Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 77

Archive 70

←

Archive 75

Archive 76

Archive 77

Archive 78

Archive 79

Archive 80

Does winning a national industry filmmaking award satisfy notability criteria?

Dear fellow and senior Wikipedians,

An article on award notability itself states, The award may be presumed notable by meeting general notability guidelines when: It is granted by a nation and the award is at the level of the highest and most prestigious awards that can be granted by that nation Wikipedia:Notability_(awards_and_medals)#Other_considerations. Then, in particular, I ask if Lithuanian Silver Crane, BAFTA or Czech Lion Award satisfies notability of the awarded person? A particular discussion is taking place on Talk:Emilis_Vėlyvis#Silver_Crane_award_effect_on_notability.

Please kindly help in solving the matter of 1) effect of national filmmaking industry award on notability and 2) notability of Emilis Velyvis in particular.

Verily yours, Tom C. Ttk371 (talk) 01:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The notability criterion you link is from an obscure essay, not a policy or guideline, so it cannot be used to determine notability of the award itself let alone that of its recipients. If winners of those awards are actually notable they will have SIGCOV in multiple independent reliable sources. JoelleJay (talk) 04:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

No doubt they do, in Lithuanian. BAFTA awards certainly get coverage in the only language most en:wp editors understand (ok, maybe not all the technical ones). Johnbod (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Dear JoelleJay, I thank you for your generosity to express opinion herein.

In between posting this original request and now, I have researched further and found a very relevant guidance: Wikipedia:Awards and accolades explains, Awards with their own article (e.g. Academy Award for Best Actor) are presumptively appropriate for inclusion, both for winners and often for nominees. . It further goes to state, The Academy Awards are the canonical example: "Oscar-winning actor" is a common term of art..

I therefore further pose a question, how is an "Oscar-winning actor" can be notable whereas a Silver Crane-winning actor is not notable? Both sample actresses or actors have won the most prestigious award by their respective nations.

Please help me find a common ground for the seemingly obvious: the size of a nation does not add weight to the awards it bestows.

Verily yours, Tom Ttk371 (talk) 05:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

That page is still not a policy or guideline, and therefore cannot be used for notability... I don't think you're going to get any more specific guidance on awards than WP:ANYBIO. JoelleJay (talk) 06:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Beyond that, an easy answer to your question: "notability" isn't about creating parallels, but about whether someone who can meet a SNG would be able to demonstrate having received significant coverage in reliable sources. If the media coverage given to the average Oscar winner was as little as a thousand times that of Silver Crane winners, I'd be astonished. Ravenswing 10:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• The fact is, not all awards are equal (some are more prestigious than others). Thus, simply winning an award does not automatically confer notability. We need to take it to the next step - and demonstrate that winning the specific award matters. We demonstrate this by citing reliable independent sources that discuss the award and who won it.

That said, certain very prestigious awards are all but guaranteed to generate the necessary coverage, and so we can assume the coverage exists - even if the coverage is not (yet) cited in the article. We only delete if it turns out our assumption was wrong, and the expected coverage does not exist after all. Blueboar (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Great question... Given that many countries like mine (New Zealand) have started groups and projects to address imbalances in the, especially, historical, record of achievements, call it notability. Groups based around gender, ethnicity, who may well not have the kind of record keeping that notable people and countries may have... I mean let's simply look at Black America?, the "third world", Women? All suffer from the tyranny of privilege which - if not addressed intelligently and fairly - leaves the likes of Wikipedia, sadly, being the reaffirming 'museum of prejudice', biography of class, if the simple notability criterion is the gauge. Bart homme b'art homme 20:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by B'art homme (talk • contribs)

Since there is no recognized SNG for awards, the only way to satisfy wp: notability is with sourcing that fulfills the WP:GNG criteria. It's that simple. North8000 (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Expand notability criteria "significant coverage"

I have opened a discussion into this here Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Expand_notability_criteria. EvilxFish (talk) 05:17, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

How many sources: Part 2

I originally posted this on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources, but was redirected here. What I said in the original post is that there should be a defined number of sources that a subject needs in order to be deemed notable. I have seen articles with as few as four sources. Someone on the previous post said that it depends on the quality of the sources, and suggested that some articles could even have only one source, though most articles would get deleted. Four seems like a reasonable amount regardless of the subject. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 21:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Sources differ wildly. One good source can be better than many bad sources. It is not at all reasonable to set any fixed number. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Using number of sources is extremely gameable, and we are silent on any fixed quantity. It is why notability is focused on how much significant coverage is available, which may be by one really good source, or require 5 or more sources. Masem (t) 21:31, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 21:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Can failing SNG while meeting GNG be sufficient to prevent an article from existing?

In a recent discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Should_we_publish_Draft:Avatar_5? I was told that article that fails NF cannot be created even if it meets GNG (this is due to NF rule that films where filming didn't start cannot have an article created about them). But there are films which have coverage, either news media or even academic, where filming never started. Of course, there are other considerations (NOTNEWS, etc.) but the point is - can a SNG overrule GNG because of criteria like "filming hasn't started, end of discussion"? Our wording at WP:SNG is ambiguous: "Some SNGs... provide guidance when topics should not be created.". Guidance is not a binding rule. And GNG states at the top that "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right; and it is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy." So meeting GNG should be enough to allow creation of an article even if "guidance of SNG" suggests otherwise (of course, an article can be taken to AfD and draftified or deleted based on arguments and consensus there).

If my understanding of the above is correct, I suggest adding a clarification to the SNG section along the lines that SNG cannot prevent an article that meets GNG from being created. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I have argued (at NF before) that NF should not be used to block creation of an article with significantly documented development but yet to be produced, in my case, the numerous attempts at a live-action Akira film. That wikiproject is heavily against that idea, in part that they probably have had problems with editors creation articles on rumors of films being produced, and I agree to be wary on that. But I don't think NF can override the GNG in this situation.

That side, with Avatar 5, you are now in WP:NOT#CRYSTAL territory (being so far off and not an assurance). You also have the luxury that Avatar (franchise) exists and where such details can be placed until the film actually is less than a year out. Masem (t) 04:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Masem Just a note that as for the specific case of Avatar 5, I listed several recent sources in the linked discussion at WT:WPFilm. If anyone is interested in this specific case, I encourage them to review the sources and comment there. Here let's focus on the wider issue of "can SNG prevent creation of an article that otherwise meets GNG". IMHO this should never be allowed (AfDs should be used, and if repeated problems arise, then Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes can be invoked). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The general rule has always been SNG or GNG. WP:NCORP has claimed consensus to breach that longstanding rule and impose stricter SNG criteria. I do not believe that to be in accordance with our principles nor the best thing for our readers, but I understand that I am apparently in the minority on this specific question. Jclemens (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

NCORP overriding the GNG is needed because the sourcing requirements for NCORP (which have been suggested for inclusion in WP:N but rejected) are necessarily stricter to prevent WP for being used as advertising , given how high WP pages hit on SEO. Masem (t) 04:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I would argue NCORP doesn't override GNG, but rather enforces GNG more strictly in that independence of sources is scrutinized much more than it is in other topic areas. This is because (non-)independent coverage of corporations is much trickier to identify; it doesn't mean there are more requirements for a subject to meet notability. JoelleJay (talk) 05:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Masem I entirely endorse the sentiment, but I am dismayed by the collateral damage. Surely there must be a better way. Jclemens (talk) 09:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• The SNGs are predictors of whether the topic will pass the GNG. The GNG is a predictor of whether the topic will pass AfD. There are no hard rules beyond that the decision is made at AfD. If someone insists on draftifying your new page, you can point to WP:DRAFTIBJECT and insist on a discussion at AfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
• When the GNG-notability is for a different sort of thing than the SNG-notability describes, then the SNG has no blocking effect. For instance, a notable athlete remains notable even if they run a losing political campaign for a minor elected office. But when the claims to GNG and SNG notability both concern the same events or accomplishments, then it is a common outcome in AfDs (although not a sure thing) for the SNG to override GNG. For instance, in AfDs on political candidates who do not pass NPOL but for whom significant in-depth coverage of them can be found centered only on their non-NPOL-passing political campaigns, it is common to see delete opinions and delete outcomes. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The wp:notability page has the widest review and consensus of any. The beginning of the WP:Notability page says that meeting GNG or a recognized-there SNG is sufficient, so an SNG can't block passage under GNG. On a different topic mentioned above, I view the discussed apparent "departure" from this of NCORP possibly overriding GNG by viewing it as NCORP merely calibrating GNG. Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works This is a useful and needed concept which could be used to solve other issues and quandaries. North8000 (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

”NCORP is merely calibrating GNG” is a good way to put it, yes. Blueboar (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

SNGs fall into several categories:

1. Alternatives to GNG (WP:PROF, WP:NUMBER, WP:GEOLAND): Meeting either GNG or SNG is sufficient. GNG is not sacrosanct, but WP:V is; GNG can be thought of as merely a general-purpose guideline on the minimum amount of verifiable content necessary to write an article. "Significant coverage in independent reliable sources" is designed mostly for news and is poorly defined for academic papers, so PROF establishes that an academic's own research may be used to write an article on them if highly cited while NUMBER redefines "significant coverage" such that a relatively short mention in a paper or list of interesting numbers is sufficient. GEOLAND establishes that for a populated, legally recognized place, being mentioned in a source written by the same entity that created the place (i.e. the government) is sufficient.
2. Tightening of GNG (WP:CORP, WP:NEVENT): GNG is viewed as too permissive for various reasons (SEO and WP:ROUTINE, respectively), so these are viewed as the canonical interpretation of GNG when applied to organizations and events, and no on-the-fly interpretation of GNG is permissible.
3. Mere guidance (WP:NSPORT): Most of the objective criteria in NSPORT create a rebuttable presumption of notability, i.e. an article will be kept at AfD if it passes the SNG and the nominator has failed to perform WP:BEFORE but it will be deleted if significant coverage cannot be found after extensive research.

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• If a topic meets GNG then it should never be considered to fail notability guidelines. Period. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

  Agree. Arguably there are some cases where something from an SNG is used to merely calibrate GNG. North8000 (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

  I think the difference is a bit semantic. I think we all agree that a typical NFL game does not deserve an article, even though it is very likely to have multiple full-length articles written about it in reliable sources. You could either interpret that as "GNG is met but meeting it is not sufficient for events" or "GNG is not met because these sources, which would be considered significant coverage in any other context, are not considered significant coverage in the context of events". -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Partially reverting bold change and asking for consensus review per prior discussion

Hello. It has only just now come to my attention that there was this prior discussion 5 months ago regarding a series of edit wars beginning with this bold edit made by @NewsAndEventsGuy. The result of the discussion was that the problems with the initially disputed bold edit were mostly fixed (apart from a technical error pointed out by @David Eppstein), and the disputing editors came to a consensus that the changes were acceptable to all parties and the (known) technical error was fixed by @North8000. However, I am making a small partial revert to a related bold edit on the basis that the part I am reverting was never discussed and so another technical error still remains unresolved, and also on the basis that in the prior discussion most editors agreed that if someone reverts a bold change, we should discuss it instead of reverting back and forth. @Shooterwalker said it best when he indicated that North and @BusterD are likely of the same sentiments and even NAEG said that was correct. So, what is the technical error? Well, I mostly agree with the changes like everyone else except in the heading because it isn't technically correct and it could be misleading not to get it correct. It is more than clear from the edit summary as well as the changes to the guidance and the archived discussion that the intention both in the edits and the discussion was to point out the exception to the rule about lists. However, just because the notability guidlines don't always apply to lists doesn't mean they sometimes do apply to article content, and adding that "usually" in there makes it appear like we are implying that notability guidlines sometimes do apply to content within articles. In other words, the bold change made it seem like there "is a well-established permissible use" in the case of both articles and stand alone lists rather than just lists, but it technically isn't right, and adds a misleading meaning to the heading not related to the changes that were made in the body. The whole changes made were about lists not article content. I would like to ping users @Visviva and @Johnpacklambert in addition to those already mentioned since they participated in the previous discussion so we can review the issue. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 09:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I've been on a long wikibreak and only just noticed this, sorry. I read halfway through your opening comment 3x, and I was just as lost the third time as I was on the first. If a consensus was achieved while I was sleeping, great. If this topic is still open, would it be possible to nutshell the question for me, in 30 words or less? Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

NAEG, the question is about you adding the word "usually" to the WP:NNC subtitle. The problem is that while it accurately summarizes the edits you made to the body of the article explaining the exception for lists, it also simultaneously makes the very confusing implication that this exception might also apply to articles as well. This exacerbates a well known issue where far too many of even our most experienced editors are confused as to whether notability applies to content within articles or not. I'm also claiming that this part of the overall edits was never discussed in the prior conversation. That's probably not 30 words, but should be much more readable than the usual walls of text I am famous for... ;) Huggums537 (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks,it's apparent that what should be super simple will be a herculean consensus lift, and there's to little personal reward waiting for the silly amount of effort this would take. So I'm going back to wikibreak. Good luck NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, I forgot to point out the bold edit was technically incorrect since the vast bulk of content we have is in the form of articles and lists make up only a small portion of that content with still even more of those lists that choose not to apply a notability restriction so it is clear that the obvious practice for the overwhelming majority of article content is that notability does not apply meaning that "usually" is a minor exception trying to overcome the rule. It's like writing a law saying killing others is "usually" illegal, except of course when it obviously isn't such as in the exception for self defense, but you wouldn't need that to explain to others about it being lawfully wrong to murder someone. Likewise, there's no need to mention the very minor exception in the heading in that weird way when it is explained in the body in detail. Huggums537 (talk) 11:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Everything tells me that's the right change, because the exception of using notability to determine list content is explained below, but when you consider all mainspace pages, that exception comes into play far less than 1% of the time, that "usually" in the title of that section is far too forgiving. However, I am worried that that certain types of editors may focus too much on the change without any other context to complain that notability-limited lists are now invalid. Hopefully that doesn't come to pass. Masem (t) 13:49, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Masem, I'm glad you brought up the subject of context because it is only half true the exception for lists is explained in the body for context to connect to the heading change since the heading change suggests two different meanings as I explained above, and the other meaning which was suggesting that there is also an exception for article content was never explained in any of the edits that were made and there was no existing context in the body for that part of the change to have occurred or have been connected to. By "that part" of the change I refer to the double or alternate meaning with a single edit change. In other words, the change doesn't simply just refer to list exceptions mentioned in the body, but also appears to make a reference to exceptions about article content that isn't even covered in the body except to say that notability does not apply to article content so "usually" would be technically wrong to refer to both when it comes to articles vs. lists especially when referencing the context of the body itself. I hope this makes sense. Huggums537 (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, if I may address the second part of your comment where you express some concern about your worry of certain types of editors complaining that notability-limited lists are now invalid, I would just like to point out that ship has already sailed since it has already come to pass that certain types of editors have rationally deduced that if the notability exception comes into play only far less than 1% of the time in all of our mainspace, then the importance of notability within content is laughably miniscule to the extent that more than 99% of the project could survive just fine without it. The problem is most editors can't seem to see the forest through the trees so they focus on this little group of lists and see that hey all these lists do the notability thing so it must be really, really important, but in the grand scheme of things it isn't, but if they step back and look at the big picture of the whole Wikipedia forest rather than focusing on one area of "list trees", then maybe they might come to their senses and realize that notability restrictions really aren't that valid or useful either. It is one of the dumbest concepts I ever heard of: "you can't say anything about this inside our article unless Wikipedia already wrote an article that says something about it first". Sounds like a policy violation to me. Besides, the vast majority of editors would rather not have those restrictions as evidenced by the masses of editors who add non notable entries to lists by the droves and only a very disproportionately small number of editors who are backed by powerful admins control the pages in a very ownership style by reverting and blocking. If you mess with the family then fuhgettaboutit, but they call it page patrol so it's all good. It boggles the mind even considering changes to guidance that were obviously intended to protect the 99% portion of mainspace in favor of any change protecting the 1% simply because of whatever real or imagined worry might or might not be associated with it. Huggums537 (talk) 06:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

If you analyze it as written, it's ambiguous, it could mean either of these two things:

1. Wikipedia does not impose a notability requirement for content within lists, which reinforces that WP:Notability is a requirement for existence of the overall article, not for the contents within an article
2. Editors are not allowed to decide to use wp:notability as a criteria for inclusion in a list

I think that the clear intent is #1. North8000 (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe there is a consensus that the meaning is supposed to be closer to #1. We just have to make sure the wording is clear on this point. (A lot of lists eventually hit a consensus to limit the entries to notable articles, to avoid triggering the WP:IINFO problem.) Shooterwalker (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I would agree with North8000. Notability is a consideration for an entire article subject, not for content within the article, which includes lists. However, in many cases, it makes sense to restrict lists to only notable topics, in order to avoid a huge, sprawling mess of mostly badly referenced and largely non-notable material. But it is neither required nor forbidden to restrict a list to only notable entries; that is a question for case by case evaluation for any given list. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• I also think Norths interpretation is a fair one in spite of my intense dislike for notability restrictions. That is just a personal preference of mine, and obviously doesn't represent consensus. However, my overarching concern is that giving extremely undue weight to trying to explain that there is this certain exception to a very small minority group of content will reinforce confusion that way too many editors have about whether notability applies to article content or not. I first became aware of this issue very early on in my editing history when I realized that editors even more experienced than me were so confused that I actually had one ask me to prove that a sentence or two I wanted to add to an article was notable (and significant) for inclusion even going so far as to cite notability for the original reversion. This being one of my early experiences on Wikipedia, you can imagine it is a topic I am passionate to correct. It is simply astounding to me how oblivious and Wikipedified a great number of editors really are, and I have noticed with great enthusiam that SMcCandlish and a few others have also had enough clarity of insight to recognize the problem. I just want to make sure that nothing we do trying to explain about this minority exception in any way weakens the rule that notability does not apply to article content. If anything, that needs to be strengthened to overcome this problem. I also realize I'm up against certain editors who would love nothing more than to see the whole section gone so they can apply notability to content all they want, but I would ask them to consider following that path to the logical conclusion. Could you imagine! Nobody could ever write a sentence in article without either writing a whole article about it first, or at least proving they can write a whole article about it first. New articles would eventually be entirely based on existing Wikipedia content only and the deletionists who would most likely support such a thing have not done themselves any favors there because if all you've got to work with is what you've got then perfect is the enemy of the good, but they never say that about articles, just policies. Ever noticed that?? Huggums537 (talk) 01:08, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

  There are plenty of us who are not going to stand by let this section be undermined, should someone try to advance the interpretation you fear. Jclemens (talk) 02:24, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

  Twenty-odd years later and people are still confused about whether notability can be used to exclude content from an article, rather than pertaining to whether the subject can have its own article. So, we should not retain or add language that increases this confusion, even in theory, when it comes to non-lists. The controling policy for content inclusion is WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. As a separate statement, we need to make it clear that notabilty can sometimes be used as a list-inclusion criterion, especially for lists that serve a primarily navigational purpose. It might be best to use examples. E.g., Lists of television programs is by definition navigational, and every entry on the list should be an already-existing list article. By contrast, List of world eight-ball champions is intended to be complete, and has several red-linked entries, and also names runners-up, some of whom are almost certainly non-notable (and not linked). Between these two extremes are all the lists in Category:Lists of United States political families, which are limited to notable entries, and which arguably serve a largely navigational purpose to extant articles. Adding to one of these lists a non-notable family known only locally for political involvement would serve no encyclopedic purpose (it would be indiscriminate). It might be best to develop a {{Supplement}} page to explore this, using various examples and what the rationale is for them having or not having an inclusion criterion of notable entries.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC); revised 18:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with this idea 100%. Showing examples of what is reasonable and makes rational sense is a great idea. Having a list strictly notable for navigational purposes makes sense to me, and having non notable lists for the sake of being complete also makes sense to me. Huggums537 (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

If you read the actual section I think that it is fine and clear. The real problem is that the title reads like an attempted summary/restatement of the section rather than being a title for the section. And such will inevitably be an inaccurate summary/restatement. Maybe just shorten it to be just a title? North8000 (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

If it's fine and clear then why are lots of people still perpetually confused about whether notability is, in general, an article-content-inclusion factor?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

The reason for that problem is that we(Wikipedia) chose a term "Notability" which has a heavily used real world meaning (which is also useful for discussions) which, in several ways, conflicts with the Wikipedia meaning. North8000 (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Which remains a language and interpretation problem, thus this discussion. If people are still confused about it, then the language is not being interpreted correctly and needs improvement.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Since you eds are still here... and I was mentioned in the OP.... I confess I'm lost. Can either of you succinctly restate the question on the floor? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy, I responded to your query above. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 23:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

North, I don't think that the term "notability" is useful at all in discussions related to content within articles and this doesn't matter if you mean the Wikipedia term or the real world meaning because either way you are still talking about something that isn't and never would be considered a normal factor for including content such as verifiability and reliable sourcing is. What I usually run up against when I catch people talking about notability inside article content when they aren't supposed to is; "oh, I wasn't talking about the Wikipedia kind of notability, I was just talking about the regular real world kind of notability." so it's become this loophole of getting around the rule by trying to pretend there isn't any connection whatsoever between "real world" notability and "Wikipedia" notability when the actual goal is to use one the same way you would use the other without the same consequences. The problem is that the rules actually do tell us exactly what we are supposed to be talking about when it comes to real world notability or "noteworthiness" in WP:NNC it says, Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight, balance, and other content policies. which don't talk about notability in content with the exception of one very small part of the BLP and it shouldn't either really since sourcing and other existing restrictions would be enough to keep out the unwanted entries. For example, in the last sentence of WP:BLPNAME it is totally not needed to say; "However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced." when you can just as easily say, "However, names of family members must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced." and it accomplishes pretty much the same thing since material can always get removed if it isn't sourced no matter what anyway, and the arguments can always be had about if the entry is notable or not if there are sources so adding the rule doesn't change anything except making this implication that some content in articles must have Wikipedia articles (whether it be notable or not). If you ask me, this sentence is a policy violation and that part should be removed since it is the only part on the whole page that talks about notability inside content and I bet it is probably not a very old addition to the policy. Huggums537 (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

tldr, but I totally agree with "I don't think that the term "notability" is useful at all in discussions related to content within articles and this doesn't matter if you mean the Wikipedia term or the real world meaning". We used to have an editor, I think an admin, who used to go around removing sourced but "non-notable" stuff such as family members. If this isn't clear enough in any of our policies, then it should be clarified. This is about "articles" as opposed to lists - I'm not quite so sure about them. Johnbod (talk) 03:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

My post was just answering the question of why confusion persists. I think that real world notability (= prominence, importance etc.) inherently has a place in inclusion/exclusion within many list articles. One way to clarify that is sometimes already used is referring to the Wikipedia meaning as WP:Notability (deliberately not linked). North8000 (talk) 14:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

GNG or Specific

Per this page: "It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right" for notability relating to the inclusion of an article. But this is not what I have seen in practice. I have seen articles deleted at AfD because, for example, they didn’t meet NEVENT while GNG was met. Are people voting delete when an event meets GNG but not NEVENT going against the wording on this page? Should the wording on this page be changed to "and"? BhamBoi (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Certain SNGs do require the SNG be met, overriding the GNG. NEVENT is more an extension of what's already in WP:N, in that we want more than a burst of coverage but ongoing, with NEVENT being more specific to that. The only other one that overrides the GNG is NORG, which does not allow certain type of sourcing as to prevent conflicts of interest in commercial-related articles. Masem (t) 19:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

As set out in WP:SNG, the relationship is considerably more complicated than this, as far as "overriding" is concerned. WP:NPROF allows for Notability to be met without meeting NBASIC or GNG, for example, and WP:NNUMBER sets a considerably higher standard than does the GNG. As documented at this Talk archive (and others), there have been repeated efforts to impose more structure on the relationships between GNG and SNGs, but to date these have not met with success beyond the descriptive statements found at WP:SNG. Newimpartial (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Beyond Masem's and Newimpartial's comments, there are a couple other factors at work. One is the simple confusion of a number of other editors, some of whom (wrongly) believe that failure to meet one pertinent notability guideline disqualifies a subject from meeting others. Another is that -- and I speak from many years of experience at AfD, and having participated in many hundreds of deletion discussions -- AfD participants are people like any other, prone to misunderstandings, misinterpretations and screwups.

