don't violate NOR. No NOR violation is necessary to write a sentence about Clinton's high school band. The reason that the GNG does not permit an article on that band is that there is no "significant coverage" of the band. There's simply not enough information available to write an article. There is only enough information to write a sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Part of the point is that the inclusion of an item in a passing mention doesn't even contribute to notability. If all that can be found is passing mentions in secondary sources but an article can still be written based on primary sources, it doesn't matter that a complete, and perhaps excellent, article can be written: the topic isn't notable. This section of the guideline is supposed to be describing whether the source counts towards the notability threshold, not it's contribution towards building an article.—Kww(talk) 02:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The GNG tells you whether something passes the notability threshold. What's the purpose of the notability threshold? According to WP:Notability, it's to tell you whether it's possible to write an entire (possibly brief) encyclopedia article. Therefore, the purpose of the GNG is' to tell you whether it's possible to write an article.

That's why the GNG isn't about "this source" or "its contribution towards building an article". It is about all the sources and their contributions to building an article. If all of them, taken as a whole, are insufficient to build an article, then the subject does not pass the GNG. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

From WP:N:"On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article." It's not a question of possibility, it's a question of permissibility. The question isn't whether sufficient information can be gleaned from sources, it's whether the topic has gained the correct type of attention in independent sources.—Kww(talk) 15:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree: it's a question of what is permitted. And, as I said above, "The reason that the GNG does not permit an article on that band is that there is no "significant coverage" of the band."

"The correct type of attention in independent sources" includes the concept of "whether sufficient information can be gleaned from sources". To qualify an article under the GNG, you need these things:

1. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
2. "Reliable" sources
3. "Sources"[2] should be secondary sources
4. "Independent of the subject"

Now look at the example:

1. Do we have "significant coverage" of this high school band? No. It is not significant coverage. How do we know this? Well, firstly because it's given as the canonical example of a subject that has not received "significant coverage". More importantly, because the source does not "address[] the topic directly and in detail". It addresses the topic "directly", but it does not address it "in detail".
2. Do we have reliable sources? Yes, unquestionably.
3. Do we have secondary sources? Yes, unquestionably.
4. Do we have independent sources? Yes, unquestionably.

So why does this subject fail the GNG? Solely because of a lack of "significant coverage".

You have contended that "significant coverage" is exclusively about OR: we need significant coverage, because the alternative is to let people guess what the source is trying to say—to quote you, "to prevent people from using Twitter sources and saying things like "well, you know 'it' must mean her lastest album because the date is three days before she announced it, and 'there' must mean London because she talked about London on Facebook the same day, and ..." Each cited source has to explicitly support the fact it is used to support."

Now look at that source: is any of that guesswork required here? No, I think it's pretty obvious that no violations of WP:NOR would be required here. So if "significant coverage" merely requires that in the entire world, a single sentence (from an excellent source) has been published about the subject, then why is this single sentence, taken from an excellent source, given as an example of what "significant coverage" is not? If the only requirement is that it be possible to write a one-sentence permastub without violating NOR, then why is this source, which could easily produce a NOR-compliant permastub, being given?

If you'd like to understand this concept better, then perhaps you should look at the old versions of this guideline. If you go back to 2006, it uses the word "triviality" (later re-phrased as "non-triviality") to describe it: Triviality is a measure of the depth of content contained in the published work, exclusive of mere directory entry information, and how directly it addresses the subject. That's the version here, when the example was added by User:Uncle G. NOR isn't even mentioned. Here's a version from mid-2007: "Significant" means that the coverage goes into detail on the subject. Significant is more than trivial but less than important or famous.

"Significant coverage" is the direct descendant of these statements. I therefore conclude that this concept isn't about whether guesswork is required, but about how much information is available on the subject. Consequently: no article on Clinton's high school band, even though such a one-sentence article could easily be written without violating NOR. Consequently: violating NOR is not the sole factor in determining significant coverage. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Break

An article based on primary sources won't pass GNG but it might pass an SNG or, exceptionally, be deemed notable by local consensus. James500 (talk) 05:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

True, but not relevant, since we're talking about whether the GNG (specifically) should reflect the wording elsewhere in the article about what "significant coverage" means. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

A separate concern from KWW's is that what is "an encyclopedic article"? There are people that consider 2-3 paragraphs to be fine (common with various tropical storms for example). Notability is already one of those things that people debate endlessly, and I've seen similar debates on what an encyclopedic article is defined as. --MASEM (t) 22:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The example given in the guideline does not permit you to write two or three paragraphs. It does not really even permit you to write three sentences. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Revisiting our policies as they relate to fictional content

Hello all,

This is by no means a number that we haven't danced to before, but I've decided to resurrect age-old discussion pertaining to Wikipedia's acceptance of fictional, in-universe material. The questions I am attempting to answer by starting this topic are:

• Where do we draw the line between inclusion and removal in terms of fictional content?
• Should fictional topics be judged on the merit of their own in-universe importance or their relevance to the real world?
  • (tied to above) Is a separate policy dedicated to fictional material necessary, or should it fall under the umbrella of this policy page?
• How can we restructure existing articles to better follow policy?

Before I delve deeper, note that I am aware that the village pump is the place for going over large-scale policy addition/changes. The purpose of this topic is to flesh out a rough draft that could then be taken to the pump if the community deems it a discussion worth having. I'd go to WP:FICT, but it's fairly declawed, an essay, and heavily reliant on this policy page.

Now, onto the meat. Why does this matter?

Quite simply, there's a semi-grey area covering fictional topics right now. Anything from comic books to anime to TV to movies - pick out any even remotely-successful franchise and you'll find a plethora of offshoots, ranging from character lists to individual character articles to lists of technology. The problems this poses are numerous, but, chiefly:

• A lot of this material is either minimally sourced or not at all.
  • Dozens of TV series fall prey to this sort of stuff. BSG has dozens of individual character pages; Firefly (TV series) suffers the same fate, though to a lesser extent. Doctor Who, The Shield, Law and Order, Stargate - they've all got extensive pages under their scope detailing in-universe material, generally with only primary (in-universe) sourcing to back information up.
• The majority of material has no real-world relevance.
  • Though we have multiple policies that talk about how we shouldn't have collections of indiscriminate information with no encyclopedic relevance, the real situation is markedly different. While some direction exists in the form of MOS:PLOT, it is a policy and talks about plot in specific, not general fictional content.

My main gripe is with the latter. While it's great that I can learn the minutiae of a show's characters, such information currently has, in almost all cases, very little relevance to the real world. Obviously, there are exceptions; for example, Iron Man is clearly a notable fictional character, or Luke Skywalker, or The Doctor. However, a lot of characters are not, like Shepherd Book, Laura Roslin, or Jonas Quinn. Again, it's great that this information is present, but it's content meant for Wikia, not Wikipedia.

This is where my questions come into play: should we judge these characters by their relevance to their home mythos? For example, is Laura Roslin notable in the real world because the character is notable in the Battlestar universe? If so, how would we manage her article given that it's 95% in-universe plot summary sourced to primary sources (therefore going against our WP:PRIMARY policy)? These questions also apply to lists of characters, which all-too-often consist of nothing but in-universe information.

Any input is appreciated. I've searched to the best of my ability and haven't found any discussion similar to this one within the last few years; if I've missed anything, please do let me know. m.o.p 02:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

We've tried several times to set up something at WP:FICT but it is such a contested area that I don't think we can set hard rules. The best I can say:

• We should be thinking that every major and minor character from a fictional work is a possible search term and as such should have redirects to landing pages for these.
• A page about an individual character or element of a show absolutely requires standard GNG notability to be met. If you can only take about a single character with primary sources, a standalone article is not appropriate.
• At the same time, discussion about a fictional work is not considered complete if there is no discussion of the characters involved. How they should be discussed is going to be a function of the work in question - a single movie only needs a small section, while a long running series with dozens of characters might require more space than SIZE would allow on a single article. But again, it also depends on the series.

At that point, there's no further rules I can point to. We try to press more on notability and there's a lot of resistance to this. We don't press hard enough and we get overly detailed lists of lists. So we do regularly allow "non-notable" lists of characters, though do require these to be inline with WAF and NOT#PLOT, and request people to fill out sourcing for these if they can. But to push notability on these is not advisable at all. --MASEM (t) 02:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with landing pages, but, in almost every situation I can think of, a redirect to the notable work (be it a blockbuster movie, published comic or hit TV series) is preferable to a cruft-laden character list or in-universe article.

As for your latter point - resistance has no place in this. If our current policy dictates we operate in a certain way, we are not required to make concessions because people think an article looks nice or is 'useful'. m.o.p 03:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, we don't have policy on this. First, for one, notability is a guideline so it's not a hard-fast rule. Second, we do address that the issue of notability of lists is an unresolved issue on this page (as outlined at WP:LISTN. And again, from the several attempts at establishing notability for fictional elements there is a large split in consensus on this, so we can't force the issue, realistically. --MASEM (t) 03:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I was talking about WP:NOT, which is policy (though I think that WP:N still bears considerable weight). Hopefully we can establish some consensus, then, or re-word our operating procedure so we're not letting by junk content half the time. m.o.p 03:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

NOT#PLOT came into play in those previous discussions too, and yet people that have a strong interest in fiction argued that NOT#PLOT doesn't always apply when it comes to splitting off a list of characters from the work they are from. The best middle ground we've found is that such lists should always be trimmed to the basic details, include as many out-of-universe sourcing from secondary or third-party sourcing, and only be split out from the main article on the show itself when SIZE is an issue, as these lists are generally thought of as part of the show's coverage, in terms of applying NOT#PLOT. And I would be careful calling it "junk"; sometimes sourced summary of primary works can be encyclopedic. --MASEM (t) 04:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's not make this an issue of inclusion vs. exclusion... but rather one of how and where to include. The question that we need to examine is: Does a particular fictional character rise to the level of notability that merits a stand alone article? (and the answer to that will be different depending on the character). If not, the character can still be included in Wikipedia... Just not in its own separate stand alone article. He/She/It can be included within in a more generalized overview article about the fictional work, or in a List of supporting characters article. For readers searching for information on the supporting characters who don't rate their own stand alone article, we can use redirects to point the reader to the appropriate section, paragraph, list entry. Blueboar (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Defining the problem: The problem is what does it mean to be "notable only in-universe? If several well-known, WP:RS Star Trek-fan-oriented magazines covered a alien race to the point that it rose to WP:SIGCOV and the coverage was independent enough from the studio that it would be considered independent, does that count? What if the same coverage were from less-well-known independent-of-the-studio professional-grade publications (not "mere" fanzines/fan-blogs)? What if the same coverage was in special "Star Trek" or "Science-fiction-themed" issues of TV Guide or Popular Science? What if the same coverage was in a regular/non-special-theme edition of those two magazines? What if it were in a major newspaper's Entertainment section? What if it were in a major newspaper's "News" section? Note that we are talking about items which have actually been commented on by someone who at least is plausibly a reliable source (professional editing standards, sufficiently independent of the studio, etc.), not just something that appeared in the show and whose only available commentary is studio publicity material or barely-warmed-over versions of the same. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Then that would be coverage by third parties, which is fine by me. When I say 'in-universe' I mean creating an article for a character who is, say, the President in that fiction's timeline. Though the character may be notable within the context of said fiction, their made-up title has absolutely no relevance in the real world. So yes, you're correct in saying that outside sources would make something reliable; what we're talking about is content without any reliable sourcing. This extends to lists as well as standalone articles. m.o.p 19:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

If the TV show with a "President Smith" was not even mentioned outside of the show and publicity materials, then it's probably to either not mention him at all in Wikipedia or mention him in an article about something else, such as the episode or season in which he was mentioned or in the article about the show itself. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

On redirects and lists: For Famous fictional works and franchises (including those with significant cult followings), I see no problem with making un-referenced list-type articles and/or redirects for minor characters and minor plot devices. I also see no problem with having articles about very important characters and other key entities using only the show or press materials as references. Yes, such articles should have reliable-source references and they should be tagged with ref-improve or similar templates, but they should not be nominated for deletion for lack of notability if their notability is patently obvious. Here's a purely theoretical example: If an article about James Bond (literary character) or USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) was only referenced with in-universe and press-release material, and someone dared to send either one to AFD, it would be speedy-kept and the nominator duly chastised for wasting everyone's time instead of finding and adding references himself (I can hear the "AFD is not cleanup" choruses now). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

But Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Any TV, comic or book series that receives more than a passing mention can arguably be 'famous', yet even the biggest ones (I point again to Battlestar Galatica) do not demonstrate the slightest shreds of notability for 90% of their character ensemble). I'd have to strongly disagree with accepting unsourced lists solely on a policy basis. Also, in practice, tags do nothing but sit there for years and years (they're on almost every article of this nature that I've seen). Your examples are of two well-known fictional properties for which plenty of real-world coverage exists, whereas the types of material I'm talking about have very little going their way. I'm not really sure what 'patently obvious' notability is, but I'm getting the feeling that's not something we can really measure in terms of Wikipedia's scope. m.o.p 19:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Take the example that's at AFD that you started and just closed (this is not to single this out as a bad nom, just as a ready example I am aware of), List of The Shield characters. I am not saying this is a prime example of a good list of characters with no notability/secondary sources - it is far too detailed per each character, and there's probably a few characters that aren't really important, and the whole gangs section is excessive. I'd also go on to argue a few of the individual character articles are not notable themselves (Vic Mackey. But the fact that this show - a notable one - had a wide cast of characters over its several seasons means we should document them, and the shear number would make even one-two paragraph blurbs outweigh the main page. Now, the issue is where to draw the line and this does require editorial discretion. The trick I use when I build these is to "can I explain the broad plot of the show or a specific episode without mentioning these characters?" - if yes, they should be dropped. But that's all AGF cleanup that can happen. --MASEM (t) 21:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Here's where we seem to be getting hung up. While I appreciate that you think the show's notability means documenting characters is in order, how is this supported by policy? The notion of inherent notability has been time-tested as an insufficient method of judging content's worth, and, without that, the characters have zero - and I mean zero - notability. The few that receive real-world mentions are one-off sentences in an interview with the actor where they say "Yes, I had fun playing $character_name in $TV_show once." The question that I keep coming back to is why? Is it really in the best interest of the encyclopedia to document every bit part of every notable TV show that's ever aired (of which there are hundreds) in a manner that is overwhelmingly unverifiable and irrelevant to the real world?