A third is that a number have agendas. Above and beyond the eternal inclusionist/deletionist divide, some editors blatantly and militantly ignore the guidelines they dislike, especially in defense of articles they staunchly want to save, or in defiance of guideline changes of which they disapprove. Ravenswing 22:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Some editors even ignore guidelines they like or agressively deploy guideline changes with which they disagree in principle at AfD in pursuit of desired article-level outcomes.

As an example of a different but also paradoxical phenomenon, I have seen editors assert with dogged literal-mindedness that the way WP:NSPORT was last revised means that sports biographies defer to the WP:GNG, not to WP:NBASIC, even though these same editors generally favor raising the requirements for inclusion for athletes, and NBASIC is slightly more restrictive than GNG. In AfD discussions, editors can be motivated by the most seemingly arbitrary of foibles principles. Newimpartial (talk) 23:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

RFC on the use of maps and charts in Wikipedia articles

This RfC can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Using maps as sources; it has been expanded since initially opened. The proposals are now:

• Proposal 1: original research
  • Alternative to proposal 1
• Proposal 2: What can be cited to a map?
  • Proposal 2a: reliable sourcing
  • Proposal 2b: image layers
• Proposal 3: history
• Proposal 4: notability
  • Proposal 4a: Notability - Significant coverage
  • Proposal 4b: Notability - Sourced only to maps
• Proposal 5: Reliability

New proposals are marked in bold. BilledMammal (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Wording improvements

I feel this guideline does an extremely poor job and uses a lot of words to explain notability, which contributes to a lot of confusion. It's one of our highest-profile and most-cited guidelines (it even has its own encyclopaedia entry!) and there is a tendency to assume that important guidance should be wordy and comprehensive but I would argue the opposite—concision and clarity should be the goal. I've made an edit to the lead as a starting point for discussion but this has been reverted for spurious procedural reasons (and people wonder why the page is in the state it is!). Some of my concerns specifically are:

• This guideline goes down too many rabbit warrens about things that would disqualify an article other than notability concerns. It should be sufficient in the lead to state that notability does not guarantee a standalone article. We can have a section in the body called "notability does not guarantee an article" (or similar), much like WP:VNOT on the verifiability policy. That section can (hopefully concisely) list reasons that an ostensibly notable topic might not qualify for an article.
• The guideline repeats itself without any extra meaning (for example, the nutshell essentially says "notability is notability")
• The guideline is excessively wordy, burying the needle ("what is notability?") in a haystack of other information.
• The guideline does not adequately convey what it's about:
  • Notability is not the same thing as importance (or what any one person thinks is important). Notability should be as close to an objective standard as we can make it. If you think something is important, show us the sources. Which leads to...
  • Notability means it has been written about somewhere else, by somebody unconnected to the subject, first. And that 16-word sentence explains notability more clearly than the 300-word lead or the 63-word(!) nutshell. We can go into the nitty gritty of how we define significant coverage or reliable/independent sources and all the caveats further down, but for the benefit of new users who want to know why their article was deleted (or rejected at AfC), we need a simple, objective test: has somebody else written about it?

The outside world thinks our notability guidelines are arbitrary and random. Part of that is a failure to RTFM, but a big part is that we use 300 words to explain what could be covered in 16, and still don't explain it! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the current text is a mess. And after all these years and endless creepy copy-editing, there's still rampant confusion about what notability means. For example, see WP:ITN/C, where Masem also hangs out. Notice that this says, "In particular, address the notability of the event..." What that means is the importance or significance of the event and that's how editors in that forum use the word routinely. But WP:N tries to suggest that notability is not importance/significance but it fails to convince because that's not the common usage of the word. The fundamental problem is that "notability" is not the right word for what the current text tries to explain. Better words for that concept might be "coverage" or "documentation" or "substantiation". Andrew🐉(talk) 00:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Notability is NOT the same as importance, significance, popularity, or the like. We're an encyclopedia to cover enduring topics, meaning that topics that have a brief burst of coverage (seemingly suggesting importance) are not the type of things we cover. We want to make sure that we can talk about a topic from secondary sources and stable points-of-view so that the reader understands why the topic is relevant to an encyclopedia.

And it is a perennial proposal to change the language of "notability" to a different wording but that would also break a lot of things as well in attempt to resolve one issue. There's a lot more subtile factors here, in that we use notability as a concept but also as a test to try to represent that concept, which is why most of our tests call out the GNG or the SNG specifically, since these strive to make those processes different from the concept. Note that it is not just coverage or documentation, because again, we want more than a burst of coverage, we want a long period of good sources to work from. Masem (t) 00:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

If you say that notability is not significance and not importance and is not just coverage then you've lost most people in conveying what it actually is. And it's not the reality of what happens at places like WP:ITN. For example, consider the recent Afghan earthquake. This didn't just get an article, it was given a blurb on the main page which is likely to be there for a week or more. That wasn't because of sustained scholarly study but was based on a flurry of breaking news reports. The key fact that got it such prominence was that over 20 people had been killed. But this was not especially unusual because earthquakes routinely happen in that part of the world – see List of earthquakes in Afghanistan. So, this belies Masem's claims and so it goes.

Trying to make sense of the gulf between the aspiration and the reality of our content results in reams of vague and inconsistent language and this is then endlessly picked over by Wikilawyers. Some rationalisation is badly needed per WP:CREEP and so HJ Mitchell is welcome to have a go.

Andrew🐉(talk) 08:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Of course it's a mess. It's a horse designed by committee, but we've apparently decided somewhere along the way that the current version was passed down on stone tablets and hence is unchangeable. As for notability vs significance, semantics aside, notability in the Wikipedia sense is how we decide what's significant enough for an encyclopaedia article. But a new editor arriving here trying to work out why we have an article on the book they read last week but not the one they read the week before, or on the CEO of one company has an article but not another, would not be enlightened by reading this page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

It absolutely works, it is those that do not spend the time to understand how we got here (including things like the inclusionists/deletionists wars) that is seems complicated. It is not a singular quantity you can assign to a topic, and requires reviewing and understanding our purpose as an encyclopedia (not any other type of work). There's too much of an attitude that we should be a first stop when researching something, when in reality we should follow a Google search, which is geared towards documenting every mention of a topic in the world. We only expand when we can write encyclopedically about it.

And no, simplifying it down to "how we decide what's significant enough" is not the right view at all. We pass on topics that get hundreds of articles in the news but as fleeting coverage, as well as passing on articles that only get a couple stories.

And also to Andrew's point on earthquakes - we have experience that most earthquakes that cause dozens or more deaths will have long-term notability, and certainly it makes sense in the short term to allow an article on the presumption the GNG will be met down the road. However, it is entirely possible that a quake in a remote part of the world gets nearly no coverage after a day, and come a year later, the article can't grow beyond a stub. At which point, per WP:N, we realize our presumption was wrong and consider options like AFD or merging. That's what I also see missing is the understanding that WP:N is always ongoing - you don't just pass the GNG once but instead the presumption the GNG or SNG was met can always be challenged if you don't show the type of in-depth coverage needed for an encyclopedic article. Masem (t) 12:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

No, that's mistaken because, per WP:NTEMP and WP:DEGRADE, notability does not expire. We don't keep checking topics every year to see if they have reached an expiry date or whether people have stopped reading them. Per WP:NOTPAPER, we just keep adding them to the pile and maintain them indefinitely. This is feasible because the sources that we use don't expire either. Even if there's some link rot, we now have a fairly robust system of archiving.

As for earthquakes, they seem to be one of the types of topic that has a fan base, like cyclones, tornadoes, railways, volcanoes, dinosaurs and the like. The editors and projects that work on such tend to crank out the articles in a cookie-cutter fashion. They then produce WP:SNGs based on their ideas of what's important and so we have Wikipedia:Notability (earthquakes). That's still just an essay but WP:N is still just a guideline. None of these have made the grade as policies because they are too loosey-goosey and fuzzy.

Andrew🐉(talk) 13:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

You're misreading NTEMP. As it states "once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Remember that significant coverage comes from secondary sources, which most newspaper articles are not (they are primary). So while it makes sense to create an article that will likely meet notability based on similar topics like it in the past, using current primary sources, it can be evaluated later to see if any secondary sources have appeared, and if they do not exist, then we can talk deletion or merging; NTEMP was never met because no significant coverage was shown. That's why most SNGs are written with the initiation that editors should still seek out secondary sources to build out the article; notability has always been a rebuttable presumption. Masem (t) 14:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

We seem to be talking at cross-purposes. But my expectation is that, in a year's time, most everyone will have moved on from the Afghan earthquake and there will be no new coverage but the article will persist indefinitely. Its project rating is uniformly "Low-importance" but it's still getting undue attention on the main page. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Most newspaper articles are akin to An account of a traffic incident written by a witness (from WP:PRIMARY)? I do not believe that this is generally the case. Newimpartial (talk) 15:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Our WP:PSTS approach has newspaper articles that are just detailing the event at the time it happens to be primary. Secondary information requires some type of transformation, such as analysis, interpretation, synthesis, on that primary information. So, for example, an article discussing a new law that only states what the law does and how it was passed is primary; an article that tries to explain what impact that law will have is secondary. The bulk of newspaper articles are primary for good reason, and only in the op-eds where secondary coverage happens. Masem (t) 15:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure your interpretation of WP:PSTS here is very widely held. The "primary" section doesn't talk about "newspaper articles that are just detailing the event at the time it happens" or anything like that; it says that primary sources are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event - this seems like the distinction between certain forms of investigative (or, for that matter, Gonzo) journalism, which centre the experience of the reporter, and just about any kind of (non-opinion) journalism written behind a desk while relying on sources elsewhere - will always be at least one step removed from an event (our WP:SECONDARY).

(If further discussion of this issue seems like a good idea, I will reply again tomorrow.) Newimpartial (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The aspect to focus on is what secondary sources are, they are focused on providing the analysis that, among other things, tells us why a topic is likely important to the world and this worthy of note. Most newspaper articles simply don't do that, but instead are just rote descriptions of what happened, which make them primary. Arguably, we cannot take news reports about an earthquake that has killed 100 people and claim that the quake is a significant event, but instead are relying on what importance is established by the sources. (Though obvious common sense says that that significance will be establish in time). There is probably better discussion on this at some of the related talk pages. Masem (t) 19:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

What? The bulk of newspaper articles (excluding briefs, submitted obits, etc.) are secondary, unless you are somehow claiming that witnesses or, in this example, lawmakers regularly commandeer the paper without the reporting, writing, synthesis, or fact-checking of reporters and editors. (As someone who has worked in news for over a decade, I am constantly amazed at how many people actually think this happens.) If anything, the op-ed desks of newspapers tend to have looser fact-checking and editorial standards than the news desks. Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

See WP:PRIMARYNEWS (yes its on an essay but this has been established for a long time). Masem (t) 00:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Not only is it an essay, but an essay with some serious issues -- I'm putting this on the talk page there, but almost the entirety of the section about newspapers is taken from a plagiarized source. Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Given the discussion on that talk page around 2017, I can't see how that section is plagiarized. It quotes academic sources but that includes the refs to those, so that's not plagiarizing. Masem (t) 02:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Not the essay, the sources cited -- one of the refs themselves is plagiarized, and other refs may be copied and pasted from elsewhere. More detail on talk page there. Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Masem, IMHO your declaration of short term coverage generally being primary is "reaching" a bit in order to make a "sourcing only" criteria match the reality of what happens. IMO the wp notability ecosystem also takes these factors into consideration:

• Degree of encyclopedic-ness including: by what degree did it exceed the minimum requirements of wp:not and and how closely does it align with the first of the Five pillars?
• Prominence, recognition, impact and importance, weighted towards endurance of these qualities.

A lower importance "just news" event will get low marks there. North8000 (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I've always thought of notability as one of the things needed to qualify for an article. The subject has to be notable (ie written about elsewhere first), but that won't save it if it fails one of the criteria at WP:NOT. We shouldn't need to go into great detail about that here—just like N doesn't need to say your article will still be deleted if it's a copyvio or written like an advert or created in violation of a block, even if the subject is notable—but I proposed above that we include a "notability does not guarantee inclusion" section, which can refer people to NOT, CSD, or any other caveat. Part of what makes this guideline so complicated is that it tries to anticipate every possible reason an article might be deleted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

All true. On an interesting side note, did you ever notice that this page is the one that specifics what the overall criteria are and it's the place that invokes wp:not? My opinion is that in practice wp:not is applied in two ways. One is the explicitly specified one (basically calling for deletion of clear-cut violations) and the unspecified one which weighs also weighs degree of compliance with wp:not for those that were not clearly rejected when evaluating "notability". For example, if there is an aspiring musician and and animal species article with the same small amount of coverage, the notability ecosystem will typically let the animal species article in and not the musician. My comments were more general and not reflecting on your specific changes. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

You're probably right. We know the animal is likely to get more coverage as it's studied more by scientists and scientific publishing is slow though we have a lot of one-sentence species articles..., whereas a musician could be "up and coming" for 20 years also, I've never seen a lemur try to spam its auotbiography.... So you're right, there are considerations other than coverage, but focusing notability on coverage doesn't mean an article can't be deleted for other reasons. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I would argue that the ecosystem treats the species article more favorably because the topic is more enclyclopedic and so rates higher with respect to the intent or letter of wp:not. North8000 (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Key to all of of WP:N is the fact it establishes a rebuttable presumption that, if enough basic sourcing exists then over time, more comprehensive co erase will be found and the topic can be considered as a standalone article. We allow new articles that seem to demonstrate notability with only a few sources and couple paragraphs, but if after a year or so, it is clear it can't be expanded further, the our presumption was wrong and we can delete it. And currently, we give editors a lot if time and leeway to favor retention over deletion if there is an issue. Masem (t) 19:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Let me give you a devil's advocate question to try to trip you up.  :-) If it's by definition about GNG sourcing and predicting GNG sourcing, why do we modify the particulars of GNG for corporations? My answer would be that the notability ecosystem also takes the other considerations at WP:How Wikipedia notability works into account. North8000 (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

We know that there are people out there that see inclusion on WP as a means of SEO, and the simple baseline of "presumed notability" is very easy to game for such corporations, as well as many living persons and other commercial products like films. As such, we have purposely made it a tougher baseline to avoid this route of self-promotion.

Its an example that notability is not a one-size-fits-all type of guideline, and why it is not easy to simplify down in language. There has been great effort in the past to try to making notability easier to understand, but that causes problems with other parts of notability. Masem (t) 23:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I made a significant error in my post. Should gave been "If it's by definition ONLY about GNG sourcing and predicting GNG sourcing,....." North8000 (talk) 12:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that the giant fuzzy ecosystem which constitutes wikipedia notability is the best authority on what wp:notability actually is. IMO it is outlined at Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works . It's a multi-variable decisionmaking process where sourcing is the dominant criteria but not the only criteria. There is no page in Wikipedia that defines or describes what it actually is. This guideline is the most important piece of the puzzle but it is only one piece of the puzzle. Wikipedia needs to have this page more fully define what notability actually is. But it can't do that until it recognizes what Wikipedia notability actually is. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

RfC on periodicals and publishing companies

This RfC can be found at Draft talk:Honest History (magazine) for discussion about notability requirements leading to bias toward older periodicals and publishers that published before the rules were updated. 04:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC) Stcksht (talk) 04:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

RfC on wording of GNG guidelines, and SIGCOV in particular

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

---

Question: Does Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline impose a strict requirement, that in each and every article being evaluated for notability under itself; that Significant Coverage can be shown ? Jack4576 (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Comment: Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline states:

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

Is it possible (under any circumstance) for the subject of an article to be deemed notable, despite this presumption not having arisen?

As an example, if reliable sources point to the existence of a subject, and verifiable facts exist to indicate to an editor that the subject is notable and encyclopedic; is it possible under any circumstance to regard that subject as being notable enough to have an entry; even if Significant Coverage does not exist?

If it is not possible under any circumstance, then I propose that the GNG guideline be reworded so as to read:

"A topic is only suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

This would clarify this section and bring it into alignment with a later paragraph on this page, WP:WHYN, that refers to SIGCOV as a strict and compulsory requirement.

My intuition is that there may be some limited circumstances where the subject of an entry is notable enough for inclusion; even where significant coverage cannot be established. Examples of such subjects may include individual examples of major bridges, infrastructure, roads, railways, schools, institutions, paths etcetera; in circumstances where the facts of the subject (case by case) indicate that it is of major importance; irrespective of the fact that its coverage only extends to passing mentions in primary sources.

I am keen to have this discussion, and gauge community consensus, as I have recently had multiple disagreements with various editors in the AfDs and am hoping to obtain finality on this issue. My personal view is that GNG should be read in its current state to allow for notability even where the presumption hasn't arisen, in the limited circumstance that notability is overwhelming and manifest.

I am interested to hear other editor's thoughts on this, and I intend to follow consensus, thank you. Jack4576 (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

It is actually possible, in certain cases, to be considered notable without sigcov. WP:NACADEMIC is an example; most academics do not get sigcov anywhere. There are a few others with such guidelines. But for the vast majority of subjects, sigcov is what we're looking for. Valereee (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Your stated position here is actually my preferred position; I think it is clearly the common-sense position. I think it should apply to categories generally when a subject is manifestly notable even outside of specific categories.

SIGCOV should be what we look for, with manifest notability (as per David Eppstein's description below) as a rare exception to the rule. Jack4576 (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

This is a discussion on GNG, not on the SNGs. NPROF is irrelevant to our considerations here. JoelleJay (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, its relevant insofar as its a useful comparator Jack4576 (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Here's my opinion on how the big fuzzy wikipedia notability ecosystem works in respect to that: Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works. In short, GNG is the dominant criteria, but that 2 other factors (degree of enclyclopedicness and actual impact/importance/prominence) also affect it. And the GNG type sourcing comes into play a second time as a measurement of the final of those last two items. IMO We can never tidy up the notability guidelines until we acknowledge that. You are trying to derive a simple categorical rule which conflicts with that via an RFC. Thanks for that good effort but IMHO that is problematic. North8000 (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I am simply trying to obtain clarification regarding the SIGCOV rule.

In multiple AfD discussions, I have pointed out that a subject is (1) encyclopedic, or (2) has an actual impact/importance/prominence, and the response from other contributors has been: "doesn't matter, SIGCOV still isn't established"

Alternatively, some subjects are nominated for deletion (particularly schools, railways, etcetera), with simple 'lacks SIGCOV' in the nomination, with zero discussion or engagement with the idea that the subject may nevertheless be (1) encyclopedic or (2) actually important. Any arguments that the article should still be retained regardless, are ignored; with other contributors simply repeating the 'lacks SIGCOV' or claiming 'passing mentions only'; instead of actually engaging in a discussion about a subject on its own terms re: encyclopedic merits.