Maybe I'm experiencing 'old guard' syndrome, but I just don't understand it. Even in that AFD, not a single keep vote provided policy-backed rationale, just "it seems like a good idea"-type statements. m.o.p 07:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's been long considered that in the discussion of a serialized fictional work, a list of characters is an acceptable part of the coverage of the work; even if no third-party sources discuss the characters, notability does not limit article content. (A list of characters is not required, of course). Further it is important to note that notability applies to the "topic", and arguably the topic of "List of The Shield Characters" is "The Shield". I don't make any apologizes for how bad that specific list is or even the spinouts, but that at worst means cleanup and merging, not deletion. (And spot checking sources, there are definitely secondary sources for the Shield and characters, but these have to be added and cleaned up). --MASEM (t) 14:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, but WP:V does limit article content, and it demands that all articles be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It certainly permits primary sources to be used, but an article that consists of a directory listing of every character in a work, derived solely from examination of that work, violates WP:V. I've long considered it to be a defect of Wikipedia that we have allowed editors of fiction articles to blatantly disregard fundamental policy in that regard.—Kww(talk) 14:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I agree there's a problem with the Shield character list. It far too much focuses on the minutia and not the out-of-universe aspects, and includes characters that I would think aren't necessary. That is a problem that has to be addressed by cleanup. But the fact the character exists on the show and the broad details of their arc as summarized from the primary work meet WP:V. We have to consider the overall content related to the show to judge where that line is crossed. A show that lasts a whole season before its cancelled, probably doesn't need a separate character list even if there's dozens or so characters given. It's a balancing game, the same issues I had trying to propose such guidleins for NFICT before. --MASEM (t) 14:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Certainly the fact meets WP:V, but only in the broader context of an article that is sourced to third-party sources. People seem to miss that WP:N as a guideline only reinforces what WP:V lays down as policy: to have an article on a subject means that the majority of the material in the article is sourced to independent, third-party sources, not primary sources.—Kww(talk) 16:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

If the "article" has been split for WP:SIZE reasons, then it is "in the broader context of an article that is sourced to third-party sources"; the problem is only that "the article" is effectively now displayed on multiple pages. Furthermore, in most cases, some of the list information could be sourced to independent sources. This List of The Shield characters that's been used as an example already has two independent sources listed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Not at all, WhatamIdoing : it simply shows that the correct action to resolve the size problem was to reduce the information that couldn't be sourced to third-parties. "Article" can't be redefined to mean "a group of articles related to a subject area" on a whim. The fact that no third-party sources are paying attention to these items is a sign that creating a separate article is placing undue weight on the material.—Kww(talk) 00:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Notability is a measure of the "topic", not the article. A topic can span multiple articles as otline in summary style, though as per that same guideline, we really only prefer splits that show their own notability, but it is not outright restricted. --MASEM (t) 00:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm discussing the plainly written directive in WP:V to base article on independent third-party sources. Any article, including a split, that is not based on independent, third-party sources violates WP:V, even if the umbrella topic meets WP:N.—Kww(talk) 05:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I would suspect most list of character articles for a long-running show where most episodes got some type of reception can be improved to include third-party, primary sources (for example: [2], [3] - these are primary at worst). This clears the WP:V issue. But even then, the problem during development of FICT was that people fairly argued that if we're splitting and notability is carried to the list, so does the sourcing aspects. --MASEM (t) 06:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Kww, I know that your interpretation differs from the rest of the community's on this point. I'm not saying that the community stance is ideal (in my opinion); I just want you to know what it is. The community practice lines up with the community's view, not with yours (or mine). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I've long been of the opinion that the problem is a small but vocal subset of editors that believes that fiction should be immune to normal sourcing requirements. It's a big enough group to thwart consensus, but too small to represent consensus.—Kww(talk) 02:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Masem - my issue with this is that most of the concerns surrounding fictional material seem to be answered with nebulous phrases like "it's long been considered". Though there's nothing inherently wrong with the status quo, problems arise when said considerations are based on a flawed view of 'compromising' between people who want to follow policy and people who think that we should not. I can appreciate trying to find balance, but that doesn't acknowledge the fact that the majority of the material in question - ranging from character lists to standalone articles - is unfounded in policy. m.o.p 19:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I've been there and feel for that position. Unfortunately we've got 59 pages of talk page discussions over several years that show that there's no clear bright line for fiction that we can definite anything beyond the GNG and IAR applictions for notability. There will be very strong resistance , as you've seen, to delete a page like List of The Shield characters, because those that work with fiction regularly have asserted, in a completely fair manner, that listing characters out in a series is part of the encyclopedic content of the series, even if you can't provide a third-party source for them. It's a fair argument that hard-nosed policies would outright prevent. --MASEM (t) 19:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I think we're going in circles. I understand that people feel this way, but if their position is fundamentally standing against a policy like WP:V or a guideline like WP:N, their assertions are not quite enough. IAR only goes so far - it does not mean "detail all fictional miscellany because you feel it is 'right'". And while I'm a strong believer in consensus, something of this scale requires said consensus to amend existing policy, not create a gaping black hole where all content of a specific genre is immune to the rules governing the rest of the project.

Also, going back to the Shield list as an example - note that there is not a single scrap of rationale based in policy. Having participated in and closed thousands of XfDs in my time on the project I can tell you that we require more to justify hosting content than 'we've done this before' and 'it's a really nice list'. m.o.p 20:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Referring back to the attempts to develop something for fiction notability, we've tried the process of defining strong rules for notability that would drastically limit coverage (with various degrees of how strong these rules were) and never could get consensus even with the fact that policy backed the reasons to exclude. We've tried defining how these articles should be structures to minimize how much in-universe content could be added, and that was rejected. I am totally on your side that these types of articles seemingly violate policy, but we cannot get consensus that policy can be used to delete these, as there are other policies that allow these.

A thing to keep in mind is that notability is a guideline, and it only works in one direction - in that a topic that demonstrates notability gets a stand-alone article, but a notable topic is not the only reason we have a standalone article (and yes, we've tried to bring that idea forward that every article must show notability, that didn't go anywhere). Thus, there is flexibility to have this type of coverage on WP. --MASEM (t) 00:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

What policies allow these articles, if you don't mind me asking? I've been discussing this issue for weeks with multiple people and, while we've made some ground in agreeing that they are unbacked by policy, nobody has provided an actual answer to that question.

I am all too aware that WP:N is a guideline, but a guideline (not to mention that it's a guideline backed by WP:V in this context) takes precedence over a complete lack of structure. As you've said yourself, the only reason these sorts of articles are on the project is because people think that it's 'right', or because they want to compromise because deletion is too harsh. We can all agree that I'm beating a dead horse when I say this is not a passable rationale. m.o.p 02:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Arguably, it is a combination of WP:N (notability cannot limit article content) , WP:SIZE (we break apart articles when they get too long) and a touch of IAR - as I read these. But remember that consensus is not who has the better argument based on policy, but who has the better argument that includes policy and other compromises that satisfy all sides. That's why all attempts to set something strong have floundered; we can't get consensus on a stronger position but there's reasonably sanctification with this middle ground (note this was all back when "inclusionists/deletionists" wars were gong on, so there was a lot of noise then; this was also about when we had a couple ArbCom cases, and TNN, an editor that would boldly merge characters into lists, was harshly criticized for his actions) Trust me, I'm as dissastified with this vague point, but it's avoided conflict and disruption, and rather have something that doesn't tip the scales either way.

Now there are other things that can be done. The List of Shield Characters needs major trimming, and I bet that it can be reduced to a size it could be merged back into the main article on The Shield. That doesn't mean it needs deleting even if the merge occurred (it's a reasonably redirect), and this is at least a solution those that write about fiction will not get all upset about. And that type of cleanup does need to be encouraged and performed. --MASEM (t) 03:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Except WP:N bows to WP:V, as stated before. People can't just generate more and more content that's tangentially related to a topic and say that it falls under the same umbrella.

Let's look at it this way; per WP:OR - something that is immune to IAR - people cannot add things just because they think they belong. Our role is to establish verifiability/notability using reliable sources and then publish that on Wikipedia, not say "$TV_show is notable so therefore anything related is also notable". At its core, that's original research until a third-party RS comes out and says that that particular list of characters/character/setting is notable. m.o.p 18:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, I'm not debating that the excess is not a problem - it is, there's a balance that must be met and we need more editors to respect that line. But it is really hard to suggest any hard lines for this without you getting called a deletionist or anti-fiction writer and meet with huge resistance, even if you have every WP policy backing your choice. Because all of WP's policies (safe for BLP, NFC, and Copyvio) are descriptive and not prescriptive, there's very little we can do to move the goalposts when a huge number of voices shout back. (And to be fair, addition content that is non-interpretive from the primary source is not really an OR issue, but more WP:NOT and WP:NPOV/UNDUE) That's why I've come to accept its better to tag and get these people to clean up their fiction articles (whether by trimming, adding sources, or merging) than to tell them they have to be deleted. --MASEM (t) 18:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

MOP, you've got a couple of minor errors above, e.g., your claim that NOR requires third-party sources (it doesn't) or that any source would ever "come out and say that a particular [topic] is notable" (external sources are unable to tell Wikipedia editors whether a topic is WP:Notable, because editors here are the sole arbiters of that determination).

But that's all largely irrelevant, because you're asking the wrong question. The question you need to ask is not, "What policies allow these articles?" The question to ask is, "What does the community actually choose to do, in its everyday practice for this area?" When you look at product, process, policy, product—what is actually created and kept—is the most important indicator of the true policy of the community, and is the source of almost all policies and guidelines. We don't write articles about cities because there is a policy that says "You may write articles about cities"; we have policies and guidelines that support creating articles about cities because that's what good editors were doing anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

@Masem: I'm not too concerned with what people interpret my actions as meaning, but it's not like I want to delete all fictional content. I'm just interested in pruning the endless supply of long, overdeveloped fictional articles that serve as dumping grounds for improvement tags. And you're right, not everything should be deleted - but it would be nice to get rid of the cruft that floats in the shadow of our guidelines.

@WhatamIdoing: I don't think you quite understand my meaning. I didn't say that the OR policy forbids primary sources, and I didn't mean that third-party sources would literally be dictating notability. Please refer to this passage of the aforementioned policy:

“ Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. ”

If somebody creates, say, a list of characters and cites it with exclusively primary sources, their statement that "this list is notable because $TV_show is notable" is original research. Even if we can source each character detail to the required episode and pull out a thousand TV Guide pages, that's nothing on its own - we require reliable sourcing to support the notion that these minor characters are something of note. Currently, there is nothing (that I've seen, anyway) people can say to defend the existence of these articles except for surface excuses like "we have many articles like this one", "it's useful", etc.

The community may choose to create these articles as often as they'd like, but, unless we can a) amend policy so that they're not openly in defiance of it half the time or b) draft new guidelines to help control the flow of cruft this issue shouldn't be swept under the rug. Whether we redirect, merge, or delete doesn't make any difference to me, as long as it's dealt with. I'd rather have an article on every small city in China than I would every bit character who ever appeared on TV. m.o.p 03:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm personally not trying to interpret your actions, I'm just telling you want to expect and down that way - without being careful - lies madness. In saying "their statement that "this list is notable because $TV_show is notable" is original research" - while technically true, it is the part of acceptable original research that is needed to create the encyclopedia based on our evaluation of what are reliable sources, and the balance of content to be achieved. Even our normal approach to determine if a topic is notable is "original research" based on our evaulation of sources. So no, WP:OR doesn't apply to why these are split off, though it can apply to the content if it does attempt to make interpretion of the primary source.

This is the problem - we can't force it, we don't change policies and guidelines in this manner. You can't change policy pre-emptively to target the removal of articles unless you have a strong case that past consensus supports this action, or you start a global RFC to address the manner, and I am pretty confident that such will end in a no-consensus result. We should work as hard as possible to get editors to merge and redirect excessive content, and that's a goodwill campaign, but we can't change polices unless you can show good past consensus for that. --MASEM (t) 03:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

If by "original research", you mean "WP:Original research", then the statement "If somebody creates, say, a list of characters and cites it with exclusively primary sources, their statement that "this list is notable because $TV_show is notable" is original research" is simply wrong. OR applies only to statements made about the subject in an article, not statements made in the background about Wikipedia's processes. "We should delete this because it's not possible to write an NPOV article when you've only sources that have ever been published about this book were written by the authors themselves" (a statement I strongly agree with) is not a violation of WP:NOR. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing and Masem:

“ Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. ”

Here's how I see it. We are taking published material and analyzing it to say that a certain subset of it - say, a list of characters or a certain character - is notable even though there are no reliable sources that can be used to assert this claim. Primary sources, such as TV Guide, can not be used to assert the importance of a list of characters. If there were articles published saying "Shield's list of characters is super important", and these were echoed by multiple media outlets, then that would inherently make the subject notable and I'd have no problem with it. But as we stand now, it's synthesis to extrapolate notability where it is not specificed.

Masem: I understand you're not interpreting me, just warning me. That's appreciated. I don't care about madness; I care about upholding the standards we built this encyclopedia on. It's absurd that this can still keep going on treated as 'no consensus' when I've yet to see a single argument for keeping that doesn't involve directly going against some established policy or set of guidelines. m.o.p 04:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

All throughout WP we let editors make choices as to what parts of a topic are most important to keep as a summary for the topic, and our notability guideline is an extnsion of that idea of topic inclusion. So saying we can't let editors decide the most important characters is hypocritical. And again, the question is begged of what policies a list of characters violates? Not#plot emphasizes conciseness but doesn't restrict. I am not saying any random List of X characters is appropriate, some aren't certainly. However the line is blurry and many as they currently exist need some TLC to trim down and include third party sourcing before calling them a lost cause. --MASEM (t) 07:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm getting the feeling we are running in circles here (again), or maybe I am not being clear enough, or maybe my edits are not being fully read.

I don't see where you see hypocrisy - I am saying this is how policy dictates we operate. If you've seen people go against it, WP:FIXIT or raise the issue there. But yes, editors are fundamentally *not* empowered with deciding what kind of content we can host - that is up to our policies. Our editors are the people who make the content happen, but they must do so within a framework. And while consensus is king, consensus on an article does not trump consensus enshrined in said framework.

• Policies I feel are in violation:
  • WP:V because, most of the time, 90% of the content is not citeable and cannot be verified. This applies to plot summaries, even.
  • WP:IINFO because, as stated above, Joe Editor cannot simply decide to make an article for a list of characters because he feels it's notable - only if that notability can be sourced with reliable sources, and only if those reliable sources are not chiefly primary.

From where I stand, the problem I describe is not a blurry line. If there's a character article or list with no adequate sourcing available (e.g. show went off the air a decade ago) and nothing to go for it but one or two editors who 'like the concept', it is against policy and I'd like to delete, merge or redirect it as necessary. If there is sourcing available, the story changes and we can treat the information accordingly. m.o.p 07:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

It is readily accepted that when describing plot elements, the primary work is a valid source and as such plot summaries and other recaps do not need explicit inline sourcing, as long as no interpretation of the work is made in summary. So no, WP:V is met. Though you are right about I info, but that also doesn't explicitly forbid them if there is third party sourcing available. And the problem with your example is that before you can insist on deletion you have to prove no sourcing exists, which is impossible (proving the negative). Even arguing merge / redirect needs good evidence. Just because the show is off the air for more than a decade doesn't mean there aren't sources, it may take physical effort to find them, and as WP works on a retain and fix approach with no deadline, you cant forvce deletion. --MASEM (t) 07:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Masem, you're killing me here. We've walked this path before. How can I put this clearly?

I did not mention *anything* about WP:V not being able to be satisfied with primary sources. I just said it should not be used to justify notability (per policy) and it is very often not met at all.

IINFO would only be applying if sourcing wasn't available. That's the point. That's what I've been saying the whole time. This would all not be an issue if everything was sourced perfectly, but it isn't.

Your assertion that deletion is impossible is a bit odd, given that people regularly prove lack of sourcing on a daily basis, and deletion is regularly forced. But, again, this would be context-based. Someone looks for sourcing, can't find it, and then proceeds to merge, redirect, or delete as fit. If circumstances change, decisions can be undone. This is just to get things moving so that we do not have a bunch of cruft sitting around making the project look bad. m.o.p 08:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

What is one persons cruft is another's content, which is a major bane for trying to push harder regulations on fiction content. Lists of characters exist as a compromise from when WP used to have individual articles on every character before notability existed, and also reflect approaches that guidebooks for works of fiction take. The same policies and guidelines that allow editors the time and space to improve articles work against us trying to force trimming, cleanup, and sourcing of fiction article, and there is no admin-oversighted process to make sure a consensus for merging is enacted and enforced. The best we can do is tag article with cleanup, work with interested editors to get trimming and cleanup done, and otherwise make these changes BOLDly - if it is impossible to fully convince others that the article can't meet sourcing requirements, ever. --MASEM (t) 08:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

No, this is not a case of 'different strokes for different folks'. While I agree that people hold different infatuations, just because people like something does not change the fact it goes against policy. I'm puzzled again by your insistence that we are unable to 'rush' a schedule, given that, as I said above, we regularly delete articles by the hundreds for failing to comply with policy. And, as I've stated more times than I can count, if source availability changes then the situation changes in kind - but we do not have a crystal ball, and suggesting we 'wait and give it time' is a bit silly if 'it', at present time, goes against policy. m.o.p 15:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

That argument does not fly with inclusionists at all. They always point to WP:BEFORE and WP:DEADLINE and assert that if you want to delete an article, you need to demonstrate without any doubt that no sourcing exists; they will insist they have all the time in the world to let an article develop as long as basic importance (not notability) is shown to avoid the CSD. Note I'm not agreeing with them 100% but there is a point there - in general we don't nor shouldn't rush to delete content that has a likely chance to be kept; taking the Shield character list article, I definitely see on just a quick search the likelihood of sources to help, though I can't assure the final article would be good. But DEADLINE tells us to give the time to grow out. And this applies across WP not just fictional areas (I've tried to argue for the removal of athletes that have had a short, uninteresting career but people insist these will grow in time). The problem is a lack of any effort to clean up which is near impossible to force. --MASEM (t) 01:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

MOP, this is all very strange. Take this:

WP:V because, most of the time, 90% of the content is not citeable and cannot be verified. This applies to plot summaries, even.

Really? You aren't capable of reading a book and summarizing the plot using the book itself as your source? It's not usually citeD because it's so obvious to everyone that this is acceptable that the work being described is the source. This is given as one of the undisputed examples of when you can cite a primary source.

WP:IINFO because, as stated above, Joe Editor cannot simply decide to make an article for a list of characters because he feels it's notable - only if that notability can be sourced with reliable sources

Go ahead: Show me some reliable secondary sources that says Wikipedia ought to have an article on Barack Obama or Cancer or Computers. NB that we're not talking about sources that discuss these subjects. You are saying that the fact that it complies with this particular inclusion guideline (not the fact that somebody applied the word "notable" to the subject in its dictionary definition) must be directly sourced. Can you find any such sources? If not, then why do you think that we require that any determination of whether a subject complies with this guideline be supported by a reliable secondary source? WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll admit fault on that first part; I was not talking about literal plot summaries of books, I was talking about articles focusing on in-universe material (as the context of this discussion implies).

I'm not quite sure what you mean, or if you're misreading my statement; once again, notability is contextual. No, I do not mean a source needs to word-for-word say "A is notable", I mean it needs to provide coverage. Like, for example, an article about how a character is notable in the field. Which is the only real way one could talk about notability. If you're not sure if Barack Obama is notable, a re-reading of WP:N might be in order.

How about this. Let's look at Frank Underwood (House of Cards). That is a damn fine character article. Every possible element of plot detail is cited and real-world context is king. There is a plethora of third-party sourcing to establish notability. This article is the 1% of fiction articles on Wikipedia. The rest are, near-universally, in a state of utter disrepair, with many needing culling or merging. m.o.p 15:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Culling and merging is fine. The problem is that we can't force that under the guise of notability for the most part that notability cannot limit article content nor can we can we require all article to be notable. We can use IINFO, NOT#PLOT, UNDUE, WAF, and a host of other terms to encourage and/or bold merge, redirect, and trim, content but we can't use those to outright delete them without ignoring a rather large "bloc" of the consensus on fiction. If it was something like the UFC (Ultimate Fighting) where it was clearly a limited group against the larger consensus, that's one thing, but here we are talking a pretty damn significant fraction here. --MASEM (t) 01:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

MOP, I think that your statements might be clearer if you didn't use the word notable at all in this discussion, because it's hard to guess which times that word means "qualifies for an article on the English Wikipedia" and which times it means "remarkable or prominent".

I agree that significant coverage is required. Unfortunately, if you look at the section immediately above this, we can't seem to get everyone to agree on what "significant coverage" actually means. According to some of them, if you can find a single sentence in a single source about the subject, and if that sentence is sufficiently clear that you don't have to guess what the pronouns in that sentence refer to, then that single sentence is "significant coverage". It's discouraging. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment: The Jonas Quinn example, which is a WP:Good article, seems like a poor example to cite as a non-WP:Notable topic. Flyer22 (talk) 08:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't mean to disparage GA review, but (in my experience) they seem to care more about whether an article is well-structured or pretty than whether or not it is notable. Certainly seems to apply in this case. m.o.p 15:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's not for the WP:Good article (GA) or WP:Featured article (FA) processes to judge whether or not an article is WP:Notable. I was not only referring to the Jonas Quinn article being a WP:Good article, but also that there seems to be enough WP:Real world content, including from third-party WP:Reliable sources, to argue that the topic is WP:Notable. I'm not entirely sure on that matter, though (would need to look further into the topic). It is worth noting that the article was promoted to WP:Good article status in December 20, 2008, and that, like the WP:Featured article process, the WP:Good article process has become stricter since then. Flyer22 (talk) 00:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

How about an external, dedicated site for fictional lore?

I've always thought it's unfortunate that Wikipedia can't be the host of knowledge bases for modern pop culture, like Wookieepedia, The Simpsons Wiki or Lostpedia. Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that our encyclopedic articles make emphasis on the real world relevance of each fiction's work element. But WP:NOTPLOT also has its drawbacks: there are times when being able to check up on an obscure detail of a secondary character will make you understand a cultural reference (so it has some encyclopedic value - even if you can't know in advance which detail will be encyclopedic); and it's also the policy that makes us fight all the editors who want to have such content created and refined. Policy should reflect what editors actually *do*, but WP:NOT has split the community in two in that regard; there are still editors who will want a detailed account of their favourite series, and the current policy makes us fight those editors instead of collaborate with them.

I also think that simply deleting all that written material goes in the long run against our mission to create and disseminate free content, as editors will create alternative repositories at other sites, and those will not always released under Free, Share-alike licenses. I know the role to keep that kind of content has been somewhat taken up by Wikia, but it's difficult to have editors collaborate with it (and rightly so, as Wikia is a for-profit company), so there's no easy way to take advantage of what Wikipedia editors have created.

I'fe we're willing to review how we do things in general around this subject, I believe the solution should be to have a space of our own outside the encyclopedia for such fictional content. Instead of fighting the same old battles over the current status of policy and community inertia, we could try doing something diferent for once. Imagine for a moment that all (well, most) Wikipedia cruft thas remains, or was deleted because of NOTPLOT, was moved to a "wiki lore" sister project where all the verifiable-but-not-notable content was allowed to live and bloom; that project could even have the same verifiability and neutrality policies as us, with only the Notability and NOTPLOT requirements removed. We could then embrace that content instead of rejecting it, placing a notice box from our articles about the fictional work as we do now with Wikibooks and Wikiquotes; we could also redirect to that place the work of those editors willing to maintain it, migrate their work instead of removing it, and have productive collaboration instead of the current constant surveillance and fighting over such modern fictional lore; we could even retain a WP:Summary version of the best, trimed down lists of characters and episodes, while pushing all the trivia details off-wiki.

What do you think - has the time come for a bold initiative to shake the status quo? Diego (talk) 11:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

"I've always thought it's unfortunate that Wikipedia can't be the host of knowledge bases for modern pop culture" - we can't (ignoring the other issues about) because this type of information cover is under fair use - all of our plot summaries, character descriptions, etc. are derivative works of the copyrighted work. That doesn't mean we can't include them but we have to consider how much fair use would allow. (We have the fact that a Harry Potter encyclopedia, written without authorization, was found to be violating copyright, so we know this can happen). So this is why we stress keeping plot summaries short (that's much less a copy-taking ). This is also where supplying third-party and/or secondary sources helps us, because as to describe the work with injection of these sources is better transformation of the material, part of the fair use defense texts. These reasons are above and beyond the global sourcing requirements we want to articles on WP. --MASEM (t) 14:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Not so, dear friend. Plot summaries are derivative works, so we can't host them? Then how is it that Wikia can host such content, and News media around the whole world can make reviews of those cultural works? If the content is not a COPYVIO and descriptions are made in the editors' own words, there's enough original content to be safe. Apparently, the Harry Potter lexicon got into trouble because " it would publish excerpts from the novels and stills from the films without offering sufficient "transformative" material to be considered a separate work"; and the book was eventually published once those excerpts were removed. I read here at Wikipedia that "because it serves ... reference purposes, rather than the entertainment or aesthetic purposes of the original works, the Lexicon’s use is transformative and does not supplant the objects of the Harry Potter works", and Rowling won the case because some parts of the book did not follow that pattern, and instead included lots of verbatim copying, mainly from the companion books. But that's not our style - that's not the way how Wikipedia "cruft" lists are written, which are closer to the allowed "reference work" model. No, the only reason why Wikipedia doesn't host more of those lists and more extended descriptions is because we have decided that they're WP:NOT encyclopedic, not because there's any copyright problem in them, nor because they're against any of the other content policies. Diego (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Plot summaries are derivative works. That doesn't mean we can't host them, but it does mean we have to be aware that there is a limit here before copyright concerns come into play if we don't apply enough transformation to meet the fair use defense rules. Concise plot summaries even without transformation (which for us would be adding in details from secondary sources on production and reception) is likely not going to cause any problem. But detailed plot summaries without transformation will be a problem. We avoid this problem further that we require fiction to be notable before we even cover it (notability leading to some aspect of transformation) and we limit use of copyright non-text media strictly via NFC; the NOT#PLOT is a further buffer since we're trying to make an encyclopedia based on secondary sources. But we would be putting ourselves at risk if we when as deep as some of the Wikias go. This is one reason why we cannot have dedicated coverage of fictional works that some Wikias like Memory Alpha do. --MASEM (t) 23:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Wikia is at a risk, and that somehow they can assume it and we can't? In any case, before debating the legal implications and how to circumvent them, I'd like to hear what people think about the mere existence of such separate project, and if it really would solve the problems with the current tensions about fictional content. If editors dislike the base idea itself, discussing these fine legal details (before deciding whether the whole idea makes sense) is moot. So, let's assume we can figure a way to make it legal - would editors here dedicate efforts to build such site, and coordinate Wikipedia-produced content so that it can be moved there with ease? Think of the benefits, so that we can properly weight them against the risks. Diego (talk) 06:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I'm not suggesting that the site should hold "detailed plot summaries without transformation". The summaries could be the same short length as those hosted now at Wikipedia. The main difference is that the site could contain summaries of non-notable works. Diego (talk) 08:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

yes, Wikia is at a low risk of copyvio with the extent of details and imagery they allow; I doubt anyone will sue them but have a larger risk that might happen than to us. Wikia has proven though a large number of editors can build a complete fanguide for a work (eg Wookiepedia) that incorporates content building practices learned from Wiikipedia. As such we do allow links to Wikia for well built wikis for detailed in- universe content. --MASEM (t) 07:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

What policy means on Wikipedia

A lot of editors, including MOP above, seem to have a different understanding of what policies are than what is defined at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. They seem to argue based on the idea that policies are hard and fast rules which must be followed, and nothing can get around them. But that's not what they are. They are generally agreed upon "standards that all users should normally follow." There are no hard and fast rules on Wikipedia (save what is established by the WMF by fiat, of course).

Policies exist to tell us what consensus is. It's just easier to read them than to try to find the discussion that established the current practice. If current practice is to ignore some part of policy, that means the policy is incorrect and needs to be updated, not that said practice is wrong. The job when creating policy is to craft rules that fit what we already broadly agree should be done.