I prefer the fuzzy interpretation, I think it is more realistic, more flexible, and ultimately more encyclopedic. What I am attempting to obtain clarification on is whether or not this overly legalistic interpretation of GNG is something that we as editors are stuck with. If so, if that is the consensus, then I'll happily submit to it. But I'd like for there to at least be some form of discussion given how impactful the SIGCOV rule is across a great deal many of AfD discussions on this site. Jack4576 (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Having significant coverage is HOW we determine that a topic/subject is important and has encyclopedic value. Blueboar (talk) 16:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboar. LibStar (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboar's points. Of course GNG on it's own right also factors into those. North8000 (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you think it is -impossible- in -every circumstance- to determine with finality that a subject is non-notable, if SIGCOV does not exist? Jack4576 (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, could you restate? I'm not sure I'm following, maybe too many negatives? Valereee (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Without SIGCOV, do you think it is -always- impossible to reach a determinative view as to notability?

Do you think that such a thing is outside the realm of possibility? Jack4576 (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

No, it's possible, and in some areas we already have policy in place to determine notability without significant coverage; WP:NACADEMIC is one. Valereee (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Why not extend that to GNG more generally? Why have categorical exceptions like this ? The problem is not unique to any particular type of subject. Jack4576 (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

You may be seeing the fuzzy system at work. If the topic is marginal regarding those other attributes, then others will tend to be stricter on the GNG sourcing interpretation. North8000 (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

What if the topic is strong on those other attributes, and GNG sourcing interpretation is still lacking ?

The above scenario is the cause of many problems in my opinion. Jack4576 (talk) 17:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

It is not possible to write an acceptable encyclopedia article without summarizing significant coverage of the topic in reliable sources. If such sources cannot be found, how can anyone determine that the topic is worthy of a freestanding encyclopedia article? Sources first, articles second. Cullen328 (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

See: David Eppstein's comment below. Jack4576 (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

It is certainly possible to have an encyclopedia article that is reliably sourced, from many sources, but where each individual source contributes only towards a small amount of content, to the extent that no single source can be said to have significant coverage. It is my understanding that such an article would not pass GNG, and I have no interest in weakening that aspect of GNG. But that is not something that is necessarily true about how to write source-based encyclopedia articles; it is merely something we have chosen to do as part of our thresholds for what to include or what not to include. Other SNGs that are independent of GNG do not require this, and should not. One should also bear in mind that the word "significant" here is extremely subjective, and is often used as a proxy by AfD participants to hide preferences for certain types of topics over others; the actual wording of GNG is that the coverage must be in-depth, reliable, and independent, not that it must be prominent. For instance, in any objective sense, a non-paid local-newspaper obituary of a small-town hero (say a beloved elementary school teacher) meets these criteria, but would often be deemed "not enough" for vague and indefensible reasons by AfD participants, because we don't want our encyclopedia overrun by such content, rather than because they are actually following what the criterion says we should include. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Indeed my concern is that frequently, and in fact concerningly often, analogous scenarios to your example above are occuring in AfD.

If the intention is to exclude articles as per your first sentence, so be it, (if we have consensus); but for the benefit of all, (especially new editors) I think it would be worth re-wording the actual guideline to make that requirement more clear and explicit.

As the whole page is currently worded I think there is a fair argument to be made that such a requirement is not made out unequivocally. Jack4576 (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:Basic clearly provides "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". The problem with making a hard-fast rule on what constitutes sigcov (and I have literally seen people argue that articles must have specific word or page counts) is that standards change. For example, even 50 years ago, covering people of color, ethnic events and achievements, or women would have been the exception and not the norm in an encyclopedia. To include information on those types of historical topics, it is often necessary to combine multiple sources to reach a level of sigcov and I absolutely would not be in favor of any type of definition that prohibits our editing from addressing these types of gaps. SusunW (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree completely.

It would be good if that policy provided at WP:BASIC was made available for all topics, such as by bringing it onto the GNG page.

As it stands the sentence you've quoted is only able to be relied upon in AfD arguments for the context of WP:BIO articles.

I think its a concern, and a gap, especially in the way it exacerbates biases in coverage on this site; and its an issue I'm trying to highlight by opening this RfC. Jack4576 (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it is ridiculous to assume that academic coverage has "caught up" with thousands of years of omissions within the last 50 years. Thus, to my mind, on historical subjects, we have to be able to use realistic goals to cover topics that are clearly notable because they are covered in varying degrees of depth in various sources, but do not have deep coverage in a single source (hopefully yet, but academia moves slow). I would absolutely be in favor of incorporating the basic provision into GNG for that very reason. SusunW (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Susun I may open a more specific RfC in relation to your proposal once this one is finished. Will tag you when that happens. Jack4576 (talk) 02:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

David, IMO what you describe is the Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works fuzzy ecosystem at work. Your hypothetical example was a topic that we not very enclyclopedic and weaker on real world notability and so the GNG sourcing criteria was more strictly enforced. North8000 (talk) 18:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

And since it's not really defined, all kinds of things can happen. IMO if we acknowledged how it actually works, we could tidy things up and make them clearer. North8000 (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Your "not very encyclopedic" is difficult to distinguish from "I don't like it and therefore I'm going to ignore the actual wording of GNG and declare its sources to be inadequate despite their depth, reliability, and independence". I don't disagree with the outcome in this hypothetical case, but I think we might need a better mechanism than the existence of publicity to distinguish encyclopedic from non-encyclopedic in such cases. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm trying to describe reality without commenting on what reality should be. But once that it is accepted it can be refined to clarify. A good guide to "how enclyclopedic is it?" is degree of compliance with WP:Not.North8000 (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

The "has a true full GNG source" that is implicit in your example IMO is not what this is about. The typical example is what to do with the typical case where it 3/4 complies with the letter of GNG and other factors influence whether or not to consider that to be good enough. North8000 (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• I feel like a bit of context is missing here. One of the AFD's that spurred this RFC were one where Jack is arguing that a minor passing mention in one source should be enough to argue that the GNG is met, a sentiment I've never seen succeed in my decade plus at AFD. I don't bring this up as an effort to canvass, but rather, as a concern that these contextless discussions here may embolden him to further this...fringe... approach he attempting here. Sergecross73 msg me 19:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I would weigh in as "merge" on that one and don't agree with Jack's arguments regarding wp:notability there. Also all statements there need to be taken and interpreted in the context of the particulars of that article. North8000 (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to get distracted by specific cases as it is a general guideline. I do think significant coverage is required, not just a line or two. But, I also think that it should not have to be met within a single source or two. I don't think 15 sources mentioning the same fact counts as sigcov ever, but some overlap is bound to occur over time in varying articles about a subject. My take is that we have to have sufficient sources to answer who was involved, what was it, when and where did it happen, how it made an impact, i.e. cover it in sufficient depth to confirm it is notable over time. SusunW (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

See, regarding that, you are stuck on the ‘passing mention’ aspect to discount notability; where I am attempting to argue that the case-by-case qualities of a subject may make that subject notable, in exceptional circumstances, even where we don’t have significant coverage.

You might disagree on that case-by-case evaluation, that’s fine, we can reach community consensus on that.

This RfC is not about that though; it’s about obtaining some clarity on the GNG rule, and determining once and for all whether SIGCOV is a strict requirement for every article or is actually just an important factor (perhaps even usually the most important factor)

As SusunW has noted above, in the WP:BIO context the line: “ If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability” is available as an exception to SIGCOV. And there are cogent policy reasons (especially social justice ones) why that exception is worthwhile.

I am also wondering whether it is possible to identify a subject as notable even where that isn’t the case. If consensus is never, then fine, it’s a regrettable consensus but one that i’ll follow. Jack4576 (talk) 02:58, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm unclear what you're advocating for here. As far as I can tell, everything you're saying here is "notability should be handled on a case-by-case basis, with specific consideration given to how notability might look different for different topics," which is exactly what AfD is for (and why topic-based SNGs exist). Whether coverage is significant enough to establish notability of the subject is a very common topic at AfD. What do you want to change here? Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 04:50, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, ideally that is what AfD ought to be for in my view.

Unfortunately however, AfD tends to degenerate into a legalistic discussion as to whether or not a subject has met SIGCOV.

I understand topic-based SNGs exist, this discussion is about whether or not it is possible under the existing rules for a subject outside of a topic based SNG; to nevertheless meet notability for inclusion, in the absence of significant coverage.

Plainly I think it should be possible in some exceptional circumstances, (or alternatively, that SIGCOV ought to be able to be established through multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability for articles other than WP:BIO, as SusanW has suggested). I'd like to canvas the community's views on this point.

If the conclusion is that this is not possible, I think there is a fair case to make that the requirements in GNG ought to be made more explicit for the sake of avoiding confusion; and clarifying AfD discussions. Jack4576 (talk) 06:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Jack4576, there is no need to make "more explicit" things that are already well understood. New discussions of things that are already well understood are not productive. unless you have some new insights. And to date, you have not offered any new insights. Cullen328 (talk) 06:28, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

As can be seen from the comments of others in this thread I am not the only person of the view that WP would benefit from clearer wording on this issue. Jack4576 (talk) 06:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

The argument over what counts (or should count) toward notability is perennial. There's a spectrum among editors about interpretation of notability, and it has very little to do with clarity of the wording. In any event, clarifying your own interpretation into policy would require a community-wide RfC, as drawing some bright line would be a major change. Valereee (talk) 12:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, anyone, feel free to hat this tangent. My fears have been dispelled. Sergecross73 msg me 12:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I am not seeking a clarification on notability generally Valereee, I am seeking clarification on whether SIGCOV is actually a strict requirement for GNG or not. From this thread, it appears opinions vary. Jack4576 (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

No, opinions do not vary. A couple editors have brought up some non-GNG notability guidelines that don't require SIGCOV, as well as the murky guidance at NBASIC for biographies, but none of that is stating SIGCOV is not required for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Simply spend some time at AFD and it'll become rather clear to you that, yes, the community is generally looking for SIGCOV. Sergecross73 msg me 17:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree with JJ and SC73, the opinions here are not about not requiring sigcov, they're about how we assess it. I don't think anyone has said sigcov isn't or shouldn't be required? Valereee (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

This user has been making similar arguments in a lot of AfDs: that his personal opinion that a topic "is notable" or "is encyclopedic" should outweigh a lack of in-depth independent secondary coverage in RS. I would suggest before participating in any further AfDs, he read a few dozen closed large AfD discussions that resulted in deletion so he can develop a better understanding of our P&Gs. JoelleJay (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

(1) Determining whether a subject is notable or not requires an intellectual engagement with what a subject is and what a subject is not, for the purpose of obtaining whether or not that subject is relevantly notable enough to be encyclopedic. That I have made arguments about the qualities of certain subjects on a generalistic GNG basis without reliance on the legalistic SNGs rules; does not demonstrate my lack of understanding of the GNG rules. Your comment here demonstrates you yourself are ignorant of the rules actually, because if you read those rules, you'd appreciate that raising subjective criteria is a very relevant argument to make in an AfD thread.

(2) AfD arguments are not precedent, and in any event, the incumbent WP consensus on what is / isn't notable leaves a lot to be desired; especially for reasons of its Anglospheric bias. (Note how much more difficult it is for a local politician to have an article in Jamaica than it is in New York. Do you really think politics is less important in the global south than London, NYC and Tokyo? Afd seems to think so). Jack4576 (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I think local politicians in large cities like NY, London or Tokyo are dime a dozen and thus often much less important than local politicians in other parts of the world.

That said… “importance” is not quite the same as “notability”. Sure, there is overlap… however, a person can be “important” but not “notable” - and a person can be “notable” but not “important”. Blueboar (talk) 17:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

That I have made arguments about the qualities of certain subjects on a generalistic GNG basis without reliance on the legalistic SNGs rules; does not demonstrate my lack of understanding of the GNG rules. What does this even mean? There is no "generalistic GNG basis"; GNG explicitly says

A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

Nowhere does GNG bring in subjective assessments of topic importance other than as a reason to delete an article that otherwise meets GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

GNG itself may not explicitly bring in "subjective assessments of topic importance". But AfD participants do tend to bring in their biases, and use them to color their decisions on whether coverage counts as "significant", which can be very subjective. If you think that GNG is a purely objective standard, you are fooling yourself. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

And to your second point, AfDs that received a lot of good-faith discussion and resulted in delete will almost always have a statement by the closing admin summarizing the relevant P&G arguments proffered by participants, which will give a good overview of consensus interpretation of those P&Gs. Someone with zero experience at AfD should not be jumping in to dozens (100+??) of AfDs in just one week (under 7% of the AfDs you're in have even been closed!) claiming their idea of GNG is "correct". JoelleJay (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Completely agreed. Sergecross73 msg me 20:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks that the GNG is less "legalistic" than SNGs has not spent enough time in contested deletion debates where all sides were wiki-lawyering the GNG.

Of course, that can be a good thing. Nobody has lain on their deathbed wishing they spent more time wiki-lawyering the GNG. XOR'easter (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Taking this RFC in context, I don't think that the GNG needs to be updated or changed. The question I always come back to is how anyone is supposed to write a reliable, neutral article without significant coverage in a reliable third-party source. WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs aren't enough.

Something like WP:NACADEMIC at least tries to address this issue by saying that significant coverage about academic papers might be reasonably organized around the author, rather than the concept. This is where merging is often a good compromise to cover concepts that received some reliable third-party coverage, but might not otherwise be sufficient for a separate article. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• Yes it does, and it should, per multi-decade WP:CONS. No reasonable rationale has been given to change this. Mathglot (talk) 00:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The original post in the thread has prompted many good discussions and points. But trying to answer the literal question which is basically "is a strong requirement by wikipedia the OP-stated simple categorical rule?" is a fundamentally flawed approach to this topic and any answer on those terms would be misleading. IMO this thread should be ended. IMHO any further discussion should have a new thread not based on that literal question. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Support closing this RfC. I agree that the framing of the question is flawed—there is clearly strong consensus that SIGCOV is a part of GNG. Procedurally speaking I don't see any actual proposed policy change or clarification to be accepted or rejected here, and I think the discussion has run its course. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 17:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

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

RfC regarding individual area codes

You are invited to the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Telecommunications/Area codes RfC regarding the notability of articles about individual area codes. BilledMammal (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) has an RFC

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 02:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Minimum Number of Secondary Sources

The current policy only states that 'multiple sources are generally expected'; this means that anything mentioned twice in published sources technically meets notability guidelines. This standard is so low that many things that generally are not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia (i.e. local politicians, petty criminals, small businesses, etc.) would likely meet notability guidelines. Because of the wording of the policy, literalists will argue that such a subject meets WP:GNG and should, therefore, have a Wikipedia page. This results in low-quality articles that cannot be improved due to lack of sources. A higher minimum number of secondary sources doesn't necessarily have to be mandated, but if it was at least suggested or expected (changing the phrasing to something like 'at least five secondary sources are generally expected'), it would reduce the number of subpar articles created on the basis of being covered in only two sources. I would recommend five as the minimum, as five quality sources should provide plenty of material for a decent article. JMB1980 (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

No. Just no. We have been over this over and over and over again. It depends enormously on the quality of the sources. One source can sometimes be enough (even though it clearly is not multiple), when it is of sufficient quality (Dictionary of National Biography, for instance). Five sources might not be enough, when they are of low quality. Stating a number encourages editors to work towards that number instead of towards the high-quality sourcing that we actually want. The problem with not-really-notable topics, and especially in attempts at getting them approved from drafts to articles, is usually not the number of sources, because our reviewers tell the drafters over and over "we need more sources". This ends up packing the drafts with many many poor sources. We should be telling editors to use fewer sources, only the high-quality ones, so we can tell which ones those are. Your suggestion goes in the wrong direction, towards quantity over quality. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that quality should be emphasized over quantity. The problem is that the current phrasing of notability ability guidelines allows literalists to claim any subject that has been covered in any two sources has achieved notability. Perhaps, as an alternative, is there a way 'quality sources' could be more clearly defined? JMB1980 (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Notability is not based on the number of sources but the amount of significant coverage to the specific topic that the offered sources provide. As David says, one source may be sufficient to show that, while in other cases one might need ten or more. We.dont count sourcing because this is easily gamed. Masem (t) 19:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that insisting on some specific number of sources is the wrong approach. Even for the most mundane topics, it's usually possible to dig up 5, 10, or more really crappy sources. Quality of sources and WP:SIGCOV is much more important than quantity of sources, and we're just doing authors a disservice by implying that if they find N sources they'll be good. RoySmith (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree in principle that specifying a number of sources is wrong; however, the problem is that based on current policy it's possible for authors to dig up two really crappy sources and think that they'll be good if they find that many. JMB1980 (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

It's possible for authors to dig up ten really crappy sources and then not understand why reviewers keep telling them that better sources are needed. The problem is not that there are only two; the problem is that the sources are crap. Telling them to find more sources won't fix it. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

With rare exceptions, it should be easy to find five quality sources for a subject that is truly notable; I've created several articles and have never had difficulty finding at least five quality sources. If a subject truly isn't notable, it should be difficult to find five sources of any quality; I've encountered many subpar articles that cite exactly two sources. There is no perfect solution to this problem, but expecting (without requiring) a minimum of five sources would significantly reduce the number of low-quality articles while good articles would be unaffected in every or nearly every case. JMB1980 (talk) 00:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

It would expand the current emphasis on hype and publicity over substance and accomplishments. It would work fine for movie stars and footballers, not so much for other topics. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

In my experience, footballers and other ”pop culture” topics are far more likely to be included based on scraping by notability criteria than less popular topics. BilledMammal (talk) 05:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Ideally, notability would be determined by the quality and substance of sources rather than strict adherence to a number of sources specified in a guideline. Unfortunately, my experience is that the majority on Wikipedia focus on quantity over quality. There are a myriad of low-quality articles with only two or three sources that can't be improve because of the poor quality of sources, and usually can't be deleted because they technically meet minimum GNG guidelines. Setting an expectation of at least five sources would prevent many of the worst articles from being created and allow for the deletion of many of those already created, as most of the ones I've seen have fewer than five secondary sources. It wouldn't solve every problem, but it would be an improvement. JMB1980 (talk) 06:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Well...on the other hand, the current guidance already essentially sets the number at 2, with no entreaties for quality or amount of SIGCOV. We even have the option for some subjects to get by with zero SIGCOV sources and just a few scattered mentions that are "more than a directory listing" and "don't require OR to describe". JoelleJay (talk) 00:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

In fact, I believe that the notability standards should be further expanded: If something is found to have enough coverage to be a GA--and stay a GA even after a GAR if challenged--then whether it meets the GNG or any SNG is not the point: it's a decent encyclopedia article, so citing some arbitrary guideline (that is, intended to be flexible) to delete a good article is pedantic and Procrustean, rather than serving to help us develop the best possible online encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The inverse of that is citing some arbitrary guideline to create or keep a bad article; this also is pedantic and not conducive to creating a good encyclopedia. Expecting (but not requiring) more sources should help to reduce the number of bad articles while retaining flexibility. JMB1980 (talk) 00:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Bad articles can be improved much more easily than missing articles can be added, especially now that some of our tools go back and automagically remove red links. Jclemens (talk) 03:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

[Citation needed]. My research suggests the opposite is true; if the creator of an article doesn’t expand it, no body will. BilledMammal (talk) 05:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The GA criteria do not require independent or secondary coverage. A "good article" could be written almost entirely from the subject's own professional profiles, interviews, press releases from affiliated orgs, statistical data, etc. Moreover, GAs only need one reviewer to pass, which can easily lead to special interest wikiprojects nominating and reviewing articles that would not be accepted outside their walled garden. JoelleJay (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

GA requires V sources. I proactively addressed your objection by noting GAR exists to correct inappropriate GA passes. Jclemens (talk) 03:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I can assure you that people would be able to write a high-quality (GA) article sans secondary sourcing such as with fictional characters or works, which no, we have moved way past that. That's why WP:V requires third-party sourcing for any topic, and N/GNG emphasizes that this should be significant coverage from secondary sources. There are reasonable exceptions to this (hence why WP:N is a guideline) but its needed to meet WP:V and WP:NOT#IINFO. Masem (t) 00:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Much like JoelleJay, you're assuming non-RS, which is fair enough since I didn't specify. But what I'm actually talking about is non-SIGCOV independent RS'es that, in sum, can provide enough V content, in aggregate, to write a legitimately good article. Jclemens (talk) 03:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The community has rejected the idea that a bunch of sources that only name-drop a topic or that may have a whole sentence or two about it (aka "listicles") do not contribute to determining notability. We need sources that have in-depth sigcov to have a hope of writing a cohesive article in the first place. Masem (t) 03:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much anyone involved in sports or living in a rural community in America could cobble together an article from non-SIGCOV IRS sources. If someone is actually notable, their significance will have been discussed substantially--otherwise how do we know that what they did is significant? JoelleJay (talk) 07:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that the best response to this issue would be to strengthen our expectations at enwiki that each article should have a credible claim to significance, rather than making WP:N/SIGCOV (which is essentially a sourcing standard) do work that it is neither designed nor optimally positioned to do. Newimpartial (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't say exactly that, but I have said something similar. XOR'easter (talk) 01:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I’m not overly convinced that providing a set number of sources would help - instead, I think we need to be firmer about those sources being high quality and actually containing usable significant coverage.

For example, see this ongoing discussion at NBOOKS, where I am proposing we require that the sources actually contain sufficient information to write an article that goes beyond a plot summary.

However, changing “multiple” to a slightly better defined word like “several” may be a good idea; as JoelleJay points out, “multiple” is almost always interpreted as a flat two, which I think was neither its intent nor a good idea. BilledMammal (talk) 05:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Clarifying terms like 'significant coverage' would help a lot. The reason I proposed an expectation of five sources is because there's an excess of arguments stating that any subject covered in two sources is notable because GNG only states 'multiple sources' are needed and two sources are technically multiple sources. Much of the language is too vague and subjective, which is a problem when so many interpret Wikipedia policy in the most literal sense, which I don't believe was the intent of the authors. JMB1980 (talk) 06:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I think sometimes we have to stop and remind ourselves that we're talking about classifying the sum of human knowledge here. A certain about of vagueness and subjectivity is unavoidable. – Joe (talk) 06:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

That’s true, but we also need guide rails to ensure that the topics we cover are sufficiently encyclopaedic and covered to comply with our key policies such as NPOV, BLP, and NOT.