— trlkly 14:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

One thing to remember is that notability is not policy, it's a guideline so there's even more room for allowances in it. This is not to say that notability is not upheld in practice, but it is not the hard fast rule. However, without some consistency in practice we run into the problem of people adding topics that do not fit with the encyclopedia's overall goal. --MASEM (t) 15:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Trlkly, you might like reading WP:PGE, which deals with some of this. It's a perennial misunderstanding. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

What misunderstanding do you see? trlkly is exactly right. Diego (talk) 17:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I think they are agreeing with me, and just telling me that I might like to read an essay that takes the whole thing further. The story of my Wikipedia career: anything I take the time to think of will have an essay already written on it that does a better job! — trlkly 17:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I do agree with trlkly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Clarifying Noteworthy vs Notable

Given some of the discussions above, I think it would be helpful to better clarify the distinction between "Noteworthiness" and "Notablility". Noteworthiness denotes that a topic/subject/fact/opinion/etc. is worthy of being noted... ie it merits being mentioned somewhere in Wikipedia. Notability denotes that a subject/topic merits having a stand alone article devoted to it. We need to make it clearer that things can be "Note worthy" without being considered "Notable".
Thoughts? Blueboar (talk) 13:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

That sounds okay to me. It could either be placed in or it could lead to WP:FAILN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

One thing to be careful about is that we do not want to equate "notable" with the condition of having a standalong article, there are other reasons to have a standalone article, and there are reasons a notable topic should not or may not need a separate standalone article. Instead we are using our (Wikipedia') measure of notability to create the condition that allows for a stand-alone article to be made. The noteworthiness of a topic is factor we use to determine something is notable, among other things. --MASEM (t) 16:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• Seems like we have other words we are already using.  The threshold for inclusion is verifiability.  As per the essay, WP:Accuracy, reliable material is not included in the encyclopedia when it is insignificant.  There is an entire content policy missing, which is the deletion of articles for insignificance, currently indicated ambiguously as "non-notable".  wp:prominence means the material has sufficient WP:DUE WEIGHT for inclusion in an article.  Then there is the fundamental rule of WP:N, which is worthy of notice.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
• See WP:Insignificance.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
• This essay deals with the relationships between topics, notable and non-notable; articles, standalone or deletable; and material, significant or insignificant.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I was looking for a place to touch on this subject and found this comment. I completely agree. I've been following quite a few conversations at this point where justification for having an article is being made because the topic can be "proven note worthy" by way of cite-able "reliable sources". This is then used to support the concept that the subject has worthiness and justifies enough notability to warrant a stand alone page. This is making my head spin. BcRIPster (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Asking about notability in advance

Is there a place one can ask about notability? If I where to be going to do a stub about IT platform technology, would that immediately be deleted, or might some other contributers maybe pick up on it, and maybe turn it into a great article ... and then maybe becoming a very useful source of information out of it. Is there some talk (list-)page, one can ask this notability question in advance? (You discuraged too many people (me) from: "just do it".) --Alien4 (talk) 12:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

We used to have a noticeboard for such questions but it was closed and deleted. The best suggestion is to make that a question on the Remote Desktop Services page and get opinions there, or just be BOLD and hope for the best. --MASEM (t) 13:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources (sources that are independent of the topic) that have written about it? Technology magazines? Newspaper reviews? etc. If so, these sources can be used to demonstrate that the topic is notable, and it should survive. If not, then the article is likely to be deleted, or merged into a related article.

(That's probably exactly the reason, why there's so *a mess* ... really difficult to find apropriate reliable structured information, on a topic, that's in complete *under construction*. --Alien4 (talk) 12:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC) )

If you are not sure... One option would be to create a draft of the article in your user space (create a sub-page attached to your user page... perhaps at User:Alien4/Drafts). You can then work on the article without the risk of all your hard work being deleted. You can take your time... searching for the necessary sources and asking others to drop by and suggest ways to improve your article ... so that, when you "take it live", it will be more likely to survive any scrutiny. Blueboar (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I might try that one, if I find the right way to interwikilink my stub, so others might pick up on it. Or maybe the one mentioned below, maybe a mixture of it. --Alien4 (talk) 12:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

You could ask at WT:WikiProject Microsoft Windows or WT:WikiProject Computing (if they're still active groups). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Adding a small sentence about geography

Our long-standing practice is to give presumed, automatic, or whatever you want to call it notability to certain geographic features, which is one of the main rationales behind the currently running RfC to promote Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features). Several editors, including myself, have commented that we could just address this with a single line or small section in the main notability guideline. The five pillars describes one function of Wikipedia as a "gazetteer", which is commonly cited as the source of this practice. I don't view this as appropriate to document in an subject-specific notability guideline (SNG), but rather, as a unique exception to the general notability guideline (GNG), that is distinct from the functions an SNG normally serves.

One claimed justification for SNGs is to provide presumed notability for subjects where demonstrated notability might be initially difficult, but where suitable sources surely exist. Our Gazetteer function has gone beyond that in practice, in that we have almost always kept certain geographical articles, regardless of the potential for sources.

The current proposal at the other page is basically as follows:

• Populated, or formerly populated, legally-recognized places
• Named natural features
• International, interstate, national, state and provincial highways

So I propose we add text similar to the following, possibly in its own section:

"Because Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers, some geographic features are presumed notable, such as populated, or formerly populated, legally-recognized places, named natural features, and international, interstate, national, state and provincial highways."

It's a little bit of a run-on sentence, but it's compact. If we add it here we can anchor a shortcut to it which should satisfy those at the RfC who want to be able to cite it at AfD. Gigs (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather not have subject-specific material here, even if it means having an SNG that only contains a single sentence.

Also, you might want to read WT:Five pillars/FAQ. 5P is not a policy or foundational document; it's just a simplified description for newbies, written several years after Wikipedia was started. So citing it as a source for this practice is backwards. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I do agree that we should try to avoid adding subject-specific stuff here. If anything I would argue that while the current geographic places version is under discussion, even if that fails, a simple one that re-iterates the above would be appropriate. --MASEM (t) 20:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of the "official" status of 5P, our practice has been to ignore notability entirely when it comes to atlas/almanac type stuff. To me that isn't "subject specific", it's a place where our normal notability guidelines simply don't apply. That's outside of the realm of subject-specific notability guidelines, and their normal interaction with this guideline. Gigs (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Sigh... I do wish that the Foundation would create "Wikiatlas" and "Wikialmanac" co-projects... they would be much more appropriate venues for this sort of stuff (similar to how they created Wiktionary as a more appropriate venue for word definitions). But until they do... I agree with Gigs... the notability guidelines we created for the rest of Wikipedia (the real encyclopedia articles) just don't apply to atlas/almanac type articles. Blueboar (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

<sigh><sigh>... An experience with Wikispecies demonstrates that Wikiatlas will not help: despite Wikispecies, wikipedia is being incessantly pumped with myriads of bugs and herbs which often only described in a single article by the person who uncovered them and many of them are even extinct. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not too happy either with micro-stub proliferation that happens under some of our de-facto practices when it comes to notability (minor outer space objects comes to mind as another example). This proposal isn't really an endorsement of the practice, just an attempt to document what the practice has been for a very long time in a way that I think fits best into our current guideline framework. I wouldn't be too opposed to Masem's idea of stripping down the geo notability SNG, but if we did that, I think it needs to carry a disclaimer that it isn't quite like a normal SNG, but rather more of a special case exception to notability. Gigs (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The unspoken, unwritten, understood rule behind all of this is that WP:N allows us to retain a veneer of impartiality when addressing issues of self-promotion by people, promoting their company, product, person, band, fringe scientific theory, etc. In general, the proliferation of the "specific" notability guidelines in supplement of the GNG allows us to carve out exceptions for entities that aren't trying to promote themselves through Wikipedia, so we let it slide with little objection. A microstub about a species of beetle generates little controversy. But really what it comes down to is we don't want people self-promoting through Wikipedia, and WP:N gives us a consise, comprehensive way to say we don't want their crap, without taking it personally. --Jayron32 16:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

That's one side of it, but another side is that notability is adjunct to verifiability and source material availability, as I've written in the essay WP:TWOPRONGS. What you are saying would be mostly encompassed in my "first prong". Gigs (talk) 17:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Another option is to have a list of pages that we consider that notability doesn't apply to for reasons of being helpful as part of an encyclopedia. This would including navigational pages like indexes and outlines, glossaries, and, in this case, named geographical places due to our part in being a gazetteer. (Though in the latter we always would encourage buidling out a notable article if possible). --MASEM (t) 16:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

That could be a way to go. I note that WP:NEXCEPT is available as a shortcut. We'd have to be very careful going down that road so as to not expand the scope beyond current practice. Gigs (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Right, and we have to be clear this would not be WP:OUTCOMES either. Just that in the specific case of named places (to be exactly defined), we treat them as part of being a gazetteer that is embedded within WP. Also we have to be clear that not being on this page doesn't necessarily mean that there must be a notable topic. --MASEM (t) 17:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Gender, racial and Geographic bias in coverage

The problem with this guideline is it does not take in account gender, racial and geographic bias. These factors contribute considerably as to whether a person will be widely covered or not. This guideline needs to be refined so that wikipedia is not further affected, any more than it already is, by this bias.Pearl2525 (talk) 01:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you believe white males get more coverage than everyone else? 77.9% of America is White. Plus you got a bunch of white folks in England, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand. Since this is the English language Wikipedia, most articles will be from English language news items, and they do report a lot of things in the countries they are based in. Is that geographic bias? Things that happen in an English speaking nation are more likely to get covered perhaps? Has anyone ever checked articles about biographies and compared what race and gender everyone is, and listed the stats somewhere? Do you want to start covering people who aren't getting coverage in any media? Dream Focus 02:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

We do try to deal with global systematic bias, but there's also things we simply cannot "fix" without failing our job as an encyclopedia. At least for the foreseable future, there will be more articles on specific individual men than women, and as DF points out, more about people covered in English sources than other languages. Notability's not going to be changes to try to fight that. --MASEM (t) 02:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Should notability really be such a keystone of Wikipedia?

Dear editors,

Wikipedia is an excellent online encyclopedia and twice I have made donations (nothing spectacular) to the project, but I am very unhappy with your deletion policy. Of course incorrect articles should be deleted or revised, but I don't understand your policy to delete articles which are correct just because the subject isn't considered "notable" enough, a very subjective criterion. In a printed encyclopedia of limited size the editors have to select subjects interesting and important enough to be included, but on the web I think there should be an encyclopedia without such limitations. Correct information is always valuable, and the notability of the subjects may quickly change.

Is there a way to change this deletion policy? I would like to make more donations in the future without any hesitation because of this.

What is so bad about having articles about every minor celebrity? As long as they are celebrities, even if they are minor ones, people will assume that you know who they are, and then there should be a reliable site where you can look them up if you don't. How can I protest if I don't believe that notability should be a keystone of Wikipedia?

Yours faithfully,

Erik Holst 83.248.167.153 (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

How do you propose we identify who qualifies as a "minor celebrity" if they don't meet notability standards? What's your proposed inclusion threshold for articles about people? postdlf (talk)

My suggestion is that there should be no inclusion threshold for articles about people as long as they are correct. Obviously articles about popular subjects will be checked more often than others, which Wikipedia users must keep in mind. Erik Holst 83.248.167.45 (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Which would basically make Wikipedia the phone book, wouldn't it? If it had articles on people merely because they verifiably existed? While I regularly see editors abusing or misinterpreting notability guidelines, most editors are reasonable about it, and based on past experience abandoning that inclusion threshold entirely would not make the encyclopedia better on the whole. We discussed the pros and cons of that approach here about a decade ago, when it wasn't uncommon for at least an editor or two to voice your opinion, and before notability was an express guideline but was nevertheless developing into a principle commonly raised at AFD (back when it was known as "Votes for Deletion"). We already had the experience then of rampant abuse of Wikipedia for self-promotion by people and companies all trying to post their own articles about themselves, and also were concerned about invasion of privacy of people who others were singling out for articles even though they were truly private individuals and not famous by any means. And if you don't have independent, reliable sources writing about a subject, it is usually difficult if not impossible to ensure that they are "correct." So these guidelines didn't arise out of theoretical or hypothetical problems, but instead to meet problems encountered through actual experience. postdlf (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Erik, perhaps reading WP:NOTPAPER, WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:1E may help you better understand the reasons for current guidelines and policy.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 19:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Notability standards for WP:SPLIT

Are there notability tests/standards/guidelines for which types of WP:SPLITs from a biographical article might be considered notable? For politicians and military leaders they seem common, for athletes they seem rare. Some splits are very large such as Douglas MacArthur in World War II or Early life and work of Clint Eastwood (both at well over 20KB of readable prose), while some are so modest I wonder why they aren't merged back like Picasso's Blue Period and Picasso's Rose Period. What guides which sections of an article are acceptable to SPLIT out. Splits are so rare in sports that Babe Ruth sits as a newly minted WP:FA (promoted May 25, 2014) with over 80KB of readable prose rather than have any SPLITs.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Is this the Jabari Parker thing again? Please stop forum shopping this issue. You've had at least four attempts at this, and it really is time you dropped the stick. Reyk _YO! 05:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I still have a lot to learn about a lot of things and this is one of them.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jabari_Parker's_high_school_career, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jabari Parker's high school career (2nd nomination), and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 May 6, show overwhelmingly people supported deleting the side article TonyTheTiger created. Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Deleting_actionable_articles has this conversation going as well, started by the same editor. Dream Focus 05:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

As I stated at WT:AFD, I am attempting to learn about policy to guide all of my editing not just a single article. Whether there is a reason why sports bios don't have SPLITs based on portions of their life or portions of their career is something that may have come up here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Babe Ruth has a side article split from it at Babe Ruth's called shot. If something in the article looks like it could be split off, its done. Its about the context. Dream Focus 05:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • That is more of an event than a SPLIT of a period of his life. It is the type of thing that is SPLIT from other subjects such as 1932_World_Series#The_Called_Shot. I am talking about a period of his life that is a SPLIT just for his biography. It just seems to odd to me to promote such a lengthy FA. It would seem that in order to get this down to a more desirable size (less than 60 KB) something might have gotten SPLIT.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

As you have been told, the specific article deleted has nothing to do with notability, it was due to being too narrowly focused for an encyclopedia, which has nothing to do with WP:N. --MASEM (t) 05:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Still trying to figure out why sports bios don't have splits and I am checking in here to see if there is a reason.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• • • If people have trouble loading the Babe Ruth article because it is 112,121 in size, then they probably need some forks in it. It loads just fine for me. Computers, servers, and internet itself kept getting faster over the years, so is it really even an issue these days? And some sports bios probably have splits, and others don't. You can't make a split if it has content people don't believe should be in the encyclopedia though. Dream Focus 05:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
      • The 5 longest sports bios at FA don't have any SPLITs that are significant enough for {{main}} tags based on only that article. Some have splits that are splits from other articles as well that are mostly events. After Babe Ruth (80269 characters of readable prose), Harbhajan Singh (73832), Avery Brundage (67792), Douglas Jardine (67736) and Juwan Howard (63407). I am inquiring about the propriety of sports bio SPLITs.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

When you've been told it wasn't a notability issue before, there was no point in coming here. "Jabari Parker's high school career" is a notable topic, as you demonstrated, but notability does not affirm that that topic must be a stand alone article as other policies can prevent that (in this case WP:IINFO ). WP:N can't answer your question. --MASEM (t) 05:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

You keep harping on Jabari Parker's high school career, I edit far more than Jabari Parker and want to know why sports bios don't seem to have SPLITs.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Babe_Ruth shows Babe Ruth has plenty of splits. Others do as well. Those at Category:Sportsperson_navigational_boxes for example. Dream Focus 06:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I was thumbing the article looking for {{main}} tags. Those are a different significance of split than things that are regular links in the prose. Again none of those are about a period of his life or portion of his career.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

List of career achievements by Babe Ruth is about his career. Dream Focus 06:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

That is just a link in the see also section. I am interested in SPLITs that might be used to detail a portion of his life or career. List of career achievements by Babe Ruth does not cover a portion of his life or career, it covers the whole thing. Analogues to Douglas MacArthur in World War II or Early life and work of Clint Eastwood might be Early life and career of Babe Ruth, Babe Ruth's Murderer's Row Years, Babe Ruth's Boston Red Sox years or something like that.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The reason in the first place all these can be split is that we have good retrospective that these years of this person's life are important (not just notable) due to the passage of time to allow history to be set. We know MacArthur was an important commander in WWII; we know Eastwood was an important figure in Hollywood. We know Ruth was an important athlete. We have no idea how a young adult just starting a sporting career in college is going to turn out. If he has a career like Ruth's, then maybe an "Early career" article covering his HS and college years would be appropriate. He might burn out fast; he might suffer an injury, or actually become a great player. But until we know that, and that we won't know for years, breaking out the life of an importance-yet-to-be-established people in that much detail is simply not appropriate for an encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 14:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I am trying to determine if there is a reason why sportspeople (other than tennis players) don't have articles that split their careers into segments. Your answer suggests that you feel important sportspeople do. They don't. Your attempt to answer a question I am not asking is confusing the issue. We have an article that is over 80KB of readable prose that passed FA less than two weeks ago. I am trying to determine why it doesn't have sensible career-based SPLITs.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

80k of readable prose is nowhere near a WP:SIZE problem to require splitting. Remember that we are considering offline readership, so articles should be as self-contained as possible, so splitting out career segments of notable people is not helpful towards that. --MASEM (t) 16:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Usually 80 KB is an issue.--

Go down to the WP:SIZERULE section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs)

Right, and it says 60k or higher is a likely, but not required candidate for splitting. --MASEM (t) 21:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Looking at Category:Sportsperson_navigational_boxes, I see it is mostly tennis players that have separate articles for parts of their careers (by season).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• The best way to gauge whether such a split or fork is appropriate is to listen carefully and with an open receptive mind as to how consensus is formed by discussion among editors who take an uninvolved look at the matter. When you use words like "harping", it seems that you are not listening carefully and are continuing your opposition to clearcut consensus. That seems unwise to me, especially since you can't expect "policy" to cover every eventuality in a project as massive and complex as this one, and that the collaborative thing to do in such cases is to accept consensus and move along. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• I am trying to listen here. You seem to be answering a question that I am not asking. I am trying to determine if there is a reason why sportspeople (other than tennis players) don't have articles that split their careers into segments. Is this policy based? Is there a reason? Why would we pass a Babe Ruth at FA at over 80KB rather than SPLIT his career into sections and summarize them.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• The premise of this entire discussion is begging the question. The question was never about the notability of Jabari Parker, but about the need for a fork article about the high school "career" of a first-year college athlete. The consensus through two AFDs and a DRV is that Wikipedia does not require fork articles that go into tedious and trivial detail of such athletes. Even if you were to successfully argue the case using some of sport's greatest historical figures as a proxy, that still would fail to justify such a fork for Parker. Resolute 16:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I am not arguing by proxy that Parker should get to have a SPLIT. I am noting that I think WP is getting it wrong for all athletes that have a lot of content by not SPLITTING their careers out into detailed articles when most other professions do. I am trying to determine if there are rules/policy/guidelines on why almost no sports figures have their careers SPLIT.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Checking around at GA, I notice both Wilt Chamberlain (75550 characters) and Bobby Fischer (74382) checking in at around 75KB with no career SPLITs. Fischer has a couple of event SPLITS that are not just based on sections of his career, but rather events that serve as SPLITs in other articles as well. This all seems odd to me.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
      • I think your generalizaton is wrong. The bulk of biographic articles have no splits. When there are "splits" from biographies, most are generally done to put "data" into a separate location - such as for example the filmography of an actor, a bibliography of writer, or for sports figures, career stats. Things that can be summarized on the bio article and spelled out in detail in the secondary article. There are also splits based on specific, highly notable events or facets that typically are more than just about that person (for example, Babe Ruth's called short while dealing with Babe Ruth is more about that game and play; while Charles Darwin's trip on the Beagle is a notable part of his life, the breakout is much more about the scientific results of that voyage.) It's the exceptional cases where we split off a portion of a person's life, because our goal is to try to keep topics as singular articles for the benefit of the off-line/printed version readership. Yes, SIZE suggests at >60k we should look for a split but if this is removing a significant part of a biographical article into a separate section, we don't just split for purposes of splitting. It's a step we want editors to avoid in such cases. --MASEM (t) 21:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
• I agree with the above commenters that notability really isn't the issue here, as we're talking about sections of notable topics and splits due to the appropriate level of detail for those sections per their importance to that topic. I think Masem has phrased it best, and has answered both the general and the article-specific question well (regardless of whether the OP thinks so), particularly here. postdlf (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
• Just being nostalgic here: it always amused me that we had that whole series of articles about "x with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948". I think all of them are GAs or FAs. For example, see Colin McCool with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948. All that is for someone who "was not prominent in the team's success" (according to the lead). Zagalejo^^^ 03:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • That whole series of articles are a problem, particularly in light of the Parker article. "The Invincibles" - eg the specific team of 1948 - is a notable team, but there is zero need in an encyclopedia to detail the specific performance of each member of the team during that time in separate articles - that betrays the whole nature of the "team" aspect. (And spot checking the dates they were promoted, we are talking older articles). --MASEM (t) 03:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
    • My problem is now you are saying that sports bios almost have a different standard for career splits than other professions. Don't MacArthur, Eastwood and Picasso have offline readers? It sounds like if someone wanted to take the current 75KB Wilt Chamberlain from GA to FA, he would have to get to over 100KB before he would be allowed to SPLIT portions of his career or life. The article as it stands has too much detail in the main article. It should have separate SPLITS for each of the three NBA franchises that he played for and summaries of those in the main article. Looking at Chamberlain at 75KB and Ruth at 80KB and hearing this talk about "offline readership" as if it is unique to sports bios is odd.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
      • It's a confluence of two issues. First: we want to avoid splitting any topic on a singular subject to serve our off-line readers, regardless if its a biography or a scientific term or a place, or whatnot. A topic's page should be as comprehensive, covering all parts of the topic in reasonable weight with other parts. If we were a printed encyclopedia, with no issue with length of articles, we'd never have to split things, but practically we as an online one recognize this. As such, we have determined that when we split, we break out the least important aspects that servers the general reader, which is also considered the most specific aspects that serve the reader that needs to learn more about the topic. So breaking out parts of a person's career to subarticles isn't helpful in that manner in the first place. But we recognize it needs to be done. So, like, for Eastwood, we've determined most are coming for his basic career as a movie star and director, and while briefly summarizing his early life and his political aspects in the main article, break those out to the split ones as to manage the size, as well as the filmography of Eastwood. Splitting off any specific segment of a sports-players career is not helpful at all to the general reader.
        • I don't think that meshes with reality. Douglas MacArthur in World War II is probably the thing he is most known for, IIRC. Also, there are some splits where the whole main career of notability is the split, which makes little sense to me either. That probably makes sense in terms of keeping stuff together. The career that makes them notable is the thing most people are looking for so having the whole main career as the split seems a bit odd. Tiger Woods has the unusual SPLIT of his whole career of notability (Professional golf career of Tiger Woods) as does Paul McCartney with Paul McCartney's musical career, although each of his bands has separate articles.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
          • MacArthur, who we now know is one of the most recognized military leaders in the 20th century, has participated in different forms in 3 different wars, with his major accomplishments coming from his leadership in WWII; as such a more detailed coverage of his WWII leadership going into more detail than we need for his WWI and Korean war participate and other factors of life are appropriate. Breaking out the whole musical career of McCartney or the golf career of Woods also makes sense since they have plenty of other activities beside those careers to go into detail, and both have easily proven themselves as important figures in their field. We're still trying to figure out what Parker's importance is, and the only thing he's done has played basketball, there's zero need to breakout. --MASEM (t) 23:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Second, there is a large issue that prevails in the sports articles about including way too many details for an encyclopedia. Parker's articles are like that. It is completely possible to write at length about most of these top players due to the volume of sports-related publications out there, compared to other fields, but we are here to write summary articles and that means these have to be trimmed down. This amount of potential detail is rare save for some of the most influential people in the world (eg like Barack Obama as the PotUS). We have to recognize that most sports figures are not all that. Yes, we can write 70k-some articles on the better ones great, but that appears to be when we have a full life-long career to talk about. As I've pointed out before, the amount of detail given to Parker is excessive given no understanding of where his career will end up.
        • I am not sure what the point is. WP is suppose to summarize WP:RS. It is not like we are dealing with tabloid press of movie stars to CRUFT detail. The prospective detailed content is as important in sports as detail is in other careers.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
          • Game-to-game coverage is far too detailed for a bio article for an encyclopedia; we don't cover routine games at this level , so we certainly shouldn't do that in bio articles. --MASEM (t) 22:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
      • So you may see it as being discriminatory to sports persons, but really it is the fact that we know sports has a systematic bias on volumes of coverage at a trivial level (for the purpose of an encyclopedia) that has to be kept in mind. And to that end, once one starts realizing that sports can be easily talked about in broader overview levels instead of nitty-gritty game-by-game approaches (which are discouraged in the first place), one should be able to see that most sports-figures, who only have a career in their chosen sport, should not have split articles based on their career segments. Box scores, overall stats, lists of individual competitions won, etc. yes - that's again highly-specific data not needed by the general reader if we're fighting size issues. But not a period of the sports-figure's life. --MASEM (t) 05:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
        • This makes me wonder if there have been a lot of editors in arguments over sub-career splits. There is lots of substantive detail left out of lots of sports bios, IMO. I have watched Kobe, LeBron and Tiger's articles for most of my WP career. Kobe and LeBron both have the occaisional editor that comes by and prunes back way too much, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
          • If there are editors in good faith (eg ignoring the random drive-by blankers) removing material as too details, that probably means it's too detailed. --MASEM (t) 22:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
          • In my long experience, no, there haven't been many editors in arguments over sub-career splits at all. And what you would call "substantive detail", I would characterize as "excessive trivia". For most athletes - even the very best - most seasons can be sufficiently described in only a couple sentences. Not to mention that professional careers very rarely go beyond 15 years at the high end. There simply does not exist a space crunch that would exist for a notable individual of another field whose career can span many decades. Resolute 23:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to add European chicken farming example to this guideline

We keep having this discussion about whether editorial judgment is necessary, or if the existence of sources is the only thin that matters.

Every time we have this discussion, we ultimately conclude that just because the sources definitely exist to write an article on Use of antibiotics in European chicken farming, that this level of fine-grained, narrow-focus detail is actually better handled in larger articles (last time I looked, at Poultry#Antibiotics, but you might easily have an intermediate level, like Use of antibiotics in poultry farming, which would include both non-European farming practices and non-chicken poultry farming).

This guideline starts, "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article." It does not say, "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic might be verifiable".

This guideline says, "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it...is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy (and meets the sourcing requirements).

This guideline further says, "Editorial judgment goes into each decision about whether or not to create a separate page". It does not say, "Ignore editorial judgment, and do whatever you want, so long as all the material can be verified."

The mathematical-style formula, therefore, is that you may have an article if and only if all three of these required criteria are met:

1. You have enough sources (of the right types, etc.).
2. The topic isn't excluded by WP:NOT.
3. Editorial judgment supports it (e.g., editorial judgment does not support merging to a larger topic or transwiki-ing).