Here we are seeing that a little more direction would be beneficial; that’s part of the reason I would prefer changing “multiple” to “several” rather than providing an explicit number. BilledMammal (talk) 06:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

To me multiple and several mean the same thing in quantitive terms. Maybe it's a dialect thing? – Joe (talk) 07:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

To me, multiple means anything over two; several is generally between three and five. Personally, I think a band like this will be beneficial and better suited to adapting the number of sources to the quality of the sources than the current “multiple” which is virtually without exception interpreted as “two”. BilledMammal (talk) 07:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, to me "multiple" just means "more than one", whereas "several" is somewhere above "a few". JoelleJay (talk) 07:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

"A little more direction would be beneficial" is a completely vacuous justification for such a major change. Beneficial to what purpose? In what way do you envision that changing the wording to something that implies a greater number of sources cause our coverage to be more "encyclopedic", whatever you mean by that, rather than more strongly affected by hype? Because to me, the ability to get coverage of a topic is largely driven by hype and publicity. More successful hypesters get more sources written about them. We want an encyclopedia, not merely a mirror of pop culture. To get that, we need to focus on the quality of sources, not their quantity. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

If you want to reduce our emphasis on pop culture the answer is to tighten notability standards; pop culture topics are far more likely to be marginally notable than non-pop culture topics. BilledMammal (talk) 08:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

"Tightening notability standards" is too vague to be helpful. Tightening them in ways that continue to allow reference-bombing of pop-culture subjects while erecting arbitrary barriers to everything else is not helpful. That's my opinion of what you would get by asking for more references but not asking about the quality of the references. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

So make notability require meeting some subject-specific criterion that you approve of and SIGCOV in several IRS sources. There, problem solved. A random third-tier English footballer fails due to only having coverage of transactions/press releases/match recaps, and Irene Heim gets in basically through citations to her dissertation alone; everyone with an article actually deserves it. JoelleJay (talk) 08:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Why do citations to a dissertation count for you as SIGCOV of the dissertation's author? This sounds like special pleading to make it look as though NPROF were somehow an interpretive guide to the GNG, when in reality it is much more a parallel to NAUTHOR. If citations to a dissertation were interpreted as GNG notability for a (scholarly) author, why wouldn't book reviews (typically offering much more depth than a bare citation in scholarship) also contribute to a (non-scholarly) author's notability?

It seems much more plausible to me that we have carved out NPROF, NAUTHOR (which is much more restrictive than NPROF, in general) and so on based on intuitions about what topics deserve coverage in an encyclopaedia, and that pretending that these are all based on SIGCOV- (or SIRS)- type principles is simply a kind of retrospective rationalization at best. Newimpartial (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

NAUTHOR (which is much more restrictive than NPROF, in general)? I've seen NAUTHOR #3 interpreted as meaning an author who has created a notable work is notable. Of course, this is against WP:NOTINHERITED, but it does result in an SNG that is less strict than NPROF. BilledMammal (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

NAUTHOR is not comparable to PROF; they use different criteria. As typically applied, NAUTHOR is GNG-based: it says that in-depth reliable independent sources about the work an author has done (that is, reviews of their books) count as in-depth reliable independent sources about what the author has done, as long as they are spread among multiple books and not merely multiple reviews. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Can someone be highly cited and widely regarded as influential without being discussed substantially? Are there people with thousands of citations for important work widely attributed to them but for whom every single citation is a mere numerical reference, with little more prose description than a passing "due to X"? JoelleJay (talk) 22:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Can a Wikipedia make a meaningful contribution to a discussion by asking vacuous rhetorical questions about oxymoronic scenarios? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

What the fuck, David. This was a sincere question regarding my expectation that influential researchers will have their work described in significant detail somewhere within their citations. I don't see how that deserved such an aggressively uncivil ABF response. JoelleJay (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's actually pretty common to be highly cited and considered influential but not discussed, at least not in widely-available and easily-accessible media. Many full professors at US research universities probably fall into that category. Valereee (talk) 13:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I assume from the indentation that this question is directed at me. NAUTHOR #3, in a plain reading, requires that the work in question be "significant" as well as that it be subject of independent coverage in multiple RS. In fact, each of the NAUTHOR criteria requires that the creator, their work, or their original theories or methods be regarded as "significant" by others, and expects independent sourcing.

By contrast, NPROF 1 can be met simply from citation counts (a kind of "imputed significance"), and NPROF 5, 6 and 8 are met by occupying a specified type of position (akin to "presumed notability"). Any of these criteria can be met without any independent, reliable sources discussing the academic or their work even to a minimal extent - which is rather the point of NPROF. So within a GNG-oriented frame, I regard NPROF to be significantly more permissive than NAUTHOR - which doesn't imply an objection to either guideline. Newimpartial (talk) 16:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

While notability is not broadly inherited, we do acknowledge, like with NAUTHOR that a notable work will likely like to the author being notable. This ultimatel still needs to be shown via significant coverage of the author, but per presumption of notability, we'd allow the notability if the book to work for the author until it can be proven otherwise no significant sourcing if the author exists. --Masem (t) 18:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

1) You missed the (very subtle and obscure) joke. 2) The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases has been cited 6700 times.

There are entire articles dedicated to analyzing Heim's work, with abstracts starting out like "Irene Heim's theory of presupposition—the satisfaction theory—has been highly influential and applied to a number of presuppositional phenomena." "Heim" is literally a keyword in journals alongside "presupposition" and "dynamic semantics". That is SIGCOV under any definition. JoelleJay (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Or... maybe it's not SIGCOV? Having a keyword that matches the subject would indicate importance/significance, but not necessarily coverage. A thousand words about some celebrity's wardrobe is SIGCOV; a passing mention of somethin that has enduring value is not. We sometimes struggle with SIGCOV in the "so popular that nobody goes there any more" (or "so important that no source writes about it any more") situations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I was ambiguous, I was not saying "being a keyword" counted as SIGCOV, but rather that the multiple articles directly describing Heim's ideas and her approaches are clearly SIGCOV, and that being a keyword was further illustrative of her impact. JoelleJay (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Right. Multiple articles (each of which is probably hundreds of words) directly describing any subject would be clearly SIGCOV.

The keyword would also alert you to the possibility of more sources existing than you already know about (since keywords indicate that there are things to be found if you search). WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

My point, if that's what the above comment by JoelleJay is reacting to, was not to question whether Heim meets WP:N requirements. My point was that citation counts are at best an oblique indicator or, as I said above, that NPROF 1 shows imputed, rather than actual significance.

extended content

A scholarly citation can indeed accompany a SIGCOV or even an in-depth discussion of a precious scholar's contribution, but it can also accompany nothing of the kind - in an extreme case, it can be part of a list of in-text citations without drawing specifically on the work cited, or it might accompany a quotation paraphrasing another previous work, which is certainly not SIGCOV of the paraphrasor. In fact, statements that might accompany a citation, include ones (such as summaries or critical commentary) that would also be found in a non-scholarly book review; in the first instance, such statements are evidence of the Notability of the work rather than that of the author (and editors like BilledMammal seem inclined to reverse the plain meaning of NOTINHERITED to deny that authors of notable works are therefore presumed notable - I'm not sure whether they would extend this principle to scholars and scholarly works).

That a single sentence about Irene Heim would be obviously SIGCOV and a single sentence about, say, a footballer's contribution would not - I think that contrast makes clear that the notion of minima for sources to count as significant coverage is being deployed in this discussion to buttress arguments about whether the subject of that sentence is important, or encyclopaedic, but it really isn't a suitable tool for the job. Newimpartial (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

?? Nowhere did I claim a single sentence would be SIGCOV for anyone? Heim has literally tens of thousands of words written about her theories and how she derived them. If we were to apply my suggestion of meeting both a "significance" criterion and a "SIGCOV" criterion to the examples I provided, Heim would meet both because within the 6700 citations to her dissertation there are numerous multi-hundred-word paragraphs unambiguously and directly describing what she has done. Yes, presuming SIGCOV exists among citations is not how NPROF was intended to work and does require "imputation", but I am arguing that such a presumption probably is warranted when the subject has a very large number of citations (and is recognized as the senior author in those highly-cited publications). JoelleJay (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you recognize that what you describe isn't actually the way NPROF works at present. You may believe that the reason NPROF 1 produces appropriate outcomes is because, somewhere among the citations, at least two will discuss the author (and not just particular results they have published) in sufficient depth to meet SIGCOV. However, I haven't seen other editors propose this logic in the past, and it would be rather a departure from the current consensus around NPROF. There are certainly a large number of existing articles that pass NPROF but where no independent RS discuss the bio subject in ways that would pass GNG or NBASIC - which, as I understand it, is one reason NPROF exists. Newimpartial (talk) 18:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Significant coverage describing how a researcher arrived at a conclusion, the influence of their work, and what their results mean is still SIGCOV of the person, just like a critique of someone's performance in a movie is. For Heim we get a range of sources, from those briefly touching on her ideas, such as this article

What we intend by saying that Agree pointers that survive to LF are interpreted as indications of referential dependency is that they are interpreted in much the same way that coindexed DPs are interpreted in standard treatments like Heim and Kratzer (1998) and Büring (2005). We can flesh this out as follows, to give a sense of the kind of interpretation that we have in mind. First, we adopt Heim’s (1998) view that any class of DP can in principle undergo Quantifier Raising (QR) to adjoin to a higher projection (see also Heim and Kratzer 1998:210–211), and indeed that QR of names and other sorts of referential DPs has a role to play in interpreting all kinds of anaphoric relations. Heim’s statement of QR is given in (56). (56) QR: [TP... αi.... ] → [TP α λi [TP... ti... ]] To this, we add our distinctive assumption in (57), which equates co-pointing with coindexing. 28 (57) A head H bearing pointers to two DPs, α and β, is equivalent to α and β bearing the same numerical index. Now Heim (1998) assumes that all indexes must be variables, and hence a DP other than a pronoun or trace that bears an index must get rid of it by undergoing (56), thereby transferring its index to the lambda operator. This assumption, together with our (57), implies that if one of the pointed-to DPs in an SS (or OS) construction, say α, is a full DP, it must undergo QR to a higher position.

to articles entirely about her work, e.g. this article with the abstract

Irene Heim’s 1983 paper, “On the Projection Problem for Presuppositions” is, first, a paper about presupposition projection. But perhaps its major significance lies in its role in launching the dynamic turn in formal semantics, whose central idea is that the conventional meaning of an expression is given by a description of how that expression updates a context. The fundamental ideas of context and context change that Heim presented in this brief paper are now part of the basic toolkit of semantics. At the same time, the paper established presupposition and presupposition projection as a topic of central concern for the emerging dynamic approach. In this commentary, I briefly describe the paper’s most direct antecedents, review its central theoretical innovations, and describe some alternative approaches to the formal characterization of contexts and to the analysis of presupposition and presupposition projection.

The latter is also distinct from an NAUTHOR fiction book review, as it includes far more direct analysis of Heim's actions as opposed to the product of her actions (compare a critique of the plot of a book to a literary analysis of how the author wrote that plot). JoelleJay (talk) 19:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear-I don't disagree with any of this (except that my mental representation of the "average" non-scholarly book review probably includes more coverage of the author herself than does JoelleJay's mental model, but that is neither here nor there). And my point wasn't that people who pass NPROF 1 never receive what the GNG defines as SIGCOV; my point was that they (and those who pass NAUTHOR as well, for that matter, although the latter is a higher bar) aren't required to receive SIGCOV from independent sources to have an article.

In my view, such independent tests are in the best interests of an encyclopaedia - in fact, any reasonably well-defined standards against which a "credible claim to significance" can be tested are good for an encyclopaedia, since they ensure that the encyclopaedia is more encyclopaedic. To be provocative for a second, an encyclopaedia in which I can type in the name of any species, or any female footballer with national team apprarances to her credit, or any author of an independently published (and reviewed) book, and receive at least a redirect is doing a better job of being an encyclopaedia than an encyclopaedia where I cannot do that. And the greater extent to which the category system is populated, at least by categorized redirects but even more so by even stub articles, the better. There is no reason why the species' volunteer-based compendium of verified information could not populate a full set of articles for each of the article types I mentioned above: the idea some editors have that an encyclopaedia is made better by excluding some of the entries that would be required for this, even when they are reliably (and independently) sourced, seems profoundly counterintuitive to me (and potentially out of touch with the role of an encyclopaedia in the digital age). Newimpartial (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Provocative, but I like it. XOR'easter (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I think sometimes we have to stop and remind ourselves that we're talking about classifying the sum of human knowledge here. A certain about of vagueness and subjectivity is unavoidable. Ding ding ding! There's no list of bullet points that can guarantee good outcomes over a domain that broad.

Seriously: take a step back, spend a few weeks not speaking in all-caps shortcuts, and think about questions like "Would I expect to find an article like this when I open an encyclopedia?" Or "What is fundamentally necessary for a generalist encyclopedia built by collaborative effort on a wiki platform?" XOR'easter (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The main effect of this proposal would be to encourage further bombardment of articles with references to every time the subjects have appeared in the news. We get too much of that already. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd encourage users here to check out WP:SIRS. This only applies to Organizations currently, but the idea for evaluating sources for Notability is excellent:

• Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth.
• Be completely independent of the article subject.
• Meet the standard for being a reliable source.
• Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability.

I think that the above standard really should be held for anything "Recent" that can be sourced from the internet. For historical subjects - things that primarily happened or were notable before 2010, and are harder to source online, I prefer exceptions, like for people, we have WP:ANYBIO.

To me - that's the big divider. A social media account should be held to really high standards of notability. So should a college student today. Someone who died before 2010, who doesn't have a ton of in depth coverage online but clearly did things of notice, somehow - that's what we should be carving out exceptions for. Denaar (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

IMO making a criteria for a specific numbers of sources is a bad idea. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

IMO defining SIGCOV in a concrete, objective fashion would be very helpful. We've refused to do it in the past, because even if we set the bar at "Must have 10,000 words written by independent sources and an endorsement by Mother Theresa", we worry that some "unworthy" subject will actually achieve the goal. I can't make Wikipedia cover things that interest me and exclude things that I dislike unless I can claim that 300 words about my subject is "obviously SIGCOV" while 5,000 about your subject is "obviously not SIGCOV". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I think that most cases where GNG got violated at AFD are where it really wasn't in depth coverage. Probably the most prevalent example are counting reviews (e.g. of restaurants) as GNG coverage. Maybe a bit of an expansion on describing in-depth coverage? North8000 (talk) 17:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Every day at sportsperson AfDs we have editors argue that single sentences are SIGCOV. It's a genuine problem. JoelleJay (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I haven't encountered the "one sentence" argument in sportsperson AfDs, but if such an argument is made, I would think it's shot down pretty quickly. Do you have examples of the "one sentence" interpretation receiving support at AfDs? Cbl62 (talk) 14:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

It's a huge problem, and it's not just sportspeople. In every or nearly every deletion discussion in which I've participated (in a variety of topics) there is at least one editor (usually many) who tries to argue that one sentence is significant coverage. In my experience, it is almost never shot down; I've seen many terrible articles saved from deletion solely because of a couple of sources featuring a single sentence about the subject. JMB1980 (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

123

Sure they're usually shot down, but there are also 2-4 editors who will !vote "keep meets GNG" in every AfD regardless of the source quality/coverage, and if it's not well-attended their !votes will result in NC or keep. JoelleJay (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I ran across our article on Rob Enderle years ago and have wondered about it ever since. The middle of which appears to say this person is notable because he is willing to provide soundbites to reporters at all hours. I'm sure its an underappreciated skill, but is "He got quoted in the newspaper" really something to write an article about? (I feel sorry for people who get saddled with articles, but maybe he's happy about it and sees it as a way to promote his business.)

Weirdly, the page history indicates that the article getting shorter and shorter over time. That's the opposite of what usually happens. WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

IMO defining SIGCOV in a concrete, objective fashion would be humanly impossible. XOR'easter (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

How close could you come? For example, can we agree that a single short sentence is never significant coverage (although it might hint at the prospect of finding other sources that are)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

WaId, I kind of feel like even if we get people to agree on that, we'll end up with people arguing it means there's consensus that two short sentences is sigcov. Which is possibly what XOR is referring to as not humanly possible to define. Valereee (talk) 13:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

But if we provide no definition at all, then we'll continue having people say that a single source saying only "Alice Athlete competed in the Olympics" is SIGCOV. WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Yep, we're in a real pickle. Valereee (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Based on what I've seen, "Alice Athlete competed in the Olympics" is considered an in-depth biography and a lower bound for SIGCOV might be "Alice Athlete was born". Heck, even that might be too much. I've seen articles on cricketers where we don't even have a first name, just an initial. RoySmith (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• I'm going to collegially disagree with David Eppstein and say that one source isn't enough. The rule says sources, plural, for good reason. I think there should be at least two sources that are editorially independent from each other, so we have some grounds to think the key points have been fact-checked twice.—S Marshall T/C 20:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

  Most sources, including most high-quality sources, don't get fact-checked at all. But having two sources unrelated to each other would give us two unrelated people/publishing outfits that both thought the information wasn't unreasonable, and was worth their effort to publish.

  I think it might be worth exploring what we mean by "sources are expected". Do we mean "If I did some work, I could find more sources for that subject"? Or do we mean "we expect to find them already cited in the article, preferably with a link to a free online copy"?

  To use the example from @David Eppstein, if someone writes a new article and cites only the Dictionary of National Biography, then you shouldn't think "Oh, only one source is cited, and we all know that editors always cite every possible source in the entire world, so the absence of additional sources means that no other source in the whole world has talked about this subject". You should instead think something closer to "Oh, DNB, yeah, there are definitely going to be other sources available for that subject, because the only way for someone to get into DNB in the first place is for other sources to have written about them". Some of us, however, think it's unreasonable for them to be expected to know anything about the cited sources, or to look for sources themselves. They see their role as pushing other editors to do work that they refuse to do themselves. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  As far as I'm concerned, if a source isn't cited in the article, it's doesn't count for anything. It's bad enough people thing mentioning a source in an AfD but not using it is useful, but it totally drives me nuts when I see arguments like I think it’s a safe bet to say that if someone looked deeply in libraries in the Puget Sound Region they would find additional books at least lightly discussing this topic. They're not even showing sources that they're not going to bother citing, they're just guessing they exist. I mostly stay away from AfD these days because I can't deal with that kind of stuff. RoySmith (talk) 17:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  if a source isn't cited in the article, it's doesn't count for anything This is not how it works. As long as the source has been identified and documented such as on the talk page or at an AFD, it counts as a possible source. They still have to be checked for significant coverage, though, so simply rattling off library catalog hits without checking doesn't help. However, we do not delete articles just because numerous valid sources have been found but not incorporated into the article. Masem (t) 18:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  True, but then it comes to reasonable expectations in sorting it out if one such source is claimed. For example I make a claim that a book has GNG coverage for the subject of my article. If someone wants to determine if that is the case, which of these should happen?:

  1. The questioner has to read the whole book to "prove a negative" that it does not
  2. The claimer helps establish it by citing it, and citing could trigger the responsibility to provide a page number

  Number 1 is unreasonable and could burn out AFD participation. North8000 (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  At some point, there is an AGF aspect when !keep votes, supplying non-online works they claim are sig. coverage, are speaking the truth that these works have sig. coverage. That said, in terms of the AFD process, that does set an unenforceable clock in motion that these sources should be added to the article, in other words, "put up or shut up" on the source claim. Masem (t) 22:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  we do not delete articles just because numerous valid sources have been found but not incorporated into the article More's the pity. Our goal is to provide our readers with information that they can verify. If we don't tell them what sources we used to write the article, they can't do that. RoySmith (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  Absolutely a valid concern and one that WP:V has been discussing for years (eg at what point do you require the inline cite to be present). However, for purposes here, identification of sources with sig. coverage is the baseline to start from. Masem (t) 22:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  If we don't tell them what sources we used to write the article, they can't [verify articles] – @RoySmith, are you starting from the POV that readers are too stupid to use a web search engine, so they can't check whether an article matches sources unless the source is handed to them in the form of a little blue clicky number? WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  That would be an unkind characterization of my statement. RoySmith (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  @RoySmith, I'll agree to it being unkind – and I'll apologize for that – but is it completely unfair? Are you trying to say that verifiability is "other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source", and if the material is uncited, then nobody can possibly check reliable sources (e.g., through a search engine) and figure out whether the material in a Wikipedia article matches what the reliable sources say?

  We need to come to an agreement about whether uncited material is inherently unverifiable. If it is, then we need to re-write a lot of policies and guidelines. If it isn't, then we need to stop saying that if we don't tell them what sources we used to write the article, they can't verify any of the contents. WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  It's true that somebody could do their own research and independently verify all the facts in the article. But then again, they could do their own research from scratch and don't really need us to write the article in the first place.

  It is standard practice in all academic writing to show where you got your information from. That we should do the same seems so self-evident, I'm not sure what else needs to be said. RoySmith (talk) 13:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• The GNG needs to be a simple test. Any reasonable person should be able to look at the sources in an article and say if it meets the GNG; because the point of the rule is to let people write articles while having reasonable confidence that their work won't be deleted at AfD. If we make the GNG complex and nuanced, then people won't feel able to write articles without going through some kind of committee process first; we'll get people starting articles, but then AfDing them before they put much effort in. I think allowing a single-sourced article to pass the GNG is too inclusive -- because we'll get people saying that if the Dictionary of National Biography is OK, then surely Olympedia is OK, right? So I think the rule that there have to be sources, plural, is a good one.—S Marshall T/C 20:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrary break re Minimum Number of Secondary Sources

• This entire discussion is elitist and more concerned with boundary-drawing to improve some authors' sense of self-importance. This is a recurring problem in Wikipedia, from POKEMON onward. This is not the same as a V or NPOV problem, this is a desire to limit topics to those for whom elite, socially acceptable articles--as in, NOT pop culture--can be written. It's a navel-gazing exercise which ignores our mission and arguably drives our editor retention issues: If you want a volunteer-driven encyclopedia, then you can expect some quality standards, but disallow editors from doing what they like, and they're gone. Jclemens (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  Maybe we do have an improper bias against pop culture. But IMO the system recognizes that some vetting and sticking to the concept of being an enclyclopedia adds value. That something with such vetting with 10 million articles is more valuable than something with 10 billion less vetted resumes, business\ listings, fan pages, product pages essays, info pages. North8000 (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  Please stick to the discussion--no one is arguing for resumes, business\ listings, fan pages, product pages essays, info pages. What I am specifically doing is pushing back against the notion, reasonably articulated below, that we can improve quality by erecting barriers for editors who want to work in topics that they prefer, rather than some arbitrary balanced set of encyclopedic topics. We already have a terrible time getting people to edit/improve existing articles; why worsen the problem? Jclemens (talk) 23:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Jclemens: I didn't intend to say that you or anyone was arguing for that. Sometimes extremes can help provide clarity in illustrating a point. And my point was that vetting increases the value. North8000 (talk) 01:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Apology accepted, although I wasn't trying to force one, so much as focus the discussion--all of us here have years of experience discussing these things, and I think we all agree in broad strokes what we don't want in Wikipedia... with the occasional personal preference. No one wants to include those things you mentioned, and if our efforts to push back against more discouragement for new, hobbyist editors comes across as being in favor of any of those things, it shouldn't. But again--thanks. Jclemens (talk) 06:28, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  User:Jclemens is precisely correct. Three examples of the imbalanced approach:

  • If you write an article on a professor of linguistics who specializes in extinct languages of Oceania, and that person has authored (or even co-authored) half a dozen articles in the Journal of Endangered Languages (JofEL), and one or more those articles was then repeatedly cited in other JofEL articles, the subject would likely survive an AfD per WP:NPROF --- even though there is nothing remotely approaching WP:SIGCOV in independent sources discussing the professor in depth (as opposed to simply citing their journal articles).
  • If you write a biography of a member of the Wyoming House of Representatives, e.g., Don Thorson, who briefly represented a constituency of < 10,000 people, their notability would almost certainly be upheld under WP:NPOL. Presumably because legislators, even those representing a tiny constituency in Wyoming, are deemed inherently more important/encyclopedic than pop culture figures and athletes?
  • If you write an article about an athlete who competed at the highest level of competition in their sport (e.g., the National Football League or Major League Baseball), the subjects will almost always have received SIGCOV, but there is no presumption of notability, and, if the article is sent to AfD, you may be met with a panoply of attacks from anti-sports editors arguing that: the coverage is too local (even though it includes regional outlets and major metropolitan newspapers); the coverage is not "academic" (yes, we recently had a "delete" vote in a sport AfD on the grounds that the coverage wasn't "academic"); that the coverage is "routine" (in the view of some, all sports coverage, even feature coverage, is "routine"); the coverage is not "independent" (some argue that major metropolitan dailies aren't independent because it's supposedly the job of the sports page to promote the region's favorite teams); etc.

  I realize that "notability" has a subjective element that varies based on each person's view of what is "encyclopedic", but I do long for the day when we come closer to applying a uniform standard to linguists, legislators, and linebackers. Cbl62 (talk) 23:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  It is incorrect that merely writing six academic journal articles, one of which has citations, would be enough for probable survival at AfD. There is a long history of discussions in which a much higher level of citation, to multiple articles, is required for WP:PROF#C1, the academic criterion you appear to be referring to. So you are starting your argument with a false assumption.

  It is also incorrect that a published biography of Don Thorson would be necessary to provide SIGCOV for him. Politicians who have won even lower-level offices almost always have in-depth coverage of their political views in the newspaper stories about their elections. In practice, NPOL acts as a barrier to entry, by pretending that newspaper election coverage is not significant even when it is.

  It is also incorrect that "an athlete who competed at the highest level of competition in their sport" (walked onto the field once) "will almost always have received SIGCOV". The falsehood of this assertion is the main reason we have stopped letting athletes have automatic notability based only on the league they played in. By now we have many Olympians deleted for lack of SIGCOV, despite having competed at the highest levels in their sports. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  Commenting on your last two points: You say that politicians who win lower level offices always have SIGCOV of their political views, elections, etc. – I'm not so sure about that. I've gone through numerous members of the Delaware House of Representatives (one of the smallest legislatures, actually – I can't imagine what the 400-member New Hampshire House of Representatives is like) from the early 1800s and I don't think I've even found SIGCOV for half of them (in fact, for some I was only able to find a single mention in John Thomas Scharf's History of Delaware where he lists all of the state's past politicians with no further details). As for athletes, the Olympics is somewhat complicated; many have been deleted for failing GNG, but the thing is many of those were 1970s athletes from the Comoros or similar, for which sources are both offline and in a foreign language and the only possible way to find if they were covered would be if you lived in Comoros and spoke their language yourself! Now, when I look at US Olympians (for which I have historical source access for), I am almost always able to find sufficient SIGCOV. And for the NFL, MLB (Cbl62's two examples), it is true that almost everyone ever to step on the field (even once!) is notable – I think the only MLB player deleted was a one-gamer from 1873, and in the NFL nobody post-1930 has ever been deemed non-notable at AFD (besides one 1987 replacement player). BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  Have you searched all of the archives of all of the newspapers from the times of their election and office holding, or merely looked for online coverage? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Normally, I look at Google, then Google Books, then J. M. Runk's Biographical and Genealogical History of the State of Delaware (vol. i and ii), then Henry C. Conrad's History of the State of Delaware and Scharf's History of Delaware: 1609-1888, and then Newspapers.com. I don't think I'm missing anything likely to have coverage of these people. I mean, can you find in-depth coverage of Burton Waples (4th Delaware General Assembly)? BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Can I? No, because I do not have easy access to an archive of local newspapers from that time and place. It sounds like, neither do you. Without that access, you are merely looking under the streetlight, not where the coverage is likely to exist. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Try making an argument like that about a historical sportsperson – I'd bet I'd be AFD topic-banned if I made ten "keep" votes with that rationale. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  BeanieFan11, regarding your point on New Hampshire, I think this discussion from 8 years ago is still valuable, particularly the points from Orangemike, DGG, and Cullen, in my opinion. Curbon7 (talk) 02:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Presumably because legislators, even those representing a tiny constituency in Wyoming, are deemed inherently more important/encyclopedic than pop culture figures and athletes? I would support repealing WP:NPOL as I do think it is far too inclusive - to the point where it could be used to argue that Abbot Alto von Tannstein of Saint Emmeram's Abbey is presumed notable, despite us knowing nothing about him except his name and that he was the Imperial-Abbot of Saint Emmeram's Abbey between 1358 and 1385.

  Given some of the Olympian articles I have seen where we know less about the individual than that I suspect the only reason we don't have an article is because editors care less about 14th century Imperial-Abbots than they do about Olympians.

  Plus, SNG's that presume notability without requiring significant coverage to be found encourage editors to create microstubs; given my research on this topic which suggests that such microstubs are never expanded I think this is a bad idea; we should be encourage editors to at least create articles that contain information beyond what could be fitted into a list such that readers are at least partially satisfied by the information they can gain from it.

  However, I can't work on all SNG's at the same time; my current work on dealing with the aftermath of WP:NSPORTS2022 as well slowly working to build a consensus to up-merge WP:NSPECIES articles to the genus level means that I cannot also work on WP:NPOL. However, if you are willing to do so then I will support you. BilledMammal (talk) 01:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  BilledMammal, regarding your abbot example: do remember that WP:NOPAGE also exists and has been applied in this context (as was the case for the article of a 13th-century English MP a few months ago). If all an article says and can ever say is for example "Billed Mammal was an English MP who represented Yorkshire in 1260", then it would simply be redirected to Yorkshire (UK Parliament constituency) without much fuss. Curbon7 (talk) 02:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  I used to think so, but my experience with Olympians and, to a lesser extent, species have taught me otherwise. BilledMammal (talk) 02:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Curbon7: Could you link the discussion where the English MP was redirected? Thanks. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  BeanieFan11, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John ? (MP for City of York); we don't even know the guy's last name! Curbon7 (talk) 02:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  I think I made some good points here at this mirror discussion, relating to why I think the New Hampshire argument is a strawman (stating in good-faith, not directed at anyone), and why I see NPOL as significant in countering Wikipedia's systemic racism issue. Additionally, disproving the presumption of significant coverage in the case of western politicians is quite simply as easy as "I checked but could not find enough coverage", which would thus invoke WP:NOPAGE for options, like redirection. Curbon7 (talk) 06:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

• @David Eppstein: Thank you for your reply. I respond briefly.

• My point about the linguist wasn't about how many academic citations are required to satisfy the numerical threshhold of WP:PROF#C1. Whether the requirement is 6 or 26 or 46 is not the essence of my point. The point is that most biographic subjects require SIGCOV about the person in reliable, independent sources. Academics are exempted from that requirement -- presumably because of a subjective value judgment that they are more encyclopedic than others.
• As for the legislator, take a look at politician AfDs. They are often kept as compliant with WP:NPOL without any discussion or showing of SIGCOV in multiple, reliable, independent sources.
• As for the linebacker, I'm not concerned with the one-game player or the Olympian microstub sourced only to a database, but with athletes who have had real careers. I've followed athlete AfDs for more than a decade and vote delete more often than keep BTW, e.g. Averell Spicer (deleted despite SIGCOV where there just wasn't enough on-field notability). All that said, there's no denying that athletes are being held to a higher standard of SIGCOV than academics or legislators. Cbl62 (talk) 00:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• For niche topics that are at the edges of these notability questions, there is generally a lack of volunteer efforts. EG: We need projects like Women in Red to help draw editors to improve articles on notable women in history. I'm not saying there aren't those that have dived into this deep end voluntarily to expand (I can think of one editor trying their best expand topics related to African-Americans in the late 19th/early 20th century) but we tend to draw editors that want to edit in "popular" spaces, and so notability is tuned to avoid WP from becoming Fandom wikis. Masem (t) 22:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  I agree, and argue that we need to get and keep a large pool of editors from which we can convert some into working on weightier things. I know that's how I was converted into Wikipedia, and yet my proudest achievements here are things I've done to improve holocaust fiction, or User:Jclemens/GA#WP:Vital Articles reviewed. Without my first stupid edit [1] to Major-General's Song Wikipedia would never have gotten either from me. Jclemens (talk) 23:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  There is no "subjective value judgment that they [academics] are more encyclopedic than others". They are merely held to a different standard. The standard is actually significantly higher than the one we have historically used for athletes; we do not count an academic as notable merely because they once taught a class at Harvard, but only for a sustained and recognized record of scholarly contributions. And your emphasis on only "SIGCOV about the person" and not about what the person has actually done is spectacularly obtuse. We should have coverage about what the person has done, for all topics where the person is expected to have done something to become notable. That excludes maybe celebrities and nobility, but not many other people. For athletes, we should have coverage about their athletic performances. For politicians, we should have coverage about their offices and accomplishments in those offices. For novelists, we should have coverage about their novels. Coverage about their romantic partners or peccadillos or real estate purchases or whatever else is and should be incidental, not the main basis for their notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

spectacularly obtuse You're better than that comment, David. Yes, we do and should under WP:GNG expect "SIGCOV about the person" if the article in question is a biography. An academic's major contributions and areas of study are exactly that. If there is significant coverage about the person discussing their contributions to their field of study, of course that counts as "SIGCOV about the person." Unfortunately, NPROF does not require that -- it grants notability based on mere citation metrics and other criteria such as holding a "named chair" at a major institution of higher education. Do you know how many "named chairs" there are? A "named chair" used to be a mark of true preeminence, but today universities churn out such named/endowed chairs in prodigious quantities. For example, there are over 200 at UCSD alone. See here. And even more at UCLA. See here. USC has so many it takes five web pages to list them all. See here. Cbl62 (talk) 02:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree that the notability system has lots of problems, and it's hard to fix them because we don't even have a definition of wp:notability or it's objectives. My approach is to try to observe how that big fuzzy wp:notability ecosystem on average works and try to derive those definitions from that. My attempt of this is at Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works . My opinion is that it weighs three factors: 1. Availability of suitable sourcing to write an article from. 2. degree of real world notability/importance / impact, with recognition be sources being a metric for this 3. Degree of enclyclopic-ness (per the metrics in wp:not). So sourcing comes into play twice, under both #1 and #2. It doesn't need to meet all three (it's more like 2 out of 3) but all three have an influence. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• An academic who has only been published and cited in one journal is never going to meet NPROF, and the number of citations is supposed to be analyzed in relation to the average of the broader field, with the threshold in many research disciplines being multiple thousands.

  Further, in my experience academics that solidly meet C1 do receive IRS SIGCOV (and @Cbl62, you personally know how high a standard I have for SIGCOV of sportspeople, so believe me when I tell you that my approach to assessing citation profiles of academics is even more rigorous and exhaustive than the research I do into sportsperson sourcing, especially on the few occasions I !vote to keep an academic). Lengthy, in-depth, secondary discussion of a person's contribution to a field by people unaffiliated with them is SIGCOV of the person even if it doesn't contain broad or "biographical" information. The more citations an academic has, the more likely it is for their scholarly activity to have been the subject of far more substantive coverage than six sentences in a local newspaper announcing a transaction. For many distinguished professors, this will amount to hundreds of instances of such coverage published in far higher quality sources than newspapers. JoelleJay (talk) 01:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

If all academics who satisfy C1 (including those who do so based on "citation metrics") "do receive IRC SIGCOV", then why do we need the SNG at all? Why not simply require a showing of such SIGCOV as we do with other biography articles? Or at a minimum, change it so that it operates simply as guidance like other SNGs? Also, did you see my comment above about named chairs? This and some of the other prongs of NPROF seem very dubious. Do the hundreds of named/endowed chair holders at UCSD, UCLA, and USC all satisfy GNG? Such shortcuts seem totally out of step with current SNG trends. Cbl62 (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The answer to a question like "if [false premise] then why [unrelated consequence]" is vacuous truth. I don't think it is true that all academics who satisfy C1 do receive IRC SIGCOV, at least not if you throw away all sources connected with the universities those academics worked for or studied at, or commendations for prizes given to them, as being non-independent or primary, as GNG-followers are likely to do. After you throw away all of the publishers of sources with the interest and knowledge in the subject to write about them, who is left?

To pick a random example, I think Daniel Abadi passes multiple WP:PROF criteria, including #C1, #C3, and #C5. With a named chair at a good university, a major society fellowship, and many works with four-digit citation counts, he's easily in the top ranks of academic computer scientists. But he isn't famous, or a superstar (neither are most politicians, athletes, or other subjects of our biographies), and he also appears not to be a publicity hound. I wasn't able to find reliable independent in-depth sourcing about him in a quick search. So this is an example of the sort of person who you would be throwing out of our coverage if we switched to SNG: a leading scholar at a major research university, recognized by significant accolades both by his employer and by his professional society, with literally tens of thousands of published reliable independent sources citing his work.

Maybe you could troll through the 24821 papers citing his that Google Scholar claims to list, and among them find some smaller number that constitute significant coverage of his work. Or you could roll your eyes as another AfD participant cites those 24821 citations as SIGCOV without doing the work of finding the in-depth ones. Or you could accept that different subjects demand different standards and that WP:PROF has a significance-based standard that has been working smoothly for years. Or you could argue that it's out of step with trends (as if somehow that's a bad thing) and we should just list people when they are covered by trendy 30 in 30 lists, because that's SIGCOV and having tens of thousands of citations isn't. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Properly-calibrated "significance-based standards", operating as an alternative path to notability, may well be a truer measure of actual notability, but ...

(1) NPROF appears to have some serious calibration issues. The "Average Professor Test" used in NPROF appears to say that a researcher is notable if his citation metric is simply better than the average researcher in their field of study. "Better than average" is a low bar. The "named chair" criterion is another low bar, given the proliferation of named/endowed chairs at many major universities (see links above regarding USC, UCLA, and UCSD).

(2) NPROF is currently the only SNG that provides a significance-based path to notability as an alternative to GNG. Other groups could also benefit from having an alternative path. Cbl62 (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

NPROF was written before WP:N, and came about because of the fact that compared to nearly every other professions, academics are not typically written about in reliable sources; even in academic sources, authors do not write about other academics unless they are huge figures in the field (eg Einstein). NPROF was thus established that academics are generally more notable for the results of their research rather than their personal lives or other facets.

It makes no sense to apply this to other fields where there is far more coverage of people as people and not the topics they are associated with. For example, NCREATIVE does say that you can start with critically-notable works to presume the creator is notable, but in such fields, it is learned knowledge that these conditions will lead to significant coverage of the person themselves. Masem (t) 14:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether anyone has said or believes the contrary of this, but just for clarity: like NPROF, NAUTHOR/CREATIVE also offers a clearly-defined significance-based path to notability. The wording of ANYBIO is a bit less clear, and the language of NACTOR is slightly weaker (but still a fairly strong presumption).

These contrast, by the way, with the current version of SPORTSPERSON, which offers a weaker presumption; this situation reflects the current state of community discussions in the one area (other than geostubs) where the inclusionist-exclusionist axis still seems to have play. (Some editors participating in NSPORTS-related discussions seem to carry a fairly strong view, perhaps ultimately based in a vestigial Mind-body dualism, that the activities for which sportspeople are discussed and documented are of less encyclopaedic interest than the activities for which other people are discussed and documented. On the other hand, the mass-creation of sports articles from database materials is another factor, since the community has had an easier time raising notability standards in areas prone to bot-like stub creation than it has in preventing or rolling back the activity of bot-like stub creation itself.) Newimpartial (talk) 18:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

C1 already requires the sources to be independent, so we wouldn't be considering stuff from the subject's university/colleagues/awarding orgs anyway. I'm also not only considering C1a (citation metrics): other criteria, like C1b & c, strongly imply SIGCOV. Also, when someone "passes" my Scopus analysis script, I spot-check some of the citations looking for substantive coverage by non/infrequently-collaborating coauthors, which is what leads me to believe coverage of C1 researchers does exist that would at least meet BASIC. I'm not going to cross-reference citations with Abadi's coauthors, so some of these citations might be non-independent, but with a quick search I found:

[2]

Seminal work by Abadi et al. [2] proposes a rule-based encoding selection approach that relies on the global knowledge of the dataset (e.g., is the dataset sorted) to derive a decision tree for the selection. [...] Unfortunately, these approaches all have significant limitations. Abadi’s rule-based algorithm achieves a sub-optimal compression ratio and requires multiple passes on the original dataset, which becomes prohibitively expensive when dataset size increases. [...] Abadi et al. [2] propose an encoding selection method based on a hand-crafted decision tree. They use features that are similar to what we employ in this paper, including cardinality and sortedness (although binary), and empirically setup selection rules. We refer to this decision tree approach as Abadi in experiments. [...]
Case 1: Abadi Tree for High Cardinality Abadi’s approach has the following selection path: if the number of distinct values is greater than 50000, use either LZ compression or no compression based on whether the data exhibits good locality. However, we observe that when the number of distinct values is greater than 50000, there are still over 12% of attributes for which bit-packed encoding achieves better compression than LZ. For these cases, merely removing leading zeros result in better space savings than removing repeating values. Case 2: Abadi Tree for Run-Length Another selection path in Abadi’s approach is that when average run-length is greater than 4, it uses run-length encoding. However, we found that there are over 23% of columns having an average run-length greater than 4, where dictionary encoding performs best. This difference can be a factor of encoded key size compared with the value size, local dictionaries that leverage partially sorted datasets to provide small keys, and bit-packing or run-length dictionary hybrids.

[3]

Abadi et al. [1] integrate several compression techniques into the column-oriented DBMS C-Store. Their aim is to improve the query performance by compressing every column appropriately. From their experiments, they manually derive a decision tree, which is based on certain data characteristics and on the access patterns of a column. However, they consider only a small number of compression schemes. We intend to consider a high number of techniques and automatically create a cost model.

And several briefer mentions here: [4][5][6] JoelleJay (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, but if you're counting such things as SIGCOV then an enormously larger number of academics would be notable, many more than the ones who are currently considered to pass WP:PROF. In that sense, I've seen (and sometimes made) arguments that PROF is much more restrictive than GNG, because even when we have multiple sources of this nature we will often argue that they're far from demonstrating a pass of PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I suppose I should clarify that my standards for SIGCOV are much higher than what is found in any one snippet above, and I would expect far more of the example citations to demonstrate BASIC. I'm just saying that direct coverage of researchers does exist and based on my spotchecks I would expect a much more exhaustive look through all the citations to reveal enough for a comprehensive overview. JoelleJay (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Those examples are direct coverage of the research of the researcher, not the researcher themselves, which I explained above is typical of what you will find in academic writings. Direct coverage of the researcher as a human being is rare, which is why NPROF allows coverage of the research of the researcher to qualify for notability. Masem (t) 02:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

OK, but doesn't WP:ROUTINE apply to those kind of mentions? I don't see how they go any distance to establish GNG notability, nor are many of them even usable in a biographical article. In general, brief acknowledgements or criticisms of the work of predecessors in a scholarly field strike me as the most ROUTINE of all possible RS coverage.