Here's my proposal: Let's actually add the example about antibiotics in European chicken farming to the guideline. The example seems to make sense to people on the talk page. (It's been used here for years.) I think the silliness of it actually makes it easier for people to understand. Let's put it in the guideline, maybe in WP:PAGEDECIDE, so that people who can't figure out how this whole "editorial judgment" idea affects decisions will have a better chance of grasping what we're talking about. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

A poor example, I think. Although a good case could be made for "poultry" rather than "chicken", I nevertheless can get off to a promising start.[4][5][6][7][8] An immense industry stands or falls on this and social attitudes and (hopefully) research-based legislation makes the situation very different across the world. If you allow "poultry" there is a vast collection of references because that is where the research and legislation is focussed. And EU, USA and China are very different in their attitudes towards this topic (but compare and contrast would be neat). Capitalism and subsistence farming collide. Clearly, given a vacuum of information on WP, it would be best to start with an overall article but in due course a split would be likely so it would be foolish to try and preclude this in advance. And I for one would rather have an isolated article on a specific that nothing at all on a general topic. Broad topics tend to be have been written about in the early days, pre-referencing, and have not thrived since. If someone writes a good, well-referenced article on an apparently narrow topic we should (and I hope would) welcome it. Thincat (talk) 21:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

It's always strange when a note begins with "No" and then proceeds to agree with you. Thincat, you have just agreed with me that despite a plethora of sources, [[Antibiotics use in European chicken farming]] is too narrow. It is too narrow precisely because of our editorial judgement that isolating chicken farming from duck farming is inappropriate to this subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh well, I'd rather agree with you than have a row. Although I think it would be better to have an article on Use of antibiotics in European poultry farming, I would not for a moment question the editorial judgement of someone who had written one about chicken. I also feel, in some cod-philosophical sense, that even the most narrow of these topics is more important to the world (and more encyclopedic) than a footballer who once played in a fully-professional league, a band who has done whatever they are supposed to do, or whatnot. Thincat (talk) 09:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

If we need to add this, the above section (about Parker's high school career) has clear community consensus on this matter. --MASEM (t) 21:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Not necessarily opposed... I am just wondering if the chicken thing is a bit too complex to make a good example. Yes, it fits what we are talking about... but it needs a fair amount of explanation to understand why it fits what we are talking about. It is not obvious... and I would prefer an example that is somewhat obvious, and thus does not require a lot of text to explain it. Blueboar (talk) 11:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

If this is being given as a somewhat jokey example of a topic that is too narrow, it may be appealing to many people and that may be good. However, the example can also give the suggestion that we do not wish to include topics involving expert knowledge and that we favour populist articles. I think a better example would be one where it is not reasonably possible to write an extended, well-referenced, encyclopedic article but nonetheless multiply-referenced information is to hand that could clearly be mentioned as part of a broader article. I am not sure there is any such situation that would have widespread agreement. In 50 years time people looking back will be staggered by what flimsy treatment had been considered appropriate (or excessive). Thincat (talk) 23:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Good observations. I think something like Day 95 of Barack Obama's first term as President of the United States would be a better example. You likely could find multiple (news) sources covering what he did that day, or any day in office, but we would never find it feasible to write separate articles for each day of a leader's tenure. postdlf (talk) 01:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• The idea is reasonable on paper. But as you might imagine, I worry that is going to open up the flood gates at AfD with what effectively turn into "IDONTLIKEIT" comments. What's too detailed to a non-specialist can be exactly right for someone else. Coverage of every professional footballer would be an example of something that I think is unneeded and far too detailed. There is an editorial judgement about "too detailed", but right now the default assumption is that if we have sources, it belongs and it takes a rather strong consensus to merge something that is well sourced. That's how it should be I think. If we added a note about it here, I think we'd lower that bar and I think that's a bad thing--perhaps a really horrible thing for the encyclopedia actually as I feel our deletionist attitudes drive away a lot of new editors and this would have the unintended side effect of driving away yet more. It's also going to get used to try to delete/merge all sorts of things. From chemical compounds to small towns. I just think it's not a box worth opening. Hobit (talk) 13:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Of course there's editorial judgement involved so what is "too detailed" can't be determined by one person. However, the style of the articles that would be at issue under this are usually when the topic can only be described as "Y of X" where "X" alone is clearly notable; the article content will usually have to duplicate text to establish context for the reader. Further, these articles would also easily be targets for merging into other articles (not losing the content on principle), the only reason that AFD is likely needed is that the titles are simply not easily searchable terms. I don't see this creating a flood of topics at AFD as there's almost no obvious examples of them; it's more caution on the article creation side to prevent people from thinking this type of slicing up of a topic is appropriate. --MASEM (t) 13:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
    • A few comments: #1 I worry about unintended consequences. I believe that you likely can't phrase it well enough to keep others from using it to try to delete/merge things they don't like. #2 This isn't really about notability. If it belongs anywhere (which I dispute) it belongs in WP:NOT. Notability is about reliable sources, not about editorial judgement. Hobit (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
      • It is about notability in the sense that it reflects how we deal with the inversion of notability. That is, while we say that notability (via sourcing) is a minimum requirement for a topic to have a standalone article on WP, it is not the case that we are required to have an article if a topic is clearly notable. Yes, some of this is also tied to IINFO, but notability certainly comes into play. --MASEM (t) 18:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
        • I agree that being notable doesn't mean we should always have an article, but that's WP:NOT's issue (as we do things at the moment). I'd like to be able to have the sentence "This meets WP:N but we shouldn't have an article" simply mean that we've met the sourcing requirements of (the current) WP:N, not that other issues are all also met. Keeps things cleaner. We already refer to WP:NOT here which is about perfect. It keeps the ideas linked but clearly distinct. Hobit (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
          • NOT's not well suited for the type of discussion this needs, though it sets some of the framework. This almost begs a separate guideline that points to both NOT + GNG about avoiding the too-narrowing-slice of information. I do agree that WP:N is not the place to necessarily house this guidance. --MASEM (t) 19:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• Something that needs to be stressed here... we are NOT really talking about deleting these topics ... but rather merging and trimming them. The option to "merge and trim" is an option that is under-discussed in this guideline. It forms an important half-way step between delete and include. Blueboar (talk) 19:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
• Still not sure this is the right place for that discussion. At the most I'd suggest a brief mention and a link elsewhere (not sure where). Hobit (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Hobit, your sentence above, Notability is about reliable sources, not about editorial judgement is wrong. This guideline starts, "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article." It does not say, "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to figure out whether there are reliable sources". The GNG is about sources, but notability is bigger than the GNG. The notability guideline already addresses editorial judgement as a requirement for notability in the WP:NOPAGE and WP:WHYN sections. My suggestion is to expand NOPAGE with an example that illustrates what that section is about, not to introduce some completely new idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
    • A good essay that was written by one of the people heavily involved in creating WP:GNG is [9]. I'm not saying that's the only way to view notability, but it pretty much aligns with how notability on Wikipedia has been treated since (near) the beginning. My views mirror it fairly closely. That said, it needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Sometimes things meet our definition of notable (WP:GNG) but aren't really suitable for an article. WP:NOT addresses many (most? nearly all?) of those cases and WP:IAR can generally be made to cover the rest. Hobit (talk) 02:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I create article, add it to list. It goes to AfD. With no RS, consensus is it's not notable. Closed instead as redirect because I added to a list?

Something has come up at DRV that leads me to question my understanding of the relationship between notability, deletion, lists, and articles.

Let's say I have a hypothetical product or a website or something which I invented five minutes ago. I create an article for it that just barely doesn't qualify for CSD, and I add it to some lists (from which it is not removed because the standard most lists of products/websites use for inclusion is having an article). Then it goes to AfD as not notable, and consensus is indeed that it's not notable. Is it really standard or supported by policy/guidelines to say, as AfD closer, that there is consensus it is not notable, and there is not consensus to redirect, but I'm closing as redirect because it exists on this list over here. So I, as article creator, get to keep a redirect for this non-notable subject until such time as local consensus can be sought/reached for each list and an RfD process is undertaken.

I don't want to duplicate discussion, but I'm hoping that since this page has so many more eyeballs than DRV, someone will better be able to clarify or additional voices will get involved (I seem to be the only one who sees something wrong with this at the moment). I hope this isn't taken to be WP:CANVASing. Ultimately the direct effects of this DRV are negligible (I could just remove it from the list without, I'm sure, any objections, and the redirect could be deleted), but I do care about the process and the norms involved, and of course my own understanding of the same.

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 23#Mailtor

--— Rhododendrites ^talk |  15:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

You took the article to AFD, so presumably you wanted it deleted. Deletion requires a consensus for deletion, not merely a consensus that the English Wikipedia shouldn't have a separate, standalone article about that subject. If you didn't achieve that consensus (and it's up to the closer to decide that), then merge-and-redirect is as close to deletion as the closer will be able to give you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I would be surprised if 9 out of 10 closers didn't interpret consensus in that discussion as delete, but regardless, I've effectively withdrawn the DRV. As was pointed out to me [rightly], the discussion I wanted to have about it is broader in scope than the DRV is intended for. And, speaking pragmatically, I've also never seen that kind of close in the hundreds of afds I've either participated in or watched, so suppose it's an overreaction to think it suggests something more systematic. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  03:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

GNG and local sources

I think we need to address the issue of whether local only coverage counts towards notability. I've seen repeated AFDs where there are ample multiple substantial sources to meet GNG, but some feel they don't count if they're all from the local area. Personally I think local only coverage may be sufficient to meet GNG. Very small communities tend not to have multiple reliable sources providing truly independent coverage (e.g if your in a small town where everybody knows every, and all the articles are friendly/promotional, than that's not a reliable independent source). But, it's very possible to have multiple substantial sources about a subject, that all come from the local area, but still meet requirements for an NPOV article. But regardless, even if the consensus is that we should exclude local-only coverage, this criteria needs to say what the consensus is. It's not fair that people read the GNG text here, rely on it, properly source their articles, and find them deleted later on. GNG should be the ultimate criteria. If something passes GNG, than it's in, regardless of whether it passes any other test notability criteria. But, unfortunately, use of GNG seems to vary widely in AFDs, depending on which editors show up. --Rob (talk) 06:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment GNG claims that if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. While most subjects which meet the criteria in GNG can have stand-alone articles on wikipedia, exceptions always exist. So the opinion that something passes GNG, then it's in, regardless of whether it passes any other test notability criteria is not what GNG claims to be. Then you may consider the question: What's the definition of "local"? Would you regard a research paper as "local source" because few people can understand it? And would you regard a book as "local source" if it has been printed for only once? So the definition of "local" is not exact, and may vary in different cases. In my view, it should never be a part of the general guideline.--180.155.72.174 (talk) 08:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

In fact, the purpose of making GNG is to clear the encyclopedia of indiscriminate collections of information, which is required by the policy "What Wikipedia is not". GNG itself is only a guideline. So if we can always find multiple reliable sources for a certain kind of things while there are billions of such things, we still have to delete some articles about them.--180.155.72.174 (talk) 08:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

A topic only covered by local sources is not appropriate for inclusion, though local sources are certainly allowable to contribute towards notability and article content - eg if there is a local film festival that the local papers cover to great detail and sufficiently mentioned by a larger source, that's good. We require a broader geographical range for notability to prevent things like local businesses, garage bands, etc. without any larger influence from being included. --MASEM (t) 15:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think any of that's true. The GNG doesn't discriminate against local sources. I think you are expressing your opinion as fact... Hobit (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not spelled out in the GNG (there was discussion to add it explicitly before but agreed it wasn't needed to be said), but on the subject-specific guides where local sources may be more likely used (like at BIO and ORG), the local-only aspects are called out as such. At best it is a case-by-case basis, but I will say that if you can't product a non-local source about a very local topic, you will likely find the article deleted/merged. --MASEM (t) 21:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I've seen it go both ways. At the moment I'd say a large number of "local" sources are often accepted. Malls and schools both seem to go that way... Hobit (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Schools, at least high/secondary schools, are an exception case that is not covered by notability, due to WP:OUTCOMES. It's a hotbed to try to actual set something about notability of schools either way , so we leave it as OUTCOMES for now (just like we do with geographic locations). --MASEM (t) 22:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Local film festivals, local businesses or garage bands without any larger influence seem to meet GNG but they violate "What Wikipedia is not".--180.155.72.174 (talk) 23:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

See the last bullet point in GNG... Yes, it is likely that a topic that meets GNG will be be considered notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, and a topic that does not meet GNG will not be considered notable enough for inlcusion in Wikipedia... BUT, passing or failing GNG (or any other notability guideline) does not guarantee inclusion OR exclusion. That's why this page is a guideline and not a policy. Blueboar (talk) 12:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem with local sources is that if you get to know the source, you will realize that the coverage is "routine" even if it doesn't seem routine. At first glance, a 10-column-inch article about a local church's picnic would seem to be "non-routine." But if it's in a small town newspaper that routinely gives about that much coverage to every similar event in town, then it's routine coverage. Furthermore, for small-town papers the coverage is quite likely to have been based on material provided by the church holding the picnic, making the source non-independent. However, the article may be written in a way that makes it seem like it was written by the newspaper as editorial content. While it's lees likely for this to happen for "big city" papers, you still see it from time to time. I was reviewing an WP:AFC draft recently where I noted that an otherwise-reliable/independent source was anything but, because the topic was closely tied to a former employee of the newspaper (or maybe the topic WAS that former employee, I forget). I reasoned that had the person not been a former employee, the coverage in that paper would have been much, much less or non-existent. You see similar issues with university publications mentioning their alumni's achievements, where they would not do so if the same achievement was made by someone with no connection to the university.

Going back to that church picnic - it may be mentioned in a small town's newspaper, the web site or transcript of a radio station in the same small town, and in the church's denomination's publications (which may be regional or even national in scope and distribution), in addition to the church's own newsletter. Even not counting the church's own newsletter, you have 2 and possibly 3 sources that at first glance appear to be independent and reliable. But until you know the editorial standards of the sources, you can't know for sure that they are independent and reliable with respect to this church picnic. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_26#Local_sources_.21.3D_notability.3F--180.155.72.174 (talk) 02:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:CORP explicitly requires one non-local source.

"Local only" is complicated, because what's a "local only" source for anything in London? We do generally find it appropriate to exclude subjects that have been covered only in small-town newspapers. If the town is small enough, then anything, even "Mrs Smith's daughter and two grandchildren came for supper. They live 12 miles away, in Nextville" is going to be published in the newspaper. That sort of coverage doesn't make Mrs Smith, the daughter, or the grandchildren notable. The same principle definitely applies to businesses and other organizations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Article needs internal consistency

Perhaps it might be good to create a notability guideline that is internally consistent?

At first, this is said:

"This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time"

But then this is said:

"Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity"

How do these two statements reconcile with one another? They certainly appear to be opposing statements to me.

Matthewhburch (talk) 10:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Not really, it means there is "significant attraction" beyond "fame, importance, or popularity". Think of small towns or villages all over the world or small rivers and other geographical features, a minor math theorem, some hardly known "unimportant" biological species or chemical substance etc. All those things are usually considered as notable for WP however "fame, importance, or popularity" does not hold for them. You may claim "significant attraction over a long period of time" nevertheless, as you can find those topics in various other encyclopedias & (scientific) databases, books and journal publications.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The first quote is a clear definition of fame as a specific requirement. The second quote indicates that fame is not necessary. This is the internal inconsistency I speak to. Notability is a very important part of how Wikipedia defines itself. Basing one of the foundation stones of the project, notability, on such poorly worded and conflicting statements only causes problems for your reviewers, as it confuses new editors. The current article is extremely poorly worded, leading to more work for your reviewers.

How about something like this: "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics in an encyclopedic manner. An article must have a topic with clear references to define its existence, as well as references to demonstrate why it is important. Wikipedia does not determine how notable something is, the rest of the world does, based on how much reference material is available and the quality of said materials. A topic can fail notability standards if it has very few references, indicating a lack of world interest in the topic, or very poor references, making the creation of a meaningful encyclopedic entry difficult or impossible. In short, if either quality or quantity of references is deficient, the article does not meet Wikipedia's standards. If an article should be notable, or should be better defined, it is up to the editor to either find the required references, or create them and have them published in reliable publications, so they might be used as references." Matthewhburch (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

"Significant attention" is not the same as fame. If anything what should be clear is that "significant attention as illustrated by coverage in reliable sources", to avoid the concepts of fame and popularity by word of mouth. --MASEM (t) 14:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)≈

There are a whole lot of different ways this article could be reworded so it's not potentially misleading. I'd be happy to see any such modification. The concept of notability is a bedrock foundation for Wikipedia, it should be well-defined, including exceptions. Matthewhburch (talk) 22:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like bad idea to me. This probably will just lead to questionable activism by people flagging 1000s of articles for insufficient (as in not enough) sources which however are perfectly fine (as the notability is generally accepted for those cases anyhow - along the line of the examples I listed above).--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

How can clarity be a bad idea when it's something as fundamental as notability? Your concern about people running through and flagging thousands of geographical region, towns, villages, songs, math theorems, etc. is well-founded, but there are already notability standards in place to provide exceptions to different types of articles. It should be a simple matter to create a group inclusion method that displays on the page, clarifying what special category of notability an article falls into, with a link to whatever notability standards that type of article must meet. If you want to challenge notability on a math theorem, you would need to challenge that notability based on math theorem notability standards, not on general article notability standards. Matthewhburch (talk) 22:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Well as far as I know we only have a few exceptions/specific notability guidelines (for instance geographic features) as of now, but not for all the examples I've given above. Independent of that I don't like the idea of using multiple sources as a "mechanical" cut off criteria. The nature of the source matters too, for instance you can often write short article based on the content of a standard textbook or some academic reference work/encyclopedia. In those case imho one source is sufficient for establishing notability and flagging such articles or creating arguments about that is unproductive. Of course you can always find additional sources for content from standard textbooks or encyclopedias, yet the author might not have them at hand. In other words if people only look at the numbers sources (in particular if bots are used for maintenance) and not at their nature, we clog our service/maintenance queues with "false positives" and make out authors to jump through pointless hoops (a la "you need to add a second source before you can remove the maintenance template").--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

On the main page of this article are mentioned twelve specific examples of alternate guidelines for notability. Notability is a bedrock requirement of Wikipedia. Allowing a contradictive explanation of the term to exist on the very page that is used to define it for the project is counterproductive, especially since many reviewers simply throw out a link to the page as a reason for rejection. Allowing clearly defined exceptions is not a problem, provided that they are, in fact, clearly defined. When the rejected editor reads the page and sees the contradictive statements there, Wikipedia's lack of a clear definition of a bedrock principle becomes a hindrance to the new editor, rather than a help. Matthewhburch (talk) 02:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if this will help, but here are the facts as everyone else sees them:

Those two sentences do not conflict with each other. They do not conflict because "gaining attention" is not "the definition of fame".

If you go look up famous in a dictionary, you will not find "over the years, people occasionally wrote some interesting stuff about it". You will instead find definitions like "widely known" and "in the public eye" and "known about by many people".

What we care about is not whether something is "famous". We can accept obscure things as being notable—and we do, in the case of tens of thousands of articles about geographic features, small towns, historic buildings, ancient books, newly discovered species of bacteria, and so forth. These are all things that are not "widely known" or "in the public eye" (at all) or "known about by many people". These notable subjects are often, in fact, known only to very few people—but known to experts who are interested enough that they write reliable sources about them. We care about things "getting attention" (by someone other than the manufacturer of the widget or the author of the book, etc.), not about them being "famous".

Or, to give you a simpler example: I ran across a park a while ago that very probably meets the requirements for notability. As the result of one unusual feature, it gets coverage in both local sources and some national, specialist ones. You know what? You've never heard of it. Nobody except the local residents and the people interested in that particular feature will have heard of it. It's not "famous". But that's okay, because notability doesn't require it to be "famous". It only requires it to have "gained attention" over time from sources with a conflict of interest (i.e., "the world at large"), so that it's possible to write an actual article about the subject. That's what notability is about. It's not about being famous.

(I'm not going to write such article, because I'm a mergeist at heart, but the park is very probably notable, and if someone else were to create it, I don't think I'd be able to get it deleted at AFD.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

When one says something has "gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time" it is simply a long-winded way of saying something has some degree of fame. Fame being defined as "the condition of being known or recognized by many people." http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fame You are correct that there are different notability requirements for some things. Fame is also a relative term. For example, a group of people who are rock climbers will probably have a knowledge of climbing locations that the rest of the world knows almost nothing about. Some of those places will be famous to them because of difficulty, accidents, weather conditions, etc, likely documented in travel guides and books on climbing, and thus notable to Wikipedia. There's nothing wrong with fame and a minimum exposure in references being a requirement. There is something wrong with trying to pretend fame is not a large part of the equation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewhburch (talk • contribs) 05:31, 7 July 2014

Fame is a problem since it can be falsely inflated and using weak RS. Everyone today has the potential to become a YouTube personality and there's problem 100s that are "famous", but in reality the number of people that are notable YT persons that we can document within the core policies of WP (specifically WP:V and WP:NOR here) is few and far between, and we've had to fight against fans of those YT celebs that can't be documented that try to overwhelm the discussion with claims of fame but not documented fame. --MASEM (t) 17:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Matthew, I'm "famous" on Wikipedia. So is Masem. Neither of us are notable. Notable subjects are often famous, but it's possible to be famous (especially among a limited group of people) and not be notable, and it's possible to be notable without being famous (see most articles about newly discovered microscopic organisms: almost nobody except a few specialists and the discoverer's own family will notice or care).

Notice that the guideline says, "notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame": it doesn't say that fame is never relevant. It only says that in some cases, fame is not relevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to close the Notability noticeboard

A proposal is under way to determine whether or not to close down the notability noticeboard: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Close the Notability Noticeboard. All are welcome to comment. equazcion ^(talk)15:45, 13 Sep 2013 (UTC)

Should an article that exists in another language always be considered notable?

Wikipedia can often be overly bureaucratic. The "notability" criteria seems one of the most vague one and difficult to settle. I've had articles marked for deletion that had perfectly healthy versions in other languages. Shouldn't we add the presence of accepted versions in other languages as a valid indicator of notability? It seems very tedious and pointless to look again for evidence that a subject is relevant when it has already been done for other languages. Of course, a subject may always be more relevant for speakers of a language than another. But I defend the idea that if it's relevant in a language, it should always be relevant in any other as well and that information should never be actively restricted to speakers of a specific language. Ariel Pontes (talk) 07:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. The basic idea is WP:OTHERSTUFF which is the principle that a discussion of an article should not be based on another article because the other article may have problems. Other Wikipedias may have very different procedures, and what is regarded as satisfactory at one may not be suitable at another. There is no problem if the only sources showing notability are not in English, however the sources must exist. Johnuniq (talk) 09:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't make these automatic inclusion, but I would also argue that if the other-language wiki has Featured processes, that that speaks a lot in favor of having a comparable article here. But any random article? Heck no. --MASEM (t) 13:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree... it isn't automatic. The different language versions of Wikipedia are each independent projects... and the policies and guidelines at the other language versions of Wikipedia are not the same as the policies and guidelines here on the English language version. For example... It is quite possible that the editors at the Kurdish language Wikipedia (just to randomly pick one) have devised completely different rules on what is considered notable/non-notable than we have here on the English language version. Blueboar (talk) 13:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I agree it's not automatic. However, I am pretty sure that the concepts of WP:V and WP:NOR both exist across the board (not necessarily in the same manner), the qualities that our notability policy are based on, and thus an article that has passed a foreign language "Featured" step (which should respect V/NOR equivalents) that might presently be on en.wiki lacking significant sourcing, I would be a bit more leninent towards retention, particularly if I can do a simple check of references that they have there. But it is definitely not automatic for retention. --MASEM (t) 13:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• Should we look at an article on other language wikis to help judge its potential for development and sourcing? Yes. And WP:BEFORE already says to do this. "Should an article that exists in another language always be considered notable?" No. Mere existence on other wikis doesn't mean anything. postdlf (talk) 14:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Another issue not addressed is the possibility that an article on a different language Wikipedia could be an obscure subject in that country or area and simply fell through the creaks (it has happened here). It could also have been recently created article that could soon be up for deletion. In short, an article existing on a different language Wikipedia is not enough in itself to even prove that it meets the standards there let alone here. The way I see it we would need a much more extensive look at the article and the sources by someone that knows the language before we can reasonably be sure that it is appropriate to post here.--67.68.162.111 (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I think we have a consensus... any topic that has article in one of the other language Wikipedias (and does not have one here) should probably be examined further and considered for inclusion here. However, the out-come of that examination and consideration is based on our own policies and guidelines and is not automatic. An article in one of the other wikipedias does not guarantee an article here. Blueboar (talk) 22:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

WHYN

I think that this section should be removed. I think that a guideline should consist of a set of instructions, not an attempt to justify the alleged utility of those instructions. An information page or essay would be more appropriate for that. James500 (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Policy and guideline pages are not instructions ; they are descriptive, not prescriptive. As such, these pages should explain why the concept exists before getting into the details. --MASEM (t) 14:48, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

In practice they are written like instructions and are read as instructions. So the concept and explanation will be read (if they are read at all) as two sets of potentially conflicting instructions.

Removing WHYN would reduce the length and complexity of this guideline. James500 (talk) 15:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

No, policy and guidelines are purposely handled in discussions as descriptions of practice and not hard sets of rules. There are some that would like them to be more prescriptive, but that's not why we have them. This is moreso for guideline pages which are supposed to be handled with common sense, and thus an understanding of the reasoning behind notability will help in such discussions. --MASEM (t) 15:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

In theory, that is what should happen. In practice, at AfD one sees users asserting that these guidelines are the rules and therefore absolutely must be followed to the letter. James500 (talk) 11:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what users do, it's admins who are the ones that matter at AFD and they are ones that treat policy and guideline as descriptive, not prescriptive. The fact that we do not have "laws" or anything as strict (outside a tiny number of legal-impact policies) is a core facet of WP. --MASEM (t) 13:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Since admins typically don't give reasons for their closures, it is difficult to assess whether they actually do that. James500 (talk) 15:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Part of the admin's responsibility when closing an AFD is to either provide a reason for the closure or to be able to give one if approached. Good admins will give reasons and lengthy reasons to close on the more-difficult-to-determine-from-!votes AFD discussions at the time of closure. But I will say that admins will interpret policy and guideline, they do not make rulings solely on the letter of them. --MASEM (t) 15:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• James500 is correct that this section should be removed.  A rationale is fine, but it should be physically separate from the standard.  This particular section is severely dated, which shows the maintenance problem that comes when a standard is updated without updating the rationale.  The related problem is that WP:GNG, which is the standard associated with this rationale, is a guideline only in name, and should be a separate document.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • No, the section is still accurate, and appropriate. While this page covers the concept of notability and the separate concept of the GNG, separating those two make no sense. --MASEM (t) 15:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I agree the GNG should be a separate page, since countless times people have just glanced at this page, seen that there, and ignored the part that says an article is presumed notable if it meets the GNG or one of the subject specific guidelines. Putting these two things together, just causes unnecessary confusion. Dream Focus 16:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
      • This page clearly explains the GNG / SNG connection. It is not our fault if editors only read skin deep; and further, if you put the GNG on a separate page, they will take that as the only notability guideline, making the problem worse. --MASEM (t) 16:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
        • No, the other page will link to this page, and state something is presumed notable if it meets the GNG or one of the SPG. One sentence is all it takes to prevent confusion. Dream Focus 18:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
          • If you really believe that there is confusion now because people cannot fully read the page and just focus on "GNG", do you really think they will follow a link to learn more if the GNG section was broken out? We do want to write clear policies, but it is not our responsibility if readers chose not to read or cherry pick the pages. --MASEM (t) 20:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Masem here... Policy and guideline pages should contain more than just a list of rules. It is important to present the underlying concepts behind a policy or guideline, so editors can understand them better. This is especially important when it comes to dealing with situations that might be exceptions to the norm. Blueboar (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

It has been suggested before that GNG and WHYN are not consistent, for example in the way they explain significant coverage. I think the present presentation is more likely to create confusion than understanding. I think that clarity would be improved by merging WHYN into GNG or discarding it. Amongst other things, WHYN ignores the SNG, contains meaningless expressions such as "half a paragraph" (a paragraph can be any length you like from a single sentence to an entire page) and doubtful assertions such as multiple sources being a necessary and sufficient condition for neutrality. James500 (talk) 11:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

"multiple sources being a necessary and sufficient condition for neutrality" is a restatement of NPOV, so no, it's not a doubtful assertion. Remember, notability is more than just the GNG, and it's more than just the GNG + the SNGs. The goal of notable is what WHYN explains - we're trying to write well-sourced, encyclopedic articles, so a topic that we presume notable should be able to have a good quality article at the end of the day. We determine that notability either through the GNG or through the SNGs but there's also a limited number of exceptions too. So merging WHYN and GNG also makes no sense, as the GNG is a metric. A topic can meet the GNG to give enough presumption to keep an article from a couple of sources, but if that can never be improved on, we still will delete it. --MASEM (t) 16:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

When I said that assertion was doubtful, I meant that it was manifest nonsense. Multiple sources will presumably make articles more neutral on average, but that isn't a necessary or sufficient condition. Are you seriously suggesting that it is not possible to have multiple sources that share the same bias? James500 (talk) 17:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

What I was saying is that is a statement right in line with NPOV, which for all purposes is a baseline. You can apply the same argument there, but the idea is that that's a party line with NPOV so to call it a doubtful assertion is basically say that NPOV is wrong. --MASEM (t) 20:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• The argument that we need a standard to relate wp:notability with our content policies is laudable, but WP:WHYN is not that document.  For example, WP:Notability has no requirement that we can write an article for a wp:notable topic...that was dropped in late 2007.  Nor should it, WP:N is a topic guideline, not a content guideline.  A topic's wp:notability is not defined by anything on Wikipedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Minimal coverage or topic-specific notability?

The AfD of the article on Mark Dodge raised some discussion about the application of the general notability guidelines (GNG). Short summary: Mark Dodge is a college football player who does not meet the criteria WP:NCOLLATH, but who has received some coverage in ESPN, The Houston Chronicle and USA Today since he was involved in 9/11 cleanup at the Pentagon in combination with military service. In essence, he's been the object of a handful of human interest stories.

According to the GNG, Dodge meets minimal criteria for independent coverage, etc. and is therefore notable enough for an article. But going by biography-specific criteria, Dodge is quite obviously famous for just one event (9/11) but not significant enough to merit coverage in relation to that event.

I get the feeling that coverage criteria in a more quantitative sense seem to more important than qualitative assessments of such coverage. Is this really an accurate application of the GNG?

Peter ^Isotalo 14:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I commented in that AfD, and suggested we bring the discussion here, so I'll add my two cents. I think it's clear from GNG's phrasing that it does not guarantee an article should exist. Both WP:NOT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE are mentioned as reasons why something that passes the GNG might still not merit an article. I don't think those apply to Mark Dodge. It's clear that, as Peter says, none of his achievements, viewed in isolation, would qualify him for an article. However, several editors of reliable sources decided to publish substantial articles about him. Without a specific exclusion reason, I don't see how to argue that Dodge is not notable enough for an article. Peter did suggest that WP:ONEEVENT might apply here, and have some sympathy with that argument, but it doesn't help much: usually ONEEVENT implies the material should go in the article about the event, but I don't think there'll be a College athletes connected to 9/11 article any time soon. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

SNGs can override the GNG if there's good reason to, and given our emphasis on treading very carefully deal with BLPs, something like BLP1E can override the GNG in terms of where an article should not be appropriate. This is a case where you actually have two SNG things that override the GNG (BLP1E + NCOLLATH) that we should not have an article on this person. --MASEM (t) 16:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP:ONEEVENT provides suggestions about individuals who are reasonably significant to the event itself. For example, George Holliday (witness) is a very logical reference to Rodney King. Dodge, however, comes nowhere near that significance in relation to 9/11, even in the generous context of massive Wikipedia coverage. Keeping insignificant WP:ONEEVENT-people because we have nowhere to put their biographies seems a lot like arguing for WP:HARDWORK.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I urge Peter and Masem to review the following: Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ. These statement of principles are the distillation of hundreds of AfD decisions and the consensus understanding of just about everyone who deals in notability WP:NSPORTS for American college and professional sports. The suggestion that NCOLLATH trumps GNG is a novel and very unwelcome idea that is 180 degrees opposed to the existing consensus. Please review before commenting further. Frankly, I am far less concerned about the Mark Dodge article than I am about overturning the previously well understood and well established consensus regarding the relationship of the NSPORTS specific guidelines and the GNG general guidelines. Your novel line of argument will create chaos for dozens of sports. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Except it is true. Sports is very disproportionately covered by the media and in developing NSPORTS it was clear that local and routine coverage, which would normally meet the GNG, would allow far too many players at the high school and collegiate and ameteur level in, just for playing the game, so it is rightly so that NSPORTS can trump the GNG. Remember, these are presumptions of notability and can be challenged further, it is not a guarentee the article will never be removed. --MASEM (t) 17:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Masem, a simple question for you: How many AfDs for American college athletes have you participated in over the last three years? Approximate numbers, please . . . say, give or take 100? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't matter one bit (0 to be exact). The intent of the guideline (which I have had to watch over because of how loose some of the inclusion criteria are and know that there was significant discussion stressing the need to establish points to override the GNG due to lack of advice about local/routine coverage that is predominate in sports coverage) is still pretty clear, as well as the fact that both the GNG and the SNG are not guarentees of notability/having a full page article, only guidelines. --MASEM (t) 17:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

If you have topic-specific guidelines that contain stricter criteria than the GNG, then they are obviously there to indicate some sort of minimum notability criteria that need to be met. You're claiming that it is kinda the exact opposite, which makes no sense considering that they are already quite generous.

Your suggestion that Masem and, by extension, myself, haven't participated in enough AfDs in this narrow topic to properly fathom its intricacies is worrying. It implies that something other than guidelines dictate notability for college athletes. To me, that seems like an obvious argument for the unique encyclopedic notability of sports topics.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

If the suggestion truly is that the sport guidelines supersede GNG that is just wrong. They are meant to be a guideline to help people know who is probably notable if they aren't familiar with the sport, so the standard is meant to be the higher standard than GNG. There routinely are complaints that these are too lenient or that it is not clear enough that articles must also met GNG - you can't have it both ways where we say GNG supersedes when that is convenient and the sport guideline supersedes when it is convenient. The standards have been drafted with GNG as the primary standard and 1000s of AfDs and what feels like 1000s of requested changes to sport guidelines support this. Rikster2 (talk) 19:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• Peter, I really am doing my best not to be sarcastic. I ask you to do the same. My point, and it may be an annoying one to both of you given Masem's honest answer above, is that neither of you are particularly familiar or experienced with how dozens of participating editors and closing admins have interpreted NCOLLATH over the last several years. What is worrying is that the two of you would presume to look at a single instance, determine what the outcome should be, and then interpret NCOLLATH in a manner which is consistent with your desired outcome. The problem is this: no one else has been interpreting NCOLLATH in the manner you are now advancing. You are alone, without precedent, without consensus, and you cannot even point to express language in the guideline that supports your position. That's really weak, guys. In my world, that would lead to a humiliating outcome in front of the judge. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• Please present an AFD example where you think the same logic that is being applied to Dodge was applied to a previous college athlete where it was kept. Remember, what's being argued here is that not only Dodge not meeting NCOLLATH, but is also failing the GNG. --MASEM (t) 20:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• Masem, to be clear, I do not begrudge your basis for making a GNG/BLP1E argument. I don't agree with it, but I recognize that it's a perfectly credible argument for deletion. If the article were to be deleted on the GNG/BLP1E basis, well . . . que sera, sera. On the other hand, I am genuinely perplexed by your casual reinterpretation of the relationship between NCOLLATH and GNG. You are one of the WP:N regular participants to whom I look for wisdom, and must say that I really don't think you've considered or fully understand the consequences.

If you're asking for examples of AfDs that support what I believe is the established consensus interpretation of NCOLLATH, I can provide dozens of them. If you're asking for a close analogue of the Mark Dodge AfD, I cannot think of one for or against, that had similar circumstances. Closest AfD I can think of is the pending one for George Bednar; it has the potential BLP1E element for something unrelated to sports, but the GNG coverage isn't there as it is in Mark Dodge's case. Just for fun, you may want to have a look the George Bednar AfD; probably something upon which we can both agree. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Bednar's not close enough (because of simply lack of sources and confirmation, I'm not doubting anything on Dodge's story here). But I will say that it has been established that the GNG is not absolute and can be limited by SNG and wikiproject guidelines to meet with WP:IINFO and avoid systematic bias (eg in the case here, college sports are disproportionately covered by the press, and so we look towards non-routine, non-local sources before including college athletes, even though the GNG would normally allow for them. ) The same is done for local businesses at ORG. So the fundamental point "the GNG is absolute" is simply not true. --MASEM (t) 20:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Please provide examples. You seem quite happy to argue that GNG is the final answer when it deviates from NCOLLATH when it suits you. Rikster2 (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

BLP1E overrides the GNG, that's the issue here, as it's not the issue Dodge is only covered by local sources. --MASEM (t) 20:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Great, that sounds like a reasonable discussion to have. Rikster2 (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Because that point is a completely separate issue, which you misstated and unconnected to this issue here. (My point in the link discussion is that all SNG criteria should be aimed towards how the article can eventually meet the GNG). --MASEM (t) 22:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

In my own view, SNG can override GNG, since most of them have a "basic criteria" section (a interpretation of WP:GNG) but the "additional criteria" in some of them should not override "basic criteria" or WP:GNG. From time to time, I see prejudice against topics that fail "additional criteria", such as local politicians or soldiers. Some of them may appear in multiple national newspaper articles or history books, and their careers are detailedly discussed in these sources. But some people ask that if they don't pass "additional criteria", what are they notable for? @Masem:--180.172.239.231 (talk) 00:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Notability requires verifiable evidence (NRV)

I realize that this may have been discussed already and apologize in advance for any duplication. I did search for prior discussions in vain. I am concerned with the way that the NRV / NRVE guidelines are written and applied. First, it seems to award those publicists, promoters, helicopter moms, fans and other partisan authors who write articles on topics that may or may not be notable but provide few if any references even though they are more likely than others to be aware of critical references. This tends to impose inefficiencies and burdens on Wikipedia authors. A possible resolution would be speedy userfication to push the task back on the creating author. Second, some AfD commenters recommend a "keep" with a comment along the lines of: "I imagine this must be notable and that there must be reliable sources somewhere." Assuming that is not really appropriate, perhaps a clarification in WP:NRV would help? Third, some AfD commenters recommend a "keep" and provide naked links or unlinked references in the AfD comments. This does not help Wikipedia users and creates inefficiencies for other reviewers as they must independently review the references if available. The better practice would be to have such commenters edit the article and add the references, hopefully with sufficient context that reviewers understand the extent to which the references demonstrate notability. Fourth, I recommend that references provided in response to NRV issues be available on-line and from non-subscription sources if at all possible and, except for pre-2000 facts, be discounted if not on-line or from subscription-only sources. I greatly appreciate everyone's input and my comments are not meant to squelch anyone. I am just trying to "Be Bold" and present my thoughts for potential improvement.--Rpclod (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Point by point:

1. There are some topics that are outlined at CSD, like bands, organizations, etc. that require more than just saying they exist as it is easy to write promotional articles about these. But other topics do generally get a fair chance to show notability.
2. If an AFD closed as keep with all the arguments being "I think there should be sources", that's a bad closure. People will !vote with that logic, but that's not really a justifyable reason, but I've never seen that argument stick for closing an AFD otherwise.
3. It's been long established that its not required that sources be added if they are found during AFD; having those sources identified is considered sufficient. Yes, someone has to do the work of integrating those sources, but that's a separate issue.
4. WP allows for off-line and sources behind paywalls. We're never going to restrict sourcing to open, online sources. WP:V doesn't require that everyone have access to the source, only that it can be accessed. --MASEM (t) 16:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Notability of Fringe topics

Would it be possible to include WP:NFRINGE within Template:Notability guide or WP:N? This could be accomplished by moving the relevant guidance to it's own page or simply linking to that page from the main notability guidelines.

I spend a great deal of time reviewing content related to quackery, pseudoscience and fringe-theories. It's often hard for people working on such articles to find the appropriate notability policy, simply because that policy is buried within WP:FRINGE and cannot be found on the main WP:N policy page. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I would be okay with this. The FRINGE page is one that is watched by many global editors (due to the general issue with fringe theories) so I'd assume that the notability aspects are generally agreed on criteria. --MASEM (t) 23:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I think a link to WP:FRINGE is definitely in order... but not much more. When two policy/guideline pages cover the same issue, there is an unfortunate tenancy for both pages to drift apart from each other (and that can eventually end up with a situation where they give conflicting advice/rules). As Masem says, the WP:FRINGE guideline is heavily watched... and definitely has wide consensus. So that is where people should be pointed to. Blueboar (talk) 00:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Would it be OK for me to insert links into the WP:N page and also the notability guide template? I appreciate that this is a highly sensitive page! --Salimfadhley (talk) 10:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I have been bold and added a link in the guideline. Don't think one is needed in the template. Blueboar (talk) 10:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:GNG vs article standards adopted by individual WikiProject

Here is an AfD discussion that may of interest for those editors concerned with notability guidelines for sports-related articles: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Maria Sharapova tennis season. WikiProject Tennis editors are asserting that an internal WikiProject "guideline" is the basis for keeping the article, not Wikipedia-wide notability guidelines. Please feel free to express your opinion in this AfD. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dirtlawyer1:, I kindly request you to rephrase this notification. It is biased and therefore inappropriate according to canvassing guidelines (WP:CAN). These guidelines clearly state that notifications must be "neutrally worded" and that it is considered "campaigning" to post "a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner" as you have done here. The first and last sentences are fine and frankly you could and should have left it at that. The rest is not only unnecessary but also subjective, contains a factual error (three editors were part of the WikiProject discussion not two) and a textbook strawman, i.e. a biased misrepresentation of an opponent's argument. Please modify.--Wolbo (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, while I disagree with your characterization of my notice as factually inaccurate, I have modified it nevertheless. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

You don't actually need to say anything you can just list it. The first sentence by itself would have been fine. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Significant coverage question

If I have one source that significantly covers a topic, and several shorter sources that don't significantly cover it, could those several shorter sources ever constitute significant coverage? 23W 01:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It might help to have a bit more context. It's possible but wouldn't say it is always the case, depending how it all works together. --MASEM (t) 01:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm working on a draft for Dave Hughes (a producer for Adult Swim). He received a profile and an interview in Juxtapoz regarding his series Off the Air last June, and while that can certainly be classified as sigcov, it's the only one of that stature he has had so far (besides some other mentions of his work). You can see the draft here: User:23W/Draft:Dave Hughes (producer). 23W 02:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It probably could be better to meet the GNG as one basic significant source in this manner isn't enough, but you do meet the creative professional SNG at WP:BIO (he is the creator of a series with multiple reviews) and as it is still ongoing, more sources may come about, so this would be the case that you should have enough for presumption of notability now. --MASEM (t) 02:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. It's still a work in progress, but since the show will be functioning as a full series (airing on the reg instead of once in a blue moon like it usually has), there will probably be more coverage out there by the time I'm done. 23W 02:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)