And in many of these cases "X et al." doesn't refer to a person at all - it really stands in for the published article (a description of a procedure) and not *(in spite of the grammar) to the people preforming the procedure. Those passages don't read to me as anything that would be considered WP:SIGCOV of a person in any other context - it is the text or the procedure that is being discussed, and that text or procedure is seldom the topic of the article. Newimpartial (talk) 19:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely ROUTINE applies, which is why the coverage of the person's research needs to be much more comprehensive, lengthy, and numerous than what (many editors) would consider SIGCOV if the source was more traditionally biographical in nature. And yes, in most cases "X et al." would not be considered coverage of X's innovations, and this will be especially true for papers with alphabetical authorship; however in this case I read through quite a few articles that further supported that Abadi is widely considered the primary creator of the method. Determining who is being covered and to what extent requires a lot more effort and nuanced understanding of the material for academic citations than for traditional media. Searching the topics of papers Abadi was sole author on returns passages that are indisputably descriptions of his research alone: [7][8]

more coverage referring exclusively to Abadi

[9] In order to overcome the shortcomings in the attribute table, Professor Abadi proposed a vertical segmentation method which is very powerful [5]. This method will be classified according to the attribute tuples, independent tuples in a table for the N attribute, each table includes the two attributes of the subject and object, then the establishment of the table is stored in the column based on the C-Store database, and through the combination of pre-existing paths, the query operation connection between tuples are optimized to improve the efficiency of RDF data query. This method has many advantages: 1)It supports multiple values. 2)It supports heterogeneous data. 3)It does not need to design complex clustering algorithms. [10] Abadi [3] states as well that the CAP theorem was misunderstood. CAP tradeoffs should be considered under network failures. In particular, the Consistency-Availability tradeoff in CAP is for when partitions appear. The theorem property P implies that a system is partitiontolerant and more importantly, is enduring a partition. Therefore, and since partitions are rare, designers should consider other tradeoffs that are, arguably, more important. A tradeoff that is more influential, is the latency-consistency tradeoff. Insuring strong consistency in distributed systems requires a synchronized replication process where replicas belong to remote nodes that communicate through a network connection. Subsequently, reads and updates may be costly in terms of latency. This tradeoff is CAP-Independent and exists permanently. Moreover, Abadi makes a connection between latency (response time of an operation) and availability. When latency is higher than a specific timeout the system becomes unavailable. Similarly, the system is available if the latency is smaller than this timeout. However, the system can be available and exhibit high latency nonetheless. For these reasons, system designers should consider this additional tradeoff along with CAP. Abadi proposes to unify the two in a unified formulation called PACELC where PAC refers to the A (availability) and C (consistency) tradeoff if a partition P exists, and ELC refers to else: (E), in the absence of partitions, the latency L and consistency C tradeoff should be considered. Abadi (2012) adds latency as a property that is commonly (and should be) considered in tradeoffs with the other properties. He attempts to counter a common misunderstanding of the CAP as a very rigid tradeoff. “In reality, CAP only posits limitations in the face of certain types of failures, and does not constrain any system capabilities during normal operation.” As network partitions are rare, he proposes a tradeoff framework that takes into account the common tradeoff between consistency and latency [1]. When replicating data, “there are only three alternatives for implementing data replication: the system sends data updates to all replicas at the same time, to an agreed-upon master node first, or to a single (arbitrary) node first.” The first option can be considered as providing low latency but low consistency, whereas the others provide higher consistency within the system, but at the cost of higher latency for update propagation [1]. Abadi proposes a new theorem, PACELC, in which system designers must make the following tradeoff: given a partition, tradeoff between availability and consistency; else tradeoff between latency and consistency. That is, in the rare case of a partition, a decision between availability and consistency must be made (as noted in the CAP theorem); but even in the case of no partition, a valid tradeoff between latency and consistency may likewise be made. In other words, Abadi notes that latency should be considered an important parameter when making tradeoffs in distributed database systems [1].

JoelleJay (talk) 01:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Because it would be insane to expect people to go through tens of thousands of generally pay-walled journal articles/books looking for the ones where the subject's research is discussed significantly. JoelleJay (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I find it funny how you're arguing this, whereas if I made that argument (coverage is paywalled, offline, extremely difficult to find) on sportspeople who were among the best of their era and won Olympic medals for Lithuania in the 1920s users would probably be calling for me to be topic-banned for "ignoring consensus." BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The main issue isn't that they are paywalled or offline, it's that there are often tens of thousands of them to check. And there's a huge difference between coverage you presume exists somewhere and coverage that has been identified as definitely existing and definitely on that individual. JoelleJay (talk) 20:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

And there's also often hundreds of mentions of NFL players on Newspapers.com, but if I said keep because I can't go through them all I'd get chastised. Not to mention I've seen plenty of times when we've verified athletes have been covered in a book, but then you (or BilledMamml, etc.) have said that "delete because although we know they we're covered, we don't have evidence that its in-depth coverage..." BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

And how are you certain of these tens of thousands of articles existing on these professors? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Citation databases...

Hundreds is far more manageable than thousands. We dismiss unverified claims of athlete coverage in offline books because in the cases of the deprecated SSGs the community has explicitly rejected any presumption of SIGCOV, and in other cases we don't have a single verified piece of IRS SIGCOV to meet SPORTSBASIC 5 so we cannot use meeting an extant SSG to presume further coverage exists. We also often can't tell from newspaper hits which sources are primary or non-independent, so there is far less of a guarantee that any particular source is usable, whereas with citations we know that virtually any coverage of the subject's work will be secondary, and we can see from author lists whether it's independent.

Anyway, I'm not saying that SIGCOV in citations is actually how NPROF works or should work, I'm saying that despite it being a GNG-independent SNG several criteria also happen to correspond well with SIGCOV so it COULD function as a GNG predictor. JoelleJay (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree that the notability system has lots of problems, and it's hard to fix them because we don't even have a definition of wp:notability or it's objectives. My approach is to try to observe how that big fuzzy wp:notability ecosystem on average works and try to derive those definitions from that. My attempt of this is at Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works . My opinion is that it weighs three factors: 1. Availability of suitable sourcing to write an article from. 2. degree of real world notability/importance / impact, with recognition be sources being a metric for this 3. Degree of enclyclopic-ness (per the metrics in wp:not). So sourcing comes into play twice, under both #1 and #2. It doesn't need to meet all three (it's more like 2 out of 3) but all three have an influence. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Underlying this whole discussion is the assumption that coverage only counts if it is freely available online. There are many subjects for which sources undoubtedly exist, but that very many editors dismiss because they can't find them with a five-second Google search. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

And the usefulness of a Google search diminishes by the day.... XOR'easter (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@XOR'easter - Yep. A lot of sites and information can no longer be found through Google or Bing searches anymore.KatoKungLee (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

This doesn't seem a useful distinction. If there are offline sources that are used in the article, then the sources are already there. If the sources are not used and are the only sources (which is when this situation would emerge), then no sourced text can be written. CMD (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

And particularly for BLPs, sourcing is not optional. Masem (t) 04:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger - Sadly, offline sources are also often useless. I've been involved in an AfD or two where a book was listed as a reference, but no one in the discussion had the book. So, that source was discarded. Not only do you need to have the book, you have to make it available for others and you need to be on the site regularly for the rest of your life in case someone decides to AfD it. It's nonsense.KatoKungLee (talk) 15:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The well is beyond poisoned at this point. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:41, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

A case that well illustrates that quantity of sources is far less important that quality is currently at deletion review. The argument has been made that a subject must be notable because there are 20 sources in the article. This proposal would simply lead to more such arguments being made. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

There's another one currently listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators where an argument has been made that a subject must be notable (under GNG) because there are 49 sources, despite earlier analysis showing that most of those sources are non-independent or non-in-depth. It's sadly common. Even sadder the closers often buy these arguments are use them as the basis for a no-consensus close. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I've seen multiple AfDs where the response is to add literally dozens of mentions. We need to figure out whether 80 bare mentions equates to two or three instances of sigcov, because that's an argument I'm seeing. Valereee (talk) 04:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

No, a certain number of trivial mentions should not add up to significant coverage; that would only encourage the use of low-quality sources and, consequently, to create/keep low-quality articles. Any truly notable subject should have at least a few legitimate examples of significant coverage. JMB1980 (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that when somebody introduces new sources during a deletion discussion, almost nobody actually checks these sources. I've seen many low-quality articles saved from deletion based solely on somebody finding trivial mentions and/or primary/non-independent sources, then claiming notability has been established. JMB1980 (talk) 18:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm seeing multiple afd reviews that are "there are a lot of sources" - but they have one that isn't independent that is in-depth coverage, one that is reliable that is trivial coverage, and sources that don't reference the subject at all... It seems "lots of citations" is the default a lot of editors are already running around with. Denaar (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. Ghits FTW. Sigh. RoySmith (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

North8000 describes, correctly, that Wikipedia is a bug fuzzy ecosystem. I think, in general, this description work across the many topics and participants across this project. I see debates about notability standards largely around the most difficult cases, but even as clearer standards may eliminate some discussions at AfD, new cases will crop up (especially if there is a push for quantity of sources over the quality of the source).

In many ways, we define what can be included in this project in relation to what is excluded ("if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics"). While a topic must be "worthy of notice", we chose a standard for separate, stand-alone pages that elevates coverage over (fame, importance, or popularity). The trade-off is that someone regularly winning the Springfield Apple Pie contest and receiving coverage for that (or someone who does one thing one time and receives widespread coverage), is more likely to pass our notability test than someone at the top ranks of their profession (or someone who news outlets might seek out for commentary about events in the news). I don't have an answer to these questions, but I am hesitant to change how our ecosystem works. --Enos733 (talk) 18:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

• This should be closed as silly. The presumtion by OP that anything mentioned twice in published sources technically meets notability guidelines is simply wrong. Anybody who's hung out at AfD knows that. GMG^talk 19:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Just an aside but the OP was indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts, in part at AFDs, and a bias in seeking deletion for article subjects that had a connection to autism or Aspergers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
• I'm rather surprised that this is still open, especially given the comment immediately above by Liz, but as it is I would point to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eddie Pence for more evidence that emphasising quantity of sources is bad. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTDIRECTORY has an RFC

WP:NOTDIRECTORY has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Do subject-specific notability guidelines trump the general guideline?

The journal Physics Essays used to be listed in the Scopus database, which, according to Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals), implies the journal was "considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area" and therefore should be presumed to have been notable and – since once notable means always notable – thereby merits a standalone article. However, no reliable sources can be found that discuss the journal directly in any detail, not even to mention that it was delisted from all major citation databases, or that it started to publish crackpot articles, so there is no encyclopedic content to base an article on. The formulation in the lead paragraph of the guideline [my emphasis by underlining] that "[a] topic is presumed to merit an article if: 1. It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right, ..." has been interpreted as implying that meeting the SNG for academic journals trumps failing the GNG, so that the result of a deletion discussion was keep. Is that interpretation of the formulation quoted above intended? If not, it should IMO be reformulated, to make clear that the SNGs do not override the GNG. (In general, the subject-specific guidelines assess the importance of the topic, but do not address the availability of significant coverage.)  --Lambiam 09:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

You can interpret your question in a few ways. Do SNGs trump the GNG according to written policy? Yes, as you've quoted, right now they're clearly described as alternatives to each other. Do SNGs trump the GNG in predicting what will survive an AfD? Mostly yes, I'd say. If something clearly passes a well-established SNG (BIO, PROF, NFILM, etc.), usually nobody will even bother to assess the level of coverage. However there can be exceptions with SNGs that are in disrepute (like NFOOTY was for a while) or due to particularly bloody-minded participants. Do SNGs trump the GNG in the abstract theorycrafting beloved of this talk page? I'm sure we're about to hear 30,000 words for and against...

On that specific article/AfD, I'd bear in mind that notability does not guarantee a standalone page. – Joe (talk) 11:33, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

As a general rule, don't create articles unless you can demonstrate they comply with GNG. They might survive an AfD now, but that is no guarantee that they will survive one in a year - just look at what happened with WP:NSPORT. BilledMammal (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Just say that you want to push editors off Wikipedia. I mean, that's how you sound. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 15:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@LilianaUwU: Can we please keep this discussion civil? BilledMammal (talk) 17:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree with the last two responses. Now to note a few fine points. "GNG" is used to refer to two different things. One is the entire WP:Notability page which I think most would agree is authoritative. The other is the sourcing-GNG which constitutes the lower ~2/3 of that page. The beginning of the wp:notability page is what gives SNG's their status as a (at least temporary) "way in" without having to establish sourcing-GNG compliance. Next, regarding your "therefore should be presumed to have been notable and – since once notable means always notable" is a bit vague, and conflates actually notability with "determined to be wp:notable at a particular time". By most readings, that statement is incorrect. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

We had a major RFC about two years ago that we cannot absolutely defined the roles that the SNG can override the GNG or vice versa or other ways because of the ways some of the SNGs are written.

However, key is the word "presumed". Notability (which at the core is about significant coverage from independent sourcing) can always be challenged, and while the GNG or SNGs can be used to establish an article in main space to encourage wiki building, if no significant amount of coverage can be found, deletion may be possible. Masem (t) 13:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:N and WP:GNG really should be split into two pages. WP:N refers to the broad concept. WP:GNG refers to one way to demonstrate a topic satisfies WP:N. Having them be a single page just leads to endless confusion. RoySmith (talk) 13:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

GNG applies generally as a principle of notability. It makes no sense to split that, only make it clear that GNG is not, at its core, the whole of notability. Masem (t) 13:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

And what better way to make that clear than to make it its own page? RoySmith (talk) 13:51, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

It is far better in overall comprehension to have them together. To separate them just to drive home the point that the GNG is not the same as WP:N would require a lot of duplication of text between the two pages and that's just a mess. Masem (t) 14:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I like the idea of underscoring the separation, but if explicit text in the intro of WP:N isn't enough, would splitting the pages be? XOR'easter (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• We need to get away from the idea that there is conflict between the SNGs and the GNG. They should work in harmony. If that means tweaking the guidelines, then let’s tweak. The SNGs should not be seen as alternatives to GNG, but support for GNG. The fact is, GNG is highly likely to be met if an SNG is met. Is this always the case? No… but it is so often true that we should give SNG compliant articles the “benefit of the doubt”, and only challenge if a very thorough search can not find sources to support the article. Blueboar (talk) 17:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  I would just point out that this view of the preferred relationship between GNG and SNGs has been presented in many discussions, on this page and elsewhere, and has never met with affirmative consensus. I believe the main reasons for this are the following:

  • the community finds that in some cases, like corporations/organizations, films and numbers, the bar set by the GNG is too low;
  • the community finds that imposing the GNG minima on other kinds of articles, like academics, authors and inhabited places, can prevent the creation of articles that an encyclopaedia ought to have;
  • the amount of work that would be required in making the GNG flexible enough to reproduce the desirable outcomes of valued SNGs by treating SNGs as "interpretive" in all cases (and not sometimes as alternative or restrictive) would be prohibitive in the context of a collaborative project run by volunteers.

  The weight to be assigned to these three reasons, relative to each other and relative to the advantages of a universal standard, I leave to the judgement of each individual observer. :) Newimpartial (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Also, historically, SNGs came first, and the GNG was formulated to express themes that were common across them. The page Wikipedia:Notability (academics) first saw text added on 26 January 2006 [11], though the current numbering was not largely established until 20 August 2008 [12]. The "general notability guideline" term was coined in the summer of 2007 [13]. Before that, it was the "Primary Notability Criterion" [14], which opened by appealing to One notability criterion that nearly all of the [subject-specific] guidelines share. XOR'easter (talk) 20:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Badly-posed question based on a misunderstanding. Actual SNGs state clearly their relation to GNG. Some of them (like the athletic ones) give a supposition of notability that must be confirmed by referring to GNG. Some of them (like the ones for businesses) strengthen GNG by stating that only certain kinds of sources count towards notability. At least one of them (the one for professors) stands independently from GNG and provides an alternative track to notability (which I don't think is the same thing as overriding GNG; it still allows its topics to be notable through the GNG instead). But the question here seems to be triggered by Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals), which is not actually a notability guideline at all; it is an essay. It has been invoked in AfDs, but really it should be interpreted as providing a commentary on how GNG might be interpreted as applying to its topics, rather than providing a presumption of notability, modification to GNG, or alternative path, as actual SNGs do. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:33, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
• I'll agree with the above comment and call this an ill-posed question. First, the relation between the various subject-specific notability guidelines and the general guideline is a complex and many-splendored thing. For my own part, I don't think that any set of a few bullet points can give a definitive system for deciding what deserves an article — not when the scope of your encyclopedia is every area of human knowledge. General advice exists to be overridden when more specific expertise is available, say I. Second, Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) doesn't have a sufficient force of consensus to be called a "guideline", in the Wikipedia jargon sense of that word. XOR'easter (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
• GNG is so frequently abused as a means to get rid of WP:IDONTLIKEIT content that we should keep the SNGs and scrap GNG. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
• Regarding your example at least, Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) is not a notability guideline, so GNG trumps that (and the AfD was closed incorrectly). Avilich (talk) 21:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  I was not aware of the fact that WP:NJOURNALS is not an SNG, and neither were – apparently – the discussants in the AfD discussion (in which I did not participate) including the proposer, and neither, it seems, was the closing admin, who otherwise should have discounted the Keep !votes based on the mistaken belief that WP:NJOURNALS is one of the SNGs. The misconception is promoted by the name of the essay, which mimics those of the subject-specific guidelines.  --Lambiam 20:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Avilich@Lambiam@BilledMammal Apparently if enough editors believe NJOURNALS is a real guideline, or if enough editors insist that NJOURNALS somehow equates to GNG (because being indexed is SIGCOV iff the index is somewhat selective, duh), or if enough editors assert that being invoked many times at AfD elevates something to de facto guideline status regardless of being formally rejected as a guideline and going directly against NPOV and NOT, then it doesn't matter at all what CONLEVEL or WP:N or WP:FRINGE says. PE was kept at AfD a second time despite the only new sources added being passing mentions... JoelleJay (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  In the past when a new concept for an SNG has been introduced (and presumably tuned by those editors interested in that topic area) the SNG is still passed to a community-wide RFC to make sure it is consistent with the broader goals of notability. We don't want a part of the WP community to create a walled garden around their topic area (eg like the MMA did a handful of years ago) Masem (t) 00:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  Considering that, I suggest we open an RfC on turning NJOURNALS into a guideline. If it succeeds, then the community has established a consensus on the question and whether we disagree with that consensus is irrelevant; if it fails, we slap a "failed proposal" on it and that should be sufficient to demonstrate that it should not be used at AfD. BilledMammal (talk) 05:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  Such a blatantly bad-faith effort to label something as a proposal with the purpose of failing it would be, among other things, a violation of WP:POINT. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  It's an attempt to determine if the community supports its use as an SNG. If it does, then we can continue citing it at AfD. If it does not, then we cannot. It's as simple as that, and the best way of determining whether the community supports its use as an SNG is to propose it is made one.

  There is nothing WP:POINTy about it. BilledMammal (talk) 06:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  It is not. That is a blatant misrepresentation. It is a continuation of your attempt to silence editors from using an essay in AfDs, as essays are used in AfDs, to express an opinion with which you disagree. (Imagine! editors using essays as a shorthand for their opinions! Opinions different from yours! Quelle horreur!) You failed in your attempt to prevent use of this essay by marking it as historical (counterfactually, when it is clearly in current use) and now you are trying again with a more backdoor path.

  If you do try making this as a proposal, I intend to say exactly this, again, there.

  An actual good faith proposal for an SNG would involve a significant amount of work workshopping the proposal, building consensus both for the need for an SNG and for specific criteria, not just taking what we have and putting it up as a strawman. Your hostility to the very concept of this being taken as an SNG argues that you are not a good choice for a leader in building consensus that an SNG is needed. The multiple positions on display in these discussions makes it clear that consensus on what criteria would be appropriate is likely to be very elusive. And your extreme positions make it unlikely that you could play a unifying role in building the necessary consensus. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  You failed in your attempt to prevent use of this essay by marking it as historical I think you have me confused with someone else

  As for the rest, if you believe we need an SNG here then I encourage you to shepherd it. I’m not going to open an RFC on an SNG when actual supporters of the proposal are willing to do so, but if they are not, perhaps because they expect it to be rejected, then I may very well do so.

  After all, if it was a guideline I could propose that its status be removed in order to ascertain whether it still enjoys the support of the community. This essay, while not technically a guideline, is used as one, and it makes no sense for this technicality to prevent us from considering whether the community accepts or rejects this use.

  I also note that it was proposed and rejected as a guideline in the past. Considering that, I am not sure why it is being used as it is currently. BilledMammal (talk) 07:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  You're correct, the instigator of the failed attempt to mark NJOURNALS as historical was jps/ජපස, not you. My apologies for being unable to distinguish the two of you.

  As for "I am not sure why it is being used as it is currently": Because it is a convenient summary of some editors' opinions on what should count as adequate sourcing for an article about an academic journal. Duh.

  (Not actually my opinion, though, as you can see from my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physics Essays (2nd nomination).) —David Eppstein (talk) 07:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  Because it is a convenient summary of some editors' opinions on what should count as adequate sourcing for an article about an academic journal. Duh. Which is why we need to determine whether this position enjoys community support. This requirement diverges from GNG, and if we are to keep articles on the basis of it then it must have broader community support than its status as an essay would suggest. BilledMammal (talk) 07:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  In re: It's an attempt to determine if the community supports its use as an SNG. If it does, then we can continue citing it at AfD. If it does not, then we cannot. Something doesn't have to be an SNG to be cited at AfD (or in any other kind of discussion). WP:TNT is plainly marked as an essay, and it's been cited many times. The Wikipedia is not for things made up one day essay gets plenty of use, too, as does the Heymann Standard. Pointing to an essay is just a way of saying, "These words express my opinion as well as typing a whole bunch of them myself would". If the people in an AfD argued from scratch that being included in a selective index of journals was significant coverage from a reliable, independent source, and that ended up being the consensus, then the debate would end up in the same place without the essay at all. XOR'easter (talk) 17:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  WP:N explicitly states notability essays do not establish new notability norms and should not be mistaken for or treated as actual guidelines: Editors are cautioned that these WikiProject notability guidance pages should be treated as essays and do not establish new notability standards, lacking the weight of broad consensus of the general and subject-specific notability guidelines in various discussions (such as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion). Every notability essay claims its criteria are appropriate for whichever niche subject it covers, and most reference actual PAGs as if they were compliant with them. PAGs still heavily outweigh them.

  If the people in an AfD argued from scratch that being included in a selective index of journals was significant coverage from a reliable, independent source, and that ended up being the consensus, then the debate would end up in the same place without the essay at all. Editors unfamiliar with NJOURNAL absolutely would not treat the above statement (sans any reference to NJOURNAL) and a shortcut to something called the "notability guideline for journals" as equivalent. The community does not regard simple inclusion in a directory, no matter how "selective", as sufficient for GNG. Appearing in a list does not ever constitute IRS SIGCOV. Autogenerated metrics, or any bare numbers for that matter, are not SIGCOV, no matter how prestigious having such a metric is, because the "significance" in SIGCOV refers only to the depth of coverage directly on the subject. If CiteScore was SIGCOV, then every formula accorded to a subject by an IRS source--such as an h-index by Scopus, or nucleon form factor measurements--would also necessarily be SIGCOV. The prose context has to actually be there. JoelleJay (talk) 00:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  Essays are fine to reference at AFD, but the issue falls on the closure to make sure that all argues are judged on the weight of policy and guidelines, so if 10 keep !votes all only cite an essay while 1-2 delete !votes points to a lack of demonstration of the GNG or appropripate SNG, then the article should be deleted. A problem is that closures at AFDs are overloaded and tend to do more vote counting than policy weighing. That's why we generally discourage notability essays. Masem (t) 00:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I do not understand why some consider the question to be based on a misunderstanding, or to be ill-posed. The current formulation in the lead of Notability implies, under a literal interpretation, that if some relevant SNG says "notable", but the GNG comes out as "non-notable", the combined effect is "notable". My question was simply, is that interpretation of the formulation intended? Several responders have simply explained that, yes, that is indeed the intention.  --Lambiam 20:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

The GNG and the SMGs are all indicators of notability, for purposes of allowing a standalone article to be created. These are rebuttals presumptions that favor creation if articles for collaborative editing, but are not a free pass to avoid the work of actually expanding to show, with zero doubt, the topic is notable. So for all purposes the way to think of them are that they are equal, both answering to the general principle of WO:,. The only thing to note is that it is far harder to claim an article that meets the GNG is not notable (since the desired sourcing should be there) than one based only on an SNG, since those are meant as indicators more sourcing should be available. Masem (t) 21:22, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

[edit conflict] That is correct only by a technicality. If you distinguish SNGs that are determinative (articles that pass their test are actually deemed notable) from SNGs that are non-determinative (they produce a presumption of GNG-notability rather than a definitive statement of independent notability), then yes, the determinative ones that say "notable" really do provide notability even when GNG is not also passed. But many SNGs (maybe most?) are not determinative in this way. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

The lead of Notability should be read in relation to both the GNG and WP:SNG sub-sections of WP:N - it should be clear in this context that (i) neither the GNG nor most SNGs offer an iron-clad guarantee of notability, and (ii) the relationship between WP:N, the SNGs and the GNG differs depending on the domain (as reflected in the language of each SNG).

So, for example, a topic covered by WP:NORG or WP:NNUMBER that fails the respective SNG is typically not deserving an article even with a GNG "pass". Meanwhile, a person covered by WP:NPROF or WP:CREATIVE can be shown deserve an article by passing either the SNG or the GNG. Newimpartial (talk) 13:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• It's really very simple: You shouldn't create an article that has no content; the NGs (G and S) are was to direct you on how to find source material for writing that content, but you still need actual content to create an article. If you have no actual source material, you have no text to write in the article, so don't create it. If you've got proper source material, create the article. That's what the GNG says, and the SNGs aren't terribly useful other than as indicators of when you are likely to find source material, but they shouldn't allow articles to be created for subjects for which not enough good source material actually exists. --Jayron32 10:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Jayron32, what's your perspective on the argument that an autogenerated citation index metric like CiteScore or impact factor (e.g. "41.577") is SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 00:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  It's clearly not. Significant coverage is text (words and sentences and paragraphs) written by people (humans with heartbeats etc.) Individual mostly contextless data is not significant coverage. --Jayron32 10:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• An article can be notable if it meets an SNG but not GNG, but it cannot not be notable if it meets GNG but fails an SNG. If it meets GNG then it is always notable, no matter what an SNG might say. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed. Remember that the GNG just prompts the writer to answer the question: "Do I have enough proper source material to write an article from?", and if the answer is "yes" then one may write said article. If the answer is "no", then one should not write said article, because there's nothing to write about given that proper source material doesn't exist. SNGs are more answering the question "Is it even worth looking for source material on this subject?" It doesn't say one should create an article based on meeting the GNG criteria, SNGs only give the editor an indication that source material is likely to exist and as such, it is worth their effort to try to seek it out. The source material actually has to exist, however, in order to be cited in writing the article in question. If the source material doesn't exist, again, there's nothing to write about. --Jayron32 13:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  cannot not be notable if it meets GNG but fails an SNG

  Wut? I assure you, there are a few people like me, who have spent years ignoring SNGs in their entirety, and have gotten along just fine. GNG is king. Most SNGs are just people who want to have an opinion on how GNG works out in particular circumstances. In cases where SNGs claim exception from GNG, the SNG is wrong. That's why we get situations where SNGs go haywire, and we end up with a zillion two sentence articles. GMG^talk 13:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  GMG likes GNG, shocker. J947 † ^edits 00:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  While each editor is entitled to their own opinion, I am unaware of any community consensus supporting the view that In cases where SNGs claim exception from GNG, the SNG is wrong. As far as I know, this view simply reflects one of the urban legends of enwiki.

  Also, Necrothesp: what you have written, if taken on face value, suggests that a GNG pass is a guarantee of Notability, but AFAICT this view is supported neither in practice (viz. AfD results in the domain of NORG) nor by the text of WP:GNG itself (which offers an assumption, not a guarantee). This represents another urban legend, I think. Newimpartial (talk) 13:50, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  So let me ask you a question. Let's say the subject of an article you want to write meets some criteria of some SNG. However, insufficient source material exists about that subject. Like, no matter how much you've looked, you can't find anything that would qualify as a reliable source for any useful text in the article. Should you create that article? --Jayron32 13:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  I'm afraid I have to challenge the premise here - there is no universal standard of sufficient source material that covers all (real or potential) Wikipedia articles. To give a concrete (and current) example, WP:5P states in its opening:

  Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform [or]... an indiscriminate collection of information...

  So in the domain of legally-recognized inhabited places - at least what I would call the main, general purpose geographies such as municipalities and federal units - the community has found good encyclopaedic reasons (related to the "gazetter" function) to accept WP:V-level sourcing without insisting on paragraphs of sources before accepting that some RS-defined region ought to have an article.

  Meanwhile, in the domain of corporations and brands, the "advertising platform" issue is a real concern and in response to that, the threshold for what counts as "sufficient source material" is raised, for example by the provisions of WP:AUD and WP:SIRS - provisions that the community has supported within this domain while rejecting proposals to extend them to other topics.

  So sure, "sufficient source material" has to exist on the topic, but what kinds of sourcing are "sufficient" depends on the topic, and considerations of encyclopaedicity are a major factor (the major factor?) in determing what kinds of articles contribute to the encyclopaedia. Newimpartial (talk) 14:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  Interesting redirect; but you still never answered my simple question. I also never said that "sufficient source material" was a universal concept either. I just presumed that it was a thing that exists, whatever it is, and that for some subjects, it would not exist, however it was defined. My question for you was, slightly restated: if that source material simply doesn't exist, even if the subject checks some arbitrary box in an SNG, with what text will you fill said article? If there is no text to fill said article, why create it? --Jayron32 10:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  To rephrase my main point from earlier (which was not a "redirect"), what counts as an appropriate article on a subject varies depending on the topic - for some topics, even a reliably sourced stub article is appropriate.

  So, to make my answer to your question painfully explicit: if source material does not exist for an appropriate article on the topic, then the article should not exist (except perhaps as a categorized redirect to another article, per WP:RETAIN). This seems obviously true to me, and is true regardless of whether or not the topic passes GNG or an SNG. Newimpartial (talk) 12:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  I would argue that it isn't; for an unsourcable stub article, for which the only proper sources establish existence and basic information, and nothing to usefully support a narrative, Wikipedia is better served by including the information in other articles. For example, if we have information on a person who, say, played a sport, but all we know is that they played the sport, and have almost no other biographical information about them, including their name on the rosters of teams they played on, or events they won, is perfectly sufficient and does not require a stand-alone article if all we know about them is, for example, that they appeared on the roster of one team one year. The information is fine to have at Wikipedia, but "as a stand-alone article" is not always the best way to organize that information. Sometimes a line of text or a short bit of data in another article is sufficient. --Jayron32 14:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  You may be under the impression that you are disagreeing with me here - I am not certain. But I said reliably-sourced stubs for a reason, and in the case of truly unsourceable stubs I do not support retention.

  But the usefulness of short, stub-like articles depends on context. In the case, say, of municipalities, I don't think the threshold of "proper sources ... to usefully support a narrative" is relevant to whether such an article is of encyclopaedic value. If we have good, independent sources to document existence, location, legal status and tombstone (e.g., census) data, with non-independent sources to fill in qualitative aspects, then such an article contributes effectively to the gazetteer function of the encyclopaedia that is enshrined in the opening of WP:5P - it establishes an effective bluelink and a cursor-over function every time that municipality is mentioned as a birthplace or in other articles, and it provides an effective framework to add RS "narrative" whenever editors find such sources. None of those functions are served as well even by categorized redirects or lists.

  This is a completely different domain from the person who ... played a sport and that is all we know, so it shouldn't be surprising for me to believe that it is encyclopaedic to keep one kind of RS stub but not to entertain some other kind of RS stub. The consideration of encyclopaedicity has been my point all along, not a desire to keep stubs out of context (which would align neither what I want nor what I have said). I completely agree that "as a stand-alone article" is not always the best way to organize that information. Sometimes a line of text or a short bit of data in another article is sufficient. I'm not able to identify anything that I've said to suggest otherwise - my point is that this determination depends on context, and the SNGs have identified certain contexts (like municipalities and authors) where articles may be encyclopaedic without meeting the general application of the GNG. Newimpartial (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  "existence, location, legal status and tombstone (e.g., census) data..." the gazetteer function of Wikipedia can also be met by aggregating all of that data in a single article titled "populated places in X" where "X" is some administrative division or polity. "non-independent sources to fill in qualitative aspects" is probably sufficient to create a narrative worthy of holding an article, so I agree with you there (i.e. a town's own website describing their history). My objection is the issue that the only reasonable way to organize Wikipedia is by creating an article for every single entity that meets some arbitrary criteria; that is not the only or best way to do things. If all that exists is a small amount of data like "existence, location, legal status and tombstone (e.g., census) data", then that alone is not enough (IMHO) to justify needing an article. If we have "existence, location, legal status and tombstone (e.g., census) data" AND we have some reliably sourced narrative text covering things like history etc. of such a place, then even if such narrative is less-than-purely independent, then there's a reasonable basis for a stand-alone article. Stand-alone articles are NOT the only way to organize information; they are best only when there is some narrative prose and less useful for a single line of contextless data. --Jayron32 17:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  While we don't disagree about as much as you might previously have assumed, I do think you are interpreting the affordances of an encyclopaedia too narrowly. An article like List of Nagar Panchayat in Uttar Pradesh, even with categorized redirects, simply does not fulfil the same purposes as separate articles for each - other related lists involving subsets of them (to reflect how much prose is available for articles) are automatically harder to maintain, navigation from bluelinks elsewhere is easy to break in those cases, and perhaps most importantly: cursor-over or shortdesc functionality won't function for these municipalities, if aggregated. If the role of Wikipedia is to curate what the species knows for the benefit of human readers, short articles offering consistent, "horizontal" coverage of well-defined set of topics simply do a better job of that than the aggregating "put it somewhere" approach that you recommend when you aren't satisfied with the prose.

  At the same time, I do agree with you that being able to include RS narrative does make these articles better, even when GNG won't be met. One reason that articles based on NPROF that would not pass GNG are not always terrible is that they topically include "narrative" from imperfect sources (ones that are imperfectly independent, for example). I think the general view is that we don't take the availability of such sources into consideration for deletion, but they absolutely can make the difference between an article that's worth reading and one that isn't.

  In relation to GNG vs. SNG Notability, though, many editors will insist that material that is not fully secondary or fully independent, for example, can't contribute to Notability, even when it is eminiently usable to flesh out an article on an encyclopaedic topic. My main response to this in terms of policy has been to endorse the principles established in areas like WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GEOLAND, where we have collectively acknowleged an encyclopaedic principle outside of GNG. In those areas, anything that is impeccably verifiable has at least a chance of being allowed to stand as an article and thereby to be part of the categories and other navigational aids that make Wikipedia more than a print encyclopaedia, and for me, that is clearly a better course than GNG fundamentalism and having consistent articles for classes of known topics is obviously more encyclopaedic than a "jagged edge" that defers in all cases to the GNG rather than WP:NOT factors and WP:N as a whole. Newimpartial (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  We specifically had an RFC here that asserted the relation between the GNG and the SNGs is complex, and not as simple as "the GNG overrides the SNGs" (in agreement with Newimpartial here).

  However, keep in mind that both the GNG and the SNGs are all rebuttable presumptions that a topic actually meets WP:N notability. You might find two sig cov sources of a topic to show the GNG is met, but if that leads to a short article that can't be expanded as no other sources are shown to exist, then merging or deletion can still happen. Same with any SNG. But in all those cases it is required to show that no further sources exist or can be expected as forthcoming, which is a hard barrier to prove. Masem (t) 14:00, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  I think if somebody finds two sources and yells "GNG" then they don't necessarily have a good understanding of how this works in practice. GNG is supposed to be a metric of whether you can write an actual article without violating policies like V. GMG^talk 17:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  I mean...yeah. That's my opinion. It's the advice I would give to any new editor. Don't try to memorize a hundred pages of SNGs. Just lean on GNG and you'll be fine. GMG^talk 17:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• I would say that it's a complex question that sometimes has to be answered on a case by case basis, but that in general the WP:GNG represents the bare minimum required to write a neutral article - we need at least two independent WP:RSes whose coverage of the subject is not just trivial mentions, otherwise how are we going to write a full article that avoids being either WP:OR or just a regurgitation that places undue weight on its single source? Any argument for ignoring the GNG in a particular case needs to answer that question. In general my concern is that over-reliance on SNGs that fail to meet the GNG could result in the proliferation of stubs with no potential to expand into a full article (which goes against the purpose of a stub), or articles sourced to nothing but a single database, which goes against WP:NOTDATABASE. I don't think there should ever be an article with only a single source. --Aquillion (talk) 17:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Aquillion @Jayron32 @Masem@GreenMeansGo: we have editors in this thread and at WP:NJOURNAL and at a (closed) AfD and at Physics Essays who are saying that inclusion in certain citation databases (or at most the metrics automatically attached to them courtesy of this inclusion--also note that inclusion is by application only) constitutes SIGCOV according to the NJOURNAL essay. They are not arguing that meeting a criterion in this essay predicts GNG, they are asserting that meeting such a criterion either is meeting GNG itself, or that it bypasses GNG entirely like NPROF. And furthermore that the essay is a de facto guideline because a group of editors has been using the shortcut "WP:NJOURNAL" as if it's a guideline relatively unchallenged at "hundreds" of AfDs... JoelleJay (talk) 02:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  Are they even applying WP:NJOURNAL properly? Reading it, something that immediately leaps out at me is that it says that If a journal meets any of the following criteria, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources, it qualifies for a stand-alone article. (emphasis mine). That's more or less the same wording as the GNG, which implies to me that it's meant to be interpreted the same way - since it says sources, you need multiple independent WP:RSes backing those facts, which means that most of the time it shouldn't be possible for a source to fail the GNG and still pass NJOURNAL. The one exception is that that sentence doesn't specify that the coverage has to be significant, which might be worth correcting, but I suspect from what you're describing that that's not the issue here. I would particularly emphasize the sources bit - I don't think it is possible, as written, to pass NJOURNAL with only one source. Truthfully, if there is a subject-specific guideline essay like that that is radically out of line with the GNG, the simplest solution is probably to push to change the essay, and, if people object, get them to answer the basic question above about how we can write unbiased non-stub articles without in-depth coverage in multiple independent WP:RSes. --Aquillion (talk) 02:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Aquillion, this is exactly how it's supposed to be applied. See the dialogue between me and the essay creator in the AfD. Appearing in two different "selective" citation indices is treated as satisfying both the "sources" and "in-depth" aspects of the guideline. And there have been many attempts to change NJOURNAL since at least 2012, but, well, see the mistaken identity thread with BilledMammal above and the TP history for how that goes. Proponents say that an NPOV article can be written sourced only to material from the journal itself plus metrics from citation indices, and that it's perfectly fine for an article to exist as a stub forever... JoelleJay (talk) 05:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  NJOURNAL is just an essay. Essays are like abstinence rings: they're cheap, anybody can get one, it doesn't really mean anything, and most people ultimately ignore them. GMG^talk 10:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  Well apparently some closers believe they're perfectly valid as AfD rationales... JoelleJay (talk) 22:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  I dunno. I've been on this soapbox for many years. Sometimes people are wrong. Sometimes they're wrong in large numbers. Anyone arguing that an essay determines notability is objectively wrong. I have lots of essays, some of which are on profoundly stupid topics. I have a short essay on ducks just so I could have something cheeky to link to when I say "cluster duck". If they want NJOURNAL to have teeth, and they believe it has broad support as a community standard, then they need to start an RfC and get consensus to treat it as a policy or guideline. As was covered in the AfD, they probably won't do that, because it's dang hard. Getting something codified as a P/G can take months of work that can sink or swim based on a single turn of phrase. It's been probably four or five years since I pushed something like that to completion, and it was exhausting.

  When you hit a wall with people who are wrong, you can wear yourself out on it. Or I just accept that at some level, I'm the old man shouting at the cars in the neighborhood to slow down while everyone ignores me. Then I go retreat to some obscure topic from a hundred years ago, where I can just be around people who really get a kick out of reading old newspaper clippings. And something like Elizabeth Willing Powel may only get a handful of readers a day, but by god, we made the single best source anywhere in the world on this person, and that's way more satisfying than arguing. GMG^talk 11:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  and that it's perfectly fine for an article to exist as a stub forever.. Honestly I feel like this is the more important point. Perhaps we should have a line somewhere stating that it is (notionally) not fine to have an article existing as a stub forever - in the sense that the purpose of a stub should always, at least in theory, to one day be filled out into a complete article; and that stubs for which that is not currently possible are inappropriate. Of course that doesn't mean that the stub will be filled out and that's fine (someone has to actually put in the time and effort to do it), but I feel like establishing clearly that stubs must have at least the potential to become a full article today (not speculatively with sources that might exist in the future) would go a long way towards getting everyone on the same page. --Aquillion (talk) 11:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  +1. Curbon7 (talk) 20:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  There have been people taking the position that stubs can only exist when it is possible to fill them out into non-stubs, and other people taking the position that permanent stubs are just fine for topics that don't deserve anything more than a stub, basically since the founding of Wikipedia. That's not something where you're going to get consensus on one side or the other, and because of that it's not a good rationale for setting notability criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

RfC at WP:NOT

There is an RfC at WP:NOT regarding modifications to WP:NOTDIRECTORY that editors may be interested in contributing to. There are two proposals, which can be found here and here. BilledMammal (talk) 10:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:15MOF" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:15MOF has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 2 § Wikipedia:15MOF until a consensus is reached. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Notability and list selection criteria

Over in this talk page discussion there is disagreement about whether notability can be used as a list selection criterion for a list of 'Notable persons' that appears as an article section. This guideline says The notability guideline does not apply to the contents of articles. It also does not apply to the contents of stand-alone lists, unless editors agree to use notability as part of the list selection criteria. - is it really the intent of this guideline to allow for the possibility of using notability in a stand-alone list, but not if a list happens to appear as a subsection of another article? - MrOllie (talk) 23:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

This discussion from 2018 at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) may also be helpful; it resulted in these changes to Wikipedia:Notability (people). (Sorry for not sharing this with you already, MrOllie; it took me a while to dig this up from nearly five years ago!). ElKevbo (talk) 00:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Notability can be used as an inclusion requirement for a list, as long as there is local consensus for that, but WP:N does not require that notability be used as a factor.

Most lists of people that would potentially include a large number of non-notable entries (such as alumni for schools) use notability as the inclusion metric. Masem (t) 00:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

How can notability be used to determine the contents of an article when this guideline explicitly says that it does not apply to the contents of articles? Please note that we're discussing embedded lists, not standalone lists.

If notability can be used to determine the contents of embedded lists - and this is certainly a very common practice (this specific discussion was initiated by a longtime editor doing just that) - then this guideline needs to be edited to reflect that. ElKevbo (talk) 00:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, notability can be used for inclusion. We technically separate stand-alone from embedded lists, but don't actually have guidance for embedded lists like we do for stand-alone lists. The result is we often apply WP:SAL, etc. to embedded lists (and thus WP:CSC and WP:LISTPEOPLE, which involve notability). YMMV. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

That's not what the guideline says. It would be helpful if it were edited to reflect actual practice. ElKevbo (talk) 00:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Common sense means that there must be some selection criteria for many lists, fully comprehensive lists for articles like Monterey,_California#Notable people or List of people from Birmingham could, of course, not contain every single resident of those places in all of history, and as such, some objective selection criteria is absolutely necessary. "Has a Wikipedia article" is a perfectly fine selection criteria, and does not conflict with any other guideline, and if you insist that it does, you're just being overly pedantic, and I have no time for that. "Has a Wikipedia article" is functionally synonymous with "Meets WP:N." We don't need to change anything about the guidelines or how we work. Guidelines such as WP:LISTPEOPLE, which states, "Because the subject of many lists is broad, a person is typically included in a list of people only if both of the following requirements are met: The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement, The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources." and that is sufficient, especially in light of the exceptions also listed on that page. --Jayron32 10:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

"'Has a Wikipedia article' is a perfectly fine selection criteria, and does not conflict with any other guideline" except for this one that explicitly says that it doesn't govern the contents of articles. Why in the world do you insist on allowing this blatant contradiction between written policy and practice? Wouldn't it be far simpler for everyone to just clarify this guideline? ElKevbo (talk) 12:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't forbid it either. Interestingly, I thought it used to explicitly do so for list articles and dab pages and other navigational aids, but it looks like it was removed at some point. We could just bring back the old text... --Jayron32 14:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

"The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles" is not ambiguous. If it's incorrect, it needs to be edited. ElKevbo (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Personally, though I myself have never found this confusing, it comes up often enough that I would support some clarifying text. Something like, (While the concept of notability on Wikipedia does not typically influence the contents of articles, in certain cases - like lists of notable people - it plays an indirect role in article content.). Newimpartial (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd be opposed to adding that, because it isn't notability that is affecting the content, it's consensus. Also, to ElKevbo, I see no contradiction, because the contexts are different. Mathglot (talk) 02:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm totally OK with that reading; I'm just getting tired of the mistaken view that community consensus cannot use the notability threshold as a bright-line for the inclusion of content, when obviously it *can* (but seldom does). Newimpartial (talk) 04:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, now I see what you are saying, I think: you want to short-circuit the misreading that makes some editors view notability threshold meaning that N is a no-go at all times for SELCRIT when that's not what it is saying at all. Right? If so, I agree with you. I might change the "does not typically influence", however, which seems to make N policy seem wishy-washy, when really it isn't at all, because N(ListArticle) governs whether ListArticle may exist, period, and does not govern the content. Confusing N(list-item) with N(ListArticle) may be to blame here for the misreading. If the included list items are blue-linked, then they have an article, and if editors did their job correctly, then those items happen to be notable in their own right, but there's no requirement for it a priori. If editors *choose* a WP:SELCRIT of "being notable in their own right" by consensus, as they have every right to do, then that's what the criterion is, and "notability" is not influencing the article content, consensus is. So, maybe some wording that removes "doesn't typically influence", which muddles the picture by conflating N(item) with N(ListArticle), and instead let's use some declarative (i.e., non-negative) wording that perhaps links SELCRIT and NNC and CONS, pointing out that editors at the article may choose any reasonable selection criteria for the items, including N(item) which is specifically mentioned at CSC as one possiblity. Perhaps we just need to repeat that here. Also, as a corollary, I'm not sure the "seldom does" is even true, but I haven't checked it out. Mathglot (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I like this approach. Jclemens (talk) 23:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

"it isn't notability that is affecting the content, it's consensus" But that local consensus cannot override this project-wide guideline. Rather, in practice editors agree to do this - use notability to determine whether items can be included in embedded lists - very, very frequently. That indicates that this guideline is out-of-step with practice and thus needs to be tweaked or we have to get a whole lot of editors - including most who have participated in this discussion - to change their editing practices and that doesn't seem practical. ElKevbo (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Going off Mathglot's comment above, perhaps language like "Notability is only used on a routine basis as a guideline to determine the appropriateness for a topic to have a standalone article. The contents of an article on a given topic are not required to be based on the principles of notability. However, editors may opt through local consensus to use notability as a guideline for inclusion or exclusion of content, such as the inclusion of names on a standalone or embedded "List of people from X". See WP:SELCRIT for more details." might be better. --Masem (t) 00:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Draft RfC to bring this guideline into alignment with prevailing practice

It's clear that this guideline - and the notability guideline for people - is contradicted by prevailing practice and many - likely most - strongly prefer the current practice. I have therefore drafted an RfC seeking to bring these two guidelines into alignment with the prevailing practice. I welcome help with this draft and constructive criticism. ElKevbo (talk) 01:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

RfC on the journal notability essay

Other editors are asked to join this discussion on whether inclusion of a journal in a selective citation index is sufficient for notability of the journal. JoelleJay (talk) 01:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Secondary Source Justification

This paragraph is problematic:

"We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with Wikipedia:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources."

No original research does not require all articles to based on secondary sources, rather the sources are reliable and that they state the conclusion stated in the text. While requirement of a secondary source to establish "notability" (whatever that may be) may be justified, this is not the justification. Jagmanst (talk) 02:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

This made me curious, so I tracked it down. It was added in October 2011. There was some brief discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 49 § Why. The secondary source part was disputed at the time (so it seems never to have actually gained consensus) but apparently not actually removed. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

If anything, I think the need for secondary sources - not just independent ones - helps to show that a topic has been covered in a manner that gives insight as to why it is important for an encyclopedia to cover. This is somewhat in the direction that the stricter NCORP AUD requirements are looking for.

An independent but primary source does not necessarily give that importance, and thus working only from primary sources to claim a topic is notable to be covered in WP can potentially be original research. Masem (t) 03:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

So, since this discussion is about the rationale for requiring secondary sources, rather than the actual requirement for secondary sources, you would be in favor of changing the language in the rationale from one that points to NOR to new language that discusses the idea that only secondary sources can speak to the significance of the subject? One issue here, though, is that although secondary sources can speak to significance, that does not mean that they always do. For instance, some biographical dictionaries will include seemingly random members of the time and place that they cover, chosen as representative people from that milieu rather than because they have any individual significance. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd rather make sure we're including it for the reasons we currently believe we should be including it, so discussion of better language is good to have.

And yes, secondary doesn't always mean that they are discussing the significance. But that is where the "multiple sources" and "significant coverage" come into play. If many works have in-depth, independent and secondary (here, specifically the "transformative" context of secondary sources) of a topic, that's a good reason to have an article on the topic. If you strip out the secondary factor, now you would have day-to-day type coverage, like primary news reporting, being a reason to keep which isn't good. Masem (t) 04:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

If we follow the letter of wiki-law, that requirement isn't actually in WP:NOR. The relevant line is, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Moreover, A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge (emphasis in original). If those straightforward descriptions are at least enough to start an article, why not use them to start an article? And in WP:NOR's discussion of tertiary sources, it observes, Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources. Are we really going to say that writing an article about a topic because university textbooks cover it is bad?

If the requirement that the bullet point is supposed to be talking about is that we need to comply with WP:NOR, then it should say that, not try to compress all of WP:NOR into a single line. For example, "We require the existence of sourcing good enough that the article can comply with the No original research policy." XOR'easter (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

wp:notability is a fuzzy ecosystem rather than tidy set of rules. Under that concept, the intent of the subject sentence can be seen as a bit of a gauge and influence on notability decisions per the considerations described in Masem's post above. North8000 (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. The problem is the current guidelines are circular. WP:N requires secondary sources to to meet WP:NOR. WP: NOR requires secondary sources to meet WP:N.

Jagmanst (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

True. I was only discussing the utility of secondary related to notability. One could argue that the operative statements in both are merely the requirement for secondary, and then giving compliance with wp:nor/wp:notability only as the rationale, but even that is a bad idea. North8000 (talk) 18:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

In short, WP:notability discusses the wp:NOR rationale, and wp:nor discusses the wp:notability rationale. We should probably take those out. North8000 (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the circularity is bad. Getting consensus for any edit to a policy would be an uphill task, but at the very least, we should fix the bullet point here. XOR'easter (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

As a policy page, NOR should not rely on a guideline to justify the policy. It can point to a guideline as an example of how NOR is practiced, however. Masem (t) 21:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Jagmanst, your statement is not true. NOR says that Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and it does not say that this is just to comply with WP:N. NOR does mention WP:N's requirement, but NOR also gives a NOR-specific reason: "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to...avoid novel interpretations of primary sources". Even if WP:N stopped requiring secondary sources, NOR would still have a reason to require them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOR says "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." and ""Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources."

The second clause "avoid novel interpretations of primary sources" is redundant, since the WP: NOR already proscribes novel interpretation of any type source.

The only purpose of a secondary source therefore "is to establish the topic's notability", the subject of the WP:N guideline, and has nothing to do with original research.

You can have a article devoid of original research and devoid of novelity. It shouldn't be in violation of WP: NOR but of WP:N.

My proposal would be to have WP:N to state secondary source is needed to establish notability, and remove notability discussion in WP:NOR since it is beyond its scope. Jagmanst (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

If the only purpose of mentioning the need for secondary sources in NOR's PSTS section was to establish notability, then we wouldn't have wasted all those words talking about other reasons. Just because you (apparently) don't see the meaning of those words doesn't make them meaningless. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

So what is this new elusive meaning of "avoid novel interpretations of primary sources" that wasn't by covered previously in the policy. Just because someone uses words, doesn't mean they are saying anything significant. Jagmanst (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Jagmanst, it looks like your account has been around for less than a year, so I'm going to assume that you don't know any of the history. The existence of the Wikipedia:No original research policy can traced back to the English Wikipedia's earliest days, and specifically to the days when a particular Usenet personality tried to use Wikipedia as a way to publish his own original "research" into physics. He thought he had disproved Einstein, and he lined up a bunch of primary sources (i.e., academic journal articles about physics experiments) to "prove" that he was right and the entire physics establishment was wrong. There were complaints about how the physics journals were wrongfully suppressing The Truth™ and some misplaced hope that Wikipedia would let him "correct" the public record by saying that he was right and everyone else was wrong.

So when we write things like "Articles should be based upon secondary sources [like grad school physics books]" and "Avoid novel interpretations [like saying you've just single-handedly disproven the entire theoretical basis of modern physics] of primary sources [like old physics experiments]", we are trying to help editors, and our articles, avoid sounding like that crackpot. This goal has nothing to do with whether an article should exist at all, because there has never been any question about whetherr we should have articles like Physics and Albert Einstein and Theory of relativity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I would say secondary sources are necessary for both notability and meeting NOR, and that both PAGs should reflect this. Simple primary descriptions of fact are strictly ITEXISTS verification; they neither demonstrate the subject is considered noteworthy/impactful (how could they if they're just recording it without analysis?) nor provide the basis on which to create an encyclopedic article on them (because NOT effectively excludes topics where coverage is merely documentation it exists, there implicitly must be coverage of a topic that can assert how it is notable, and such contextualization cannot be provided by editors' interpretation of primary material). JoelleJay (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Primary sources can state a lot more than mere existence. They cannot be used to source opinions, but since when has opinion-based content been considered a necessity for a Wikipedia article? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@David Eppstein, you have said several times, in unrelated discussions, that primary sources can't be used to source opinions, and I wonder why you believe it. There is nothing in NOR, or any other policy, that prohibits the use of primary sources to support a claim about the author's own opinion. Primary sources are cited to support opinions every day of the week, even in controversial subjects. Consider articles like Newspaper endorsements in the 2016 United States presidential election, which cite dozens or hundreds of opinion pieces merely to say what opinion the authors hold. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Speaking from one that edits SCOTUS cases, the reason for us not to cite the primary sources there (which includes the end decision as well as the briefs and amicus briefs) is that we as WP editors cannot be sufficiently expert to know which are the key points or the most important aspects/quotes of those documents - outside of the purely factual aspects like the holdings. Having those re-iterated by a non-primary sources that are analyzing the results (eg Liptak of the NYTimes) is fine. Masem (t) 23:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

That one shouldn't (ab)use a primary source for some purposes does not mean that one can never cite a primary source for any opinion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

"we as WP editors cannot be sufficiently expert to know which are the key points or the most important aspects/quotes of those document"- I fail to see how this is any different from quoting a secondary source. Jagmanst (talk) 01:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The difference is that secondary sources sometimes say things like "The most important point made by Alice Expert was..." or might be organized in a way that makes it clear what the key point is (e.g., "Conclusion: After reviewing every paper ever published on this subject, we concluded that..."). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok, maybe I should be more specific. Primary sources can't be used to state evaluative content rather than factual content in Wikipedia's voice. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Assuming that we have the same understanding of what "evaluative content" is, most sources providing such content would normally be considered secondary sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

No, lots of people and companies write evaluative content about themselves. It is unusable here. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent. You can actually produce a secondary source from your own primary sources. Scientists do this all the time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Confusing passage

In section Wikipedia:Notability#Subject-specific_notability_guidelines, it reads Wikipedia articles are generally written based on in-depth, independent, reliable sourcing with some subject-specific exceptions relating to independence.

I find the wording "relating to independence" very confusing. Is it referring to source independence or something else? Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Correct. See Wikipedia:Independent sources for more. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@Ca, if you don't mind me oversimplifying matters, what it really means is: Wikipedia:Notability (academics) famously does not require independent sources. That guideline accepts not only articles written entirely from the subject's own writings, but also subjects about whom we are reasonably certain that nobody independent of them has ever written anything about them.

The sentence in question, though, as it makes a statement about article content instead of whether the subject qualifies for an article, could just be removed with no harm. Anyone who really needs an official sentence saying that articles should be WP:Based upon independent sources can quote from WP:NPOV instead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I knew that academics were exempt from our basic WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV requirements. I didn't know they were also exempt from WP:INDEPENDENT sourcing requirements as well. Wow. Cbl62 (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

The last time I tried to address that directly was about five years ago. I tried to change one of the lesser-used criteria ("a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions") to specify that your own employer's POV that you had a significant impact on higher education wasn't good enough to prove this. It was reverted less than two hours later. You can read the subsequent discussion in the archives. As nearly every editor who opposed independent sources in that discussion is still an active editor today, I doubt that the outcome would be any different today. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Reading the linked discussion, I don't see any editors "opposing independent sources". I see editors opposing the imposition of a new requirement for independent sources where one had not previously existed.

My own view is that while, indeed, Wikipedia articles are generally written based on independent sources, there are situations where it is appropriate to relax the requirement for independence - independence being perhaps the slipperiest of the IRS criteria. The examples that are most prominent for me are instances like ANYBIO 1 or CREATIVE 4(b), where editors will use an absolute requirement for independent sourcing to deny that an awarding body's announcement of a significant award or gallery or museum statements about the contents of their permanent collections can be used to grant presumptive Notability, as these SNGs are designed to do (both offering direct presumption of notability rather than being "GNG predictors"). Newimpartial (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

In past discussions, I was told that independent sources was simply too high a bar for academics to clear, and if we really required all articles to have independent sources, then we would have to delete most of the articles about professors (and especially about profs who hadn't been involved in a public scandal). It seems that academics are like the lady of a century ago, whose name was only to appear in the newspaper at her birth, her marriage, and her death.

The other story they tell is that articles about academics aren't really normal BLPs anyway; they're articles about the academic's research output, supported by non-independent primary sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Cbl62, while in theory NPROF articles should still be "based on secondary independent sources", in practice you're right that they can basically get by without any expectation that independent evaluation of their work exists. Or we get editors arguing that the professor's university awarding them distinguished professorship constitutes "independent" evaluation, or that speaker profiles on them from the hosts of conferences they speak at, or bios accompanying their receipt of an award published by the awarding org, are independent. That's why at the academic AfDs I participate in, if I end up !voting to keep based on the academic having substantially more citations and higher h-index than their peers in the same subfield, I generally also personally validate that they have SIGCOV of their work that directly attributes them as the senior or first author so that we can at least describe what their most important work is using independent sourcing rather than their own university website. The issue seems to be that some editors believe anything academic or involving academia (see essays-treated-as-guidelines NSPECIES, NJOURNALS) is exempted from needing IRS SIGCOV because such topics are inherently "encyclopedic" (even though I've never seen any other even specialized encyclopedia that covers every single species or reputable journal) and because they don't believe those topics can be promotional or can have non-neutral primary coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 16:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

A challenge to our fuzzy ecosystem of notability is that there is no "one-size fits all" approach to sourcing and notability. On on hand, our expectations for determining notability are somewhat lax (two or three significant sources). On the other hand, we know that coverage does not mean real-world significance or influence (such as someone receiving coverage for growing a large vegetable). Along the same lines, we expect independence in sourcing, discounting material from an employer's webpage, but if a journalist uses lots of that press release from the employer, suddenly the material is transformed and independent (and can be used for determining the notability of the subject). Now, I do not suggest we can our should change to a more subjective measure of notability and inclusion in this encyclopedia, but we must recognize that our guidelines are more art than science. - Enos733 (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Giant pumpkins are totally notable. ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

It is basically impossible for someone to obtain a position as a professor without some amount of "independent evaluation of their work". The issue is that much of this evaluation, in the form for instance of in-depth letters of evaluation from independent academics with subject-matter expertise, required at most hiring, tenure, and promotion decisions, are not available to us. Instead, when we deem someone notable through WP:PROF#C3 or #C5, we are relying on the assumption that the society or university that gave them an honorary level of membership or distinguished professorship did so through an independent evaluation of their work that might be unavailable to us. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

My problem with this is that, since it's unavailable to us, doesn't that mean that (assuming those are the only sources and that no published independent sources that would satisfy the WP:GNG exist at all), we will never be able to write more than a stub about them? Can a bare rewording of their institution's page about them really be called an article? --Aquillion (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Those bare stubs are highly valued, and they may be more valued for being stubs than for providing an complete evaluation of who disagrees with them or how many people consider their ideas less than the best. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Simply removing the words "relating to independence" changes the meaning of the clause, expanding its scope beyond the intended independence of sources only. If there is confusion, for clarity, perhaps it could read: "Wikipedia articles are generally written based on in-depth, independent, reliable sourcing with some subject-specific exceptions relating to the independence of sources"? (suggested change in bold) _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

It's a good start but I think it's too vague. A newcomer reading that would have no idea what this means. The word 'relating' should be replaced with a more specific word phrase. Ca ^{talk to me!} 09:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Or perhaps give an example or two. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

It sounds like two sentences would be simpler. Try something like "Wikipedia articles are generally based on in-depth, independent, reliable sourcing. However, note that, in some cases, WP:NPROF allows the creation of articles even if no independent sources exist".

Offhand, NPROF is the only (real/approved) SNG that accepts subjects without independent sources, but if there is another, we could name it here, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:NSPECIES? WP:NCITY? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

And multiple items in WP:GEOFEAT. Actualcpscm (talk) 19:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

How exactly does one have a source about a species, and the source has a COI? This is like saying a source has a COI with Algebra. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I think WP:NASTRONOMY provides some guidance there. A scientist who discovers an astronomical object (or a species ;)) has a direct interest in there being as much coverage of it as possible, because it supports their career and legitimizes further research funding; at least, that‘s how the argument goes. Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 07:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly the reason a labmate of mine created the wiki article (over my objections) on a phenomenon my lab discovered: it gets orders of magnitude more visibility now and that has coincided with a noticeable uptick in citations to our research. JoelleJay (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Remove confusing passage?

Why not just leave out that sentence? It's overall attempted meaning is to summarize the sourcing norm (presumably only to be a preface to the second half of the sentence) note that the SNG's make some exceptions to that and then to summarize the nature of the SNG exceptions. One sentence trying to do all of that is inevitably going to do a really really bad job at all of those, and there is no reason to attempt to do so in that section. Let the SNG's speak for themselves; trying to summarize them in 6 words does only harm. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. XOR'easter (talk) 21:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree, I'm not sure why that sentence is even necessary in this place. Actualcpscm (talk) 21:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

That was my logic when I tried to remove it, though it was reverted by other editors. The wording in its current state does more harm than good. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:06, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Support removal of sentence for the reasons given above. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I have no objection to removing that sentence, or shortening it to not mention SNGs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

RFC regarding the life-extension practices of Bryan Johnson

There is a discussion at this talk page as to whether or not the life-extension practices of Bryan Johnson (entrepreneur) should be mentioned in the article. Given that it is what he is most known for by the general public and media, I feel as though it would be violating both notability and NPOV to not include it, as long as his practices are described neutrally. The other editor feels as though it is too fringe to include and that it cannot be properly contextualized. We would appreciate if others could give their input. Thanks! Vontheri (talk) 05:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Notability guideline for police/law enforcement/similar bodies

Hi,

Would someone smarter than me be aware if there is currently a page (or section) on notability that describes how the notability of a policing body, law enforcement agency or similar should be determined?

I’ve done a bit of searching and found a couple of failed proposals, but haven’t found anything current as of yet.

All the best, A smart kitten (talk) 07:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

In my view, A smart kitten, the General notability guideline applies. If the depth of coverage is strong, then a freestanding article may be appropriate. Otherwise, such agencies can be covered in subsections of articles about cities, towns, counties, states, provinces and so on. Cullen328 (talk) 08:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) also applies. It is not limited to profit making businesses. Cullen328 (talk) 08:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Thanks for the pointers! A smart kitten (talk) 08:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:ATD-M into the next closest actually notable article. Page size permitting... Graywalls (talk) 07:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC)