Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

New proposed guideline: Wikipedia:Notability (news)

Please take a look at the new proposed guideline for news stories, and the discussion of whether something can be newsworthy and get widespread coverage, without being encyclopedic. Edison 00:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Blech. Basically it's saying that we can't create articles on things that have been in the news, no matter how widely covered or how deeply, *unless* we can also provide book references. It completely sucks, it will core wikipedia. That's my opinion, it's discouraging. Wjhonson 17:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Chinese version policy discussion

Due to some disputes in Chinese Wikipedia，Notability Policy had been translated into Chinese as zh:Wikipedia:知名度. But after some modification, "The primary notability criterion" in Chinese version had been changed to "如果一個主題被多份（>=2）獨立可靠文獻深入介紹，則該主題滿足知名度標準。" (rough traslation: "A topic meets notability criterion if it has been the subject of multiple, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself, and it is described in depth in the article.") I don't know this modification is appropriate or not. So I want to ask: "Is notbility related to the content depth of the article?" --Littlebtc 02:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, "described in depth" is analogous to "non-trivial". —Centrx→talk • 03:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Similar, but not synonomous. I think that non-trivial is a poor choice which I hope to see changed, but it seems to be close to significant and less than important. To me "in depth" imparts a stronger image than significant. --Kevin Murray 02:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• So far all attempts to define notable end up using equally vague words like "non-trivial", significant, sufficient, prominent etc. These words only have meaning in the context of their use, and leave our guidelines open to subjective interpretation. I think it's a circle at best. --Kevin Murray 02:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikinfo AfD

I nominated Wikinfo for deletion here and would welcome more opinions (support or oppose). It had two previous AfDs, here and here, and arguments so far refer back to them.

My contention is mostly that it does not qualify as notable under any of the guidelines at WP:WEB, having received only trivial mentions in a small number of sources. Because of this, I also contend that it can't be verified; a lot of the information in the article is cited directly to the Wikinfo website. Their contention is mostly that, as a fork of a notable project (Wikipedia), it becomes notable itself. Comment were also made on the large web footprint it has.

Discussion in the AfD would be very welcome because, to me, this seems clearly not notable (and not verifiable), yet it has survived two AfDs because people think it is. If it is, my understanding of notability is clearly very flawed, and I probably shouldn't be involved in deletion. Trebor 19:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If you are accurately characterizing the Wikinfo supporters' stance, that stance strikes me as totally bankrupt. Given the open nature of the WikiMedia code and content, I could right now fork my own Stantonpedia, and change articles to talk about my personal opinion of them. That silly blogopedic endeavour (which would also have a large "footprint", being the same size as WP when the copy was ripped, plus my new commentary) would not somehow be notable just because the original source of the material was. Ick! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I rescind some of my earlier comment, with regard to Wikinfo in particular due to the details of its particular situation (see the AfD for specifics), but not as applied generally. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, primary sourcing is entirely legitimate in the article in terms of the basics. It may lack the "non-trivial" sources required by WP:WEB for notability, however, which is the problem. More of a reason to support T&E's proposal, in my mind - it has sufficient sources for "notability," and "notability" absolutely branches out in this way. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Does it qualify under T&E's proposal? It hasn't been a central subject of anything, as far as I can see. Trebor 20:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not, but it would at least have a better chance - I can't read the first source where I'm at in any regard. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Me neither. The second source has one sentence on it, and the third, one paragraph (out of a long list of other wikis). That's not really a lot of independent coverage. Trebor 20:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Notability - Why Wikipedia?

I think the thrust of this notability policy is completely wrongheaded. It has resulted in the deletion of numerous useful pages from Wikipedia in my experience. Either Wikipedia aims to be encyclic, or it aims to be synoptic. The current policy is a reduction of scope toward synopsis, making Wikipedia a mere summary of other easily obtained sources and not an encyclopedic reference. Right now, people use Wikipedia to find information that they cannot easily find elsewhere. The current notability guidelines say, in effect, that a subject is deserving of inclusion in Wikipedia only if information on the subject is already easily available. If this policy is pursued to its stated purpose final end, it will make Wikipedia unnecessary and redundant. Why Wikipedia then? Halfelven 00:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

You sound like you have a problem with Wikipedia requiring verified information, more than the concept of notability. An encyclopaedia should be a summary (or at least a logical organisation) of information from existing sources; it shouldn't be used to advance new theories or positions. Information on the subject does not need to be easily available, but it does need to exist. If you think an attempt to logically organise and précis of the sum of all knowledge is unnecessary and redundant, then yes Wikipedia is. But I, for one, find it very useful. Trebor 00:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I find myself agreeing with Halfelven. The issue of notability seems to be a club to beat down articles with which some editor either doesn't like or doesn't appreciate. Perhaps it's better to expand the criteria for inclusion so that lack of notability isn't the sole reason someone can delete an article. It's true that Wikipedia shouldn't become Google, but it's certainly the first place I stop when I'm researching something - if only because there are usually good links to source material. I can't think of a single good reason to delete unique articles about a subject, even if the subject is of minor interest. By unique, I mean "the only" article. If a subject has more than one article already, then posting another, similar, entry is pointless. However, a new entry covering some topic people may not know about, or topics that people want to know about, shouldn't be deleted for being non-notable unless it violates some other rule, such as not having verifiable sources, is a duplicate of something already posted, or is a trivial article. (Non-notable and trivial... then it should definitely be gone.) TomXP411 07:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

And I concur with Trebor and disagree with Halfelven and TomXP411. Besides the Verifiability policy, it sounds like Halfelven and TomXP411 have a problem with Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, specifically the part about Wikipedia not being an indiscriminate collection of random information, as well as Wikipedia:No original research. If someone wants to know about something not already on Wikipedia, then they can do the research into verified sources and post an article cited to such sources. I've done that myself on many occasions for obscure articles like Department of Public Safety. Any compromise on WP:NOR or WP:NOT (which is what compromising on Notability amounts to) is going to turn Wikipedia into a hotbed of unverified speculation, of which there is already enough in the blogosphere and Web sites in general. We need to have strong content policies in order to be able to flush out such garbage in a principled manner in the Articles for deletion process. --Coolcaesar 08:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You may like to look at this AfD. Stephen B Streater 09:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Halfelven and TomXP411. Notability is meaningless and subjective, and is being used as a tool to delete anything that certain editors don't find personally subjectively interesting. Verifiability is important.Vampyrecat 15:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

An objective method to evaluate notability

All you need is a search engine: [[1]] Milivella 00:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Right. What about information not on the internet? Trebor 00:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Examples? Anyway, we could wait Google scanning every book ever printed... ;) Milivella 00:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Newspaper articles which haven't been archived. Scientific papers on obscure topics that aren't on Google Scholar. Books on historical events. Google is not the be-all and end-all. Trebor 00:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. But please show me one (or more) Wikipedia voices about something no indexed by Google: it wuold be very intersting to me. Milivella 01:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, everything on Wikipedia now is on Google, along with mirrors. But also, your method doesn't take into account quality of results; a few fact-checked reliable sources are worth a million blog entries. Trebor 09:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Google only has things on the web, and then only things which can be accessed for free. Lots of things happened before the web, and lots of high quality information is subscription only. I have just seen a very interesting (commercial) DVD which has David Attenborough talking about the early days of BBC Two - much more suitable for Wikipedia than Google. Stephen B Streater 09:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Beware: I don't say that you should use the "common web opinion" to write an article: reliable sources are the only way. But you could check what is often cited about a given topic to decide which informations (takne from to reliable sources!) to include. To talk about concrete examples: take the examples of stories within a story cited here [[2]]. Some examples are, IMHO, clearly not relevant (or, at least, arbitrary chosen) when you speak about the concept of "story within a story". With a formula like mine, you should demonstrate that this concept is important to understand a Quantum Leap novel, but the inverse is not true. Milivella 15:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Should WP:BK be made a guideline?

Sorry for the cross-posting... There is an ongoing discussion on whether or not the long-standing proposed guideline for the notability of books should be tagged as a guideline. Everyone's input would be really appreciated as past discussions have often involved a handful of editors, making it hard to judge consensus. Pascal.Tesson 16:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Clarification suggestion to wording

The notability article states:

• A major criterion is that a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself.

and

• One rationale for this criterion is the fact that sources independent of a subject have noted the topic in depth (by creating multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works about it) demonstrates that it is notable.

To me, theres an implied definition that I think should be made more explicit, because it's never actually stated in the wording at the moment:

Proposed addition: "Sources independent of a subject" means sources with a direct or indirect interest in promoting the subject, for example, affiliates, fans, beneficiaries, and proponent groups, whose connection means that even if they note the subject, it is not a good indication of wider notability.

Would others be okay with this (or something like it) being added to the guideline? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Add "or affiliation". —Centrx→talk • 19:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think it goes too far. The essential element isn't that a publisher is not a proponent, but that the publisher is reliable, and that the publication indicates notability. If a proponent of a scientific theory publishes a peer reviewed paper on the issue, and an opponent of that theory publishes a peer reviewed paper, do we really need to find popular press reports to conclude that the issue is notable? Also, what do we do about purportedly biased (but reliable) mainstream news sources? Are we in for a year's worth of arguments about whether stories in Fox News, the Guardian, the BBC, the Nation, etc. qualify for notability? Thanks, TheronJ 20:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

If there were only two papers on a scientific theory, an entire article on that scientific theory would not be appropriate for the encyclopedia. Any notable scientific theory here is going to have dozens if not hundreds of peer-reviewed papers on it. —Centrx→talk • 01:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I also thinks this goes too far. A lot of the most valuabel sources comes from media that is connected - e.g. the Catholic Times reporting on events in the Catholic Church, the Jewish Chronicle reporting about the Chief Rabbi or the Times of India reporting about an election in Kerala. I don't think there's anything wrong with using these sources as long as their bias is appropriately noted. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not about simply using these sources, it is about having an entire article supported only by these sources. If the only sources about the Catholic Church were in the Catholic Times, an article about it would not be appropriate. —Centrx→talk • 01:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Or is it?

A topic is notable and suitable for an article if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other

Or is it? Surely this is just an indication of notability rather than a proof. See example cited at WP:NOTNEWS AndrewRT(Talk) 00:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Properly, purely news items would not be "non-trivial" nor "independent". —Centrx→talk • 01:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Biographies -- notability

With dozens of links to similar pages and talk pages, I really don't know where to start, and I have certainly not read everything on this topic, but I hope someone will be able to answer my question and/or refer me to a page where I can read up on it:

What makes George E. Pugh more notable than Matt Beaumont?

I'm not trying to be funny here, and I know that those two individuals have nothing whatsoever in common except the fact that both articles are considered under the title "Biography". I was just wondering why the existence of Beaumont's biography seems contentious whereas Pugh's is not. <KF> 16:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:BIO and WP:BLP are two good places to start. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! <KF> 00:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it really primary?

I ask because it's becoming awfully misleading awfully fast. The guideline itself acts as a pointer to the individual subject-specific guidelines, and, contrary to the wording here, "nearly all" of them do not, in fact, share the criterion. The section should probably be reworded to reflect this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Knowing nothing other than "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia", can't we safely conclude that the main factor that allows encyclopedia articles to exist is sufficient coverage of the subject matter in external sources? Perhaps "notability" is a poor word for this- like "verifiability", this term has some extra meaning on Wikipedia beside its plain English reading. But, it's the word we have, and if we understand it to mean "encyclopedic notability", I think it works well enough. What is the single most important qualification for a thing to have an encyclopedia article? It's not our own opinions on it, it's sources. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that specifically does not do original research, sources must be of primary importance. Friday (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if we can "safely conclude" that. Again, we've apparently decided as a community that verifiability is not enough. "Notability" is something else entirely, and can exist without these so-called non-trivial sources that people want to force as "primary." No one's asking for original research, and no one's saying sources aren't important, but the question is whether they are for the sake of "notability," which is an entirely different concept. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Forget what "notability" means in real life then- pretend it's shorthand for "can this subject be covered by Wikipedia?" In practical terms, this is the important question, right? If we don't stay tightly focused on practical concerns, aren't we just spinning our philosophical wheels? Friday (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to keep it that simple - the question is, does anyone else want to? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

IMO, the mentioning of the "primary" criteria is a step toward simplification. People don't want to give up their subject-specific guidelines yet. Friday (talk) 15:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

See, I see it the opposite way - the "primary" criteria complicates matters by conflating "notability" with verifiability. It fails to accept the reality that "notability" exists without the major media noticing it, which the individual criteria do a better job recognizing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This has already been addressed several times before. Notability is not conflated with verifiability. —Centrx→talk • 16:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

There's little evidence that's the case, judging from the discussions. That's why I'm brigning it up. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Anything that isn't covered by proper sources is not relevant here. It's outside the scope of things that Wikipedia cares about. What you're describing is the individual criteria being given greater weight than WP:V, which is absolutely what we do not want. I could cure cancer in my garage tomorrow and tell noone- despite this being a "notable achievement", it's not Wikipedia-notable. Friday (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

What is "here?" At the project in general (I agree) or at this criteria (I do not)? I'm not describing anything of the sort - WP:V has no dog in this fight, it's a) more important than "notability," and b) does not handle "notability." On the other hand, you could publish a book about your curing cancer, no one bother to note the book, but still be "wikipedia notable." Maybe not "Wikipedia verifiable," but that's - again - a completely different argument. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that AfD has used "Wikipedia notability" as a substitute for "Wikipedia verifiability" for so long that most newcomers get the impression that notability is verifiability. Which creates great confusion when people, especially newcomers, come to an AfD page and think, well it's notable so it must conform to WP:V, and then people point out that's not the case. (There's also the tangent that when people think it's notable it doesn't need to conform to WP:V, but that's really another issue.) ColourBurst 16:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

(reindenting) I don't think you're wrong, I just don't think this helps. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course, any controversial claims in an encyclopedia need to be well-sourced, including claims of notability. -- Dragonfiend 16:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I would generally tend to see notability and verifiability as related but not the same. A lot of things are verifiable, but not notable. I can verify for you that the local pizzeria around the corner exists. They're listed in the Yellow Pages (a perfectly reliable source), and in the local business guide here (another perfectly reliable source). They've advertised in the local paper (presumably, someone paid for that ad!). The problem is, all we can say with that information is "They exist, and they make pizzas". What notability looks to ask goes further than simple reliability. It does not ask "Is verifiable information available about this?" It asks "Is enough verifiable information available about this that we can have a comprehensive article about it without engaging in original research, or trusting primary sources which may be self-serving?" In that vein, this is the primary criterion, and that's the only thing we should be asking. The secondary guidelines should be treated as guides to when that sufficiency is likely to exist, not an establishment of notability in and of themselves when that information is demonstrably absent. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 04:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

And that's where you lose me. Super Mega Band does an international tour, they're "notable." They may not have the proper sources to be "verifiable," however. I disagree that this is the "primary" criterion on that regard alone - it's not shared even close to universally, and it doesn't confer "notability," but what we already expect from verifiability, something that has already somewhat been decided - that even though something is "verifiable," it's not "notable." --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Multiple references counted as one

I've seen one editor comment that independent news articles about a subject that come out on the same day count as one reference. Another aggregated three articles over a period of three days as counting as only one reference, so as to give an argument that the subject was not the topic of multiple, independent, reliable published sources. Can we include this in the guideline, since this is being done in practice in AfDs? Sancho McCann 18:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If the Associated Press crated and ran a story on a news event. that is one source. If the AP story was reprinted by the New York Times and the Washington Post and was run verbatim on the BBC, it is still one source. If the NY Times, the Wash Post and the BBC wrote their own stories, i.e. their reporters investigated the incident and wrote it up and they published it, that would be 3 additional stories. If all the stories ran on a single day, then perhaps it is a good news story but it mayt or may not be something which needs to have for everafter an encyclopedia article. See WP:NOTNEWS for a proposal which addresses this. Edison 19:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Emphasis on precedent

I recently added the statement:

In addition to this primary notability criterion, in practice, there are many precedents set in the discussion of articles nominated for deletion that are used to judge the notability of an article. To avoid the creation of an article that may be deleted by the community, please also read Deletion Precedents.

to the Primary notability criterion section. It was reverted by another editor because consensus can change. So I ask, what is a better way to inform members that this primary notability criterion is not the only criterion used to judge notability other than a pointer to current precedent? I think it's important that this is emphasized. This would be a benefit to the community by discouraging the creation of some articles that would be judged non-notable in an AfD, not by their failing to meet the primary criterion, but by violating decisions that have been set by precedent. It would also be a benefit to new members to have a realistic view of what is deemed notable by the community. The current structure of the page gives the illusion that a subject must simply meet the primary criterion, but in practice, many editors argue that subjects must meet stronger criteria. Sancho McCann 21:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The guideline already points people to the individual criteria for specific subjects, that should do the trick. We can't contradict ourselves with precedents when we go out of our way to note that we don't do precedents. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm specifically concerned about WP:BIO, as it seems to be in such a state of flux. Until that's settled, what can a new user rely on? If editors do use more than the primary criterion in their arguments shouldn't we report it to new users? Sancho McCann 22:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The state of flux is entirely temporary. The basic standards still exist, it's just a question of levels which will be solved sooner rather than later. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I also see that you've nominated the precedent page for deletion. I will support that. It will make things less confusing for new users and it will force us to write more descriptive notability guidelines. Sancho McCann 22:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• As the deletion debate should indicate, the statement that "we don't do precedent" is simply false. We do a lot of things by precedent, and "consensus can change" doesn't mean "ignore previous consensus". >Radiant< 15:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Does "notability" apply to the content of articles?

Greetings all. I seek your opinions on the question posed in the section-heading. I would be especially grateful for answers from some of the main authors of the notability guidelines.

To explain: as I interpret them, the guidelines are as to whether or not a topic may have an article about it on Wikipedia, and are not rightly applicable to the content of WP articles. That is, WP articles must be on topics that are WP-notable ("notable" in the sense explained by the guidelines), but material within a given article need not be WP-notable in itself. This is never said straight-out in the guidelines (unless I have overlooked it therein) but seems to underlie them, tacitly, throughout and considered as a whole. It also seems like no more than common sense: To take the contrary view is to insist that nothing may appear in a WP article that is not itself noteworthy enough to have an article of its own. So in other words, unless I am mistaken, the notability guidelines set forth a criterion for whether a WP article may exist at all, and are not concerned with whether this or that may be included in an article, given its existence on WP. Particular bits of content within an article still need reliable sources, of course, but a single reliable source is enough for any given bit.

I ask about this matter because I have come across editors who are, I believe, abusing the notability guidelines as a pretext to strip information from articles, or to attempt to do so, claiming "not notable" and relying upon these guidelines for authoritative support. I suspect that they are mis-applying the concept (whether in honest error or not, I am unsure).

So please give your views on whether, and how, and to what extent these notability guidelines are meant to apply within an existing article, as against applying to the very existence of an article. Depending upon the consensus among the answers, some clarification of the guidelines might also be in order.

Thanks -- Lonewolf BC 02:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Notability does not apply to the content of articles. Although other things would apply like POV and Undue Weight, etc. Wjhonson 02:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Wjhonson -- and yes, of course other considerations apply to what belongs in WP articles, but I am asking specifically about "notability" (in sense set forth in these guidelines).

Anyone else? I regret to say that Wjhonson's answer, alone, is unlikely to convince the editors whom I mentioned above that they are mis-applying "notability". So please join in, even if just to say that you concur. I hope for enough answers to show a clear consensus. -- Lonewolf BC 19:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Notability is most often talked about in the context of whether an article on a given subject could exist. However, people may object to some article content as being trivial or too specific, and they may use the word "notability" in that context. For example, while we have an article on the Dodge Magnum, for example, if someone tried to add information saying "Bill Smith, one of the line workers at the so-and-so production facility, has personally tightened bolts on over 10,000 Magnums", this would be removed on the grounds that this information isn't notable. Without knowing what you're specifically talking about, I can't comment more than that. Friday (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but you seem somewhat to have misunderstood the question. To keep the issue clear, I'm asking specifically about the applicability of these guidelines to the content within articles, and for the present purposes I am considering "notable" and "notability" to have the meanings set forth in these guidelines. I do not seek an assessment of any specific case; this is a question about the principles.
I have noticed, of course, that "notability" and akin terms are sometimes used with reference to issues of article-content, and that is largely why I've raised the question that I have. Do these guidelines rightly apply? -- Lonewolf BC 21:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

These guidelines are about article topics not facts. Any problem with notable or non-notable facts can be dealt with by looking at Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Trivia/Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. —Centrx→talk • 21:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

See also above section. As alluded to there, Wikipedia:Notability does not apply to whether an individual fact or statement should be included in an article (though if that individual fact were to have been put in a separate article, Wikipedia:Notability would entail that it should be merged). Note, however, Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources in articles about themselves and at several places in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Information should generally be relevant to why the person is notable; Margaret Thatcher being an amateur painter or somesuch would not warrant an entire section in the article about her, though it might warrant a mention in the biography section. —Centrx→talk • 19:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That seems a clear answer, from the second sentence. (See below, though.) -- Lonewolf BC 21:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey folks, try not to get hung up on the various other guidelines that are considerations for what belongs in an article. This is about the applicability of the notability guidelines, in particular. -- Lonewolf BC 21:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed add to guidelines: "N/A to article-contents"

In light of the responses -- not as many as I'd hoped for, but none disagreeing -- I suggest that this point be made clear near the top of the guidelines. Here is a first draft:

Note that these guidelines, and their more specialised subsidiaries at the right, are guidelines for allowable article topics within Wikipedia, not for allowable content within a Wikipedia article, given an article's rightful existence on Wikipedia. Although issues of article content are sometimes discussed in terms of "notability", within Wikipedia, that is not exactly "notability" in the sense of these guidelines, which are inapplicable to such matters: "Notability", in the sense of these guidelines, in not required in order for particular information to be included in a Wikipedia article. For such article-content issues, see the guidelines on verifiability, reliable sources, and trivia.

I think that about says it. Please suggest any changes you might think are needed. It should go into the guidelines if and when it has general approval.
-- Lonewolf BC 21:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

There should be reference to the concept of notability that can be found, for example, in WP:BLP and WP:RS. These do directly refer to notability and are about a certain aspect of the notability already here; this Wikipedia:Notability page is about "notability" on Wikipedia, and it should certainly not make it appear that notability is completely irrelevant to article content. Other than that, I think the text could probably be shorter, but that's not an objection to adding it. —Centrx→talk • 06:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm not altogether sure what you mean, but if I rightly understand you then you mean that where the term "notability" appears elsewhere in Wikipedia guidelines -- notably (ha-ha) in the expression "relevant to ... notability", and its variants -- it does mean the same as in these guidelines (whereas the "notability" in talk-page discussions about article content generally does not). I'll recompose the draft, to work that in. -- Lonewolf BC 07:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Second draft (Lonewolf BC 07:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)):

Note that these guidelines, and their more specialised subsidiaries at the right, are guidelines for allowable article topics within Wikipedia, not for allowable content within a legitimate Wikipedia article. Although issues of article content are sometimes discussed, on Wikipedia talk-pages, in terms of the content's "notability", that is not exactly "notability" in the sense of these guidelines, which do not directly apply to such matters: "Notability", in the sense of these guidelines, is not needed in order for particular information to be included in a Wikipedia article. For such article-content issues, see the guidelines on verifiability, reliable sources, and trivia. However, note also that wherever the term "notability" appears in Wikipedia's guidelines, for example in the guidelines on reliable sources and biographies of living persons, it means the same as it does in the notability guidelines.

Third Draft: These and other notability guidelines do not specifically pertain to the content in an article. For content issues, see verifiability, reliable sources, and trivia.
--Kevin Murray 03:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: #3, Might put some further discussion in a BRIEF footnote. --Kevin Murray 03:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Fourth draft(Lonewolf BC 04:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)):

Note that these and other notability guidelines are for allowable article topics within Wikipedia, not for allowable content within a legitimate Wikipedia article. Although issues of article-content are sometimes discussed, on talk-pages, in terms of the content's "notability", that is not exactly "notability" in the sense of these guidelines, which do not directly apply to such matters: "Notability", in the sense of these guidelines, is not needed in order for particular information to be included in a Wikipedia article. For such article-content issues, see the guidelines on verifiability, reliable sources, and trivia. However, note also that the term "notability", when used within Wikipedia's guidelines generally (for example, in those on reliable sources and biographies of living persons), means what it means in the notability guidelines.

---

Discussion of the proposal

This discussion is somewhat redundant to the discussion at the bottom of the page where the current first several paragraphs are being discussed for more subtle edits. You are proposing a complete rewrite which to me seems overly complicated. I suggest that you join in the discussion at the bottom which has more participation if you want to form a consensus. Thanks! Kevin --Kevin Murray 21:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Redundant? I don't think so. Those other discussions seem to be about quite different issues. This, here, proposes a new paragraph to put into the guidelines, most likely among the introductory paragraphs. Those other discussions are about ... some fairly arcane points about the existing introductory paragraphs, as best as I can make out.
Perhaps I should move this whole thing to the bottom of the page, where it would be easier to find, but I'm giving ample opportunity for anyone to comment, and using edit-summaries to suit. I surely hope that anyone concerned won't wait till after I insert this to comment upon it or object to it.
-- Lonewolf BC 02:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I object to your message, but I don't think we need to add more text volume to the guideline. I'd prefer a broader approach in developing a clean and tight guideline. I don't think that you have anywhere near a consensus for this being added at this point. --Kevin Murray 02:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I find the proposed text to chatty and not a clear guideline, but dont object to the central idea. --Kevin Murray 02:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Has there really been any problem with misinterpretation of the notability guideline this way? Certainly, articles on a notable subject might include things which are not in and of themselves notable (for example, "Population of Denver" would not be an appropriate article subject, but it's certainly appropriate for inclusion in the Denver article.) While content of an article should all be sourced, I've never seen anyone arguing that each individual heading or sentence requires the same standards as we have for whole articles. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 02:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Seraph, strange as it may seem, yes there has been a problem with such misrepresentation. That's why I am bothering with this whole business. There are those who need it spelled out to them. I am glad to see you so firmly and unequivocally agree with what I have always considered the only sensible interpretation of these guidelines. However there are those who have been using calls of "not notable!" to strip information from articles, or try to do so, and appealing to the authority of these guidelines as back-up. It's quite annoying, and is harmful to Wikipedia. I'm trying to put a stop to it.

Kevin, I am glad that at least you don't object to the central idea. For the reasons just given there is a need to add this clarifying paragraph (or one like it) to these guidelines. I guess you've never met a notability-abusing editor -- lucky you. If you had, I doubt that you'd doubt the need. This addition will actually tighten the guidelines, which are now open to misrepresentation because they nowhere say these things explicitly.
If you think the writing needs betterment, have a go yourself. I really don't see what you mean by your criticisms of my draft, though. I tried to make the wording airtight, because based on my experience it shall need to be. I think I've made the paragraph crystal clear, and just the length it needs to be so as to be that clear.
As for consensus, "silence means approval". However I am actually glad to get some further participation, a prior, from other editors, even though it is mildly critical so far. I really don't want this to be a one-man effort -- partly because the notability-abusers would jump on that as a pretext to ignore the paragraph, partly because I don't want any messy wrangling to affect the the project page, and partly out of pure collegiality. -- Lonewolf BC 03:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Would that it were not so, but that third draft would not do the job. It is not explicit or detailed enough to be effective on the folk who make this addition to the guidelines needful at all. The "...do not specifically pertain..." would be taken and run with -- "so they do pertain, but just generally", etc., etc. -- Lonewolf BC 04:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Do they speak english where you live? --Kevin Murray 04:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

And even where, they live, so it seems. Look, most people can read this stuff between the lines. The target, here, is people who can't (or won't) do that, and are wedded to an odd interpretation. Thus the need to be explicit and detailed. -- Lonewolf BC 05:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• I don't dispute that an explanation of the topic is warranted but not as part of the guideline. Please read WP:CREEP. Less can be more since people are more likely to read it. --Kevin Murray 16:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Consider putting the bare essentials in the guideline with an explanation in a footnote and detailed discussion in a linked essay. --Kevin Murray 16:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that there is value in brevity, the paragraph is not an instruction, but an explanation of something important. "Creep" thus does not really apply -- to the paragraph itself, that is. Nor does it tell me anything I didn't know. It does, however, contain a useful quote from Einstein: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler [my italics]." Less than what I've written would be too simple to be effective, for reasons I've already given. Given that you agree than an explanation of the topic is warranted, the question (as between you and me, at least) then becomes where to put it. I suppose that this is where you believe "instruction creep" really enters the picture. I respectfully disagree that the brief paragraph I've proposed is troublesome in that regard. It is not so long, and every word of it needs saying, to block avenues of possible misinterpretation -- so it really is the "bare essentials", already.
Therfore, it ought be put it right in the guidelines, where folk will see it. If need be, give it a heading, so that people who don't need to read it won't -- that might be a good idea, also, from the viewpoint of making it an easier find for those who do need to read it, and for pointing to it from off-page. As for making it a linked essay, it is far too short for that, and doing so would greatly weaken its force, as against a plain appearance in the guidelines. Making it a footnote likewise would weaken it, through textual obscurity and by implicitly lessening its importance. So I think a straightforward place in the guidelines, perhaps under a heading or sub-heading, is the way to go.
-- Lonewolf BC 04:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

LW, I don't so much object to what you have to say as the way you say it. You make arguments, write essays, and draft wonderful speeches, but you don't succinctly state the proposed guideline. Please consider the difference between arguing a point and stating a "rule". --Kevin Murray 05:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The draft I've proposed is neither arguement, nor essay, nor speech. It is no more, or less, than a clear statement and explanation of "a 'rule'". You seem to confuse the draft guideline-addition with the material I have written in discussing that proposal -- why it is needed and what form it must have to be effective -- which do "argue a point", of course. I wish you would address that arguement, in its particulars, rather than making hand-wavy mis-statements, as in your last post. -- Lonewolf BC 17:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added this to the guidelines as a last section, linked to a one-sentence mention in the introduction. I hope this form satisfies Kevin's concerns. -- Lonewolf BC 21:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

...what if the subject is notable in another language but not in English?

My case in hand is about a Japanese novel which has yet been translated into English and hence has little results in a English search engine test; but it does came up with 660 hits when the name in Japanese (in kanji and kana) is used as search term.

The first is about the novel itself, and the second is about the writer's plagiarism claim against an anime/manga series that is definitively notable (having been published all over the world); the claim has about 1000 search hits, but all of them in Japanese.

So, should these be considered notable as the English Wikipedia is concerned? --Samuel Curtis^{Shinichian-Hirokian}-- _{TALK·CONTRIBS} 14:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Six hundred sixty is very slight for a novel, and remembering that one aspect of verifiability revolves around the ability for a typical editor or reader to verify the claims made. I would suggest perhaps you work on improving the Japanese version of the page until such time as this person/event becomes more notable. Wjhonson 15:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Ahem, I am the one to propose an AfD due to notability issues. --Samuel Curtis^{Shinichian-Hirokian}-- _{TALK·CONTRIBS} 15:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

As long as the hits come from reliable sources (newspapers etc), yes. Translation of the sources is another issue but there are a fair amount of Japanese speakers on WP. ColourBurst 18:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Then Samuel I would support your analysis that the novel is *not yet notable* in English. I believe we don't generally consider notability in some other language to extend to notability in English. Wjhonson 18:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the last point. If it had to be possible for the typical editor or reader to verify claims, then many technical scientific articles could never be written. For example, look at Kullback–Leibler divergence and tell me someone without a mathematical specialty could verify whether the references agree or disagree with the fine points of what the article says. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources in languages other than English says English language sources are preferred, but not required, and, I believe, similar reasoning should extend to notability. That said, I can't guarantee notability based solely on number of Google hits. It makes a difference whether they are hits from fan sites, or from front page articles in the Asahi Shimbun. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

None of the notability criteria are language specific, and we must do what we can to avoid systemic bias. Being an English language encyclopedia only means that our entries are written in the English language. That does not mean that we only cover topics if they are notable in the English language. Nor are we suppose to exclude topics that are notable in other languages but not in English. --Farix (Talk) 22:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Illogical conclusions

Should Mom and Dad be deleted for non-"notability"? I was thinking about this earlier - I've done an almost absurd amount of research into the films of Kroger Babb, and while this is easily the most well-known one, it does not meet the standard of the so-called "primary" criterion. Never mind that it's one of the highest grossing films of its decade and is in the United States National Film Registry, because it's an exploitation film (a b-movie style production), it didn't get widely reviewed, if at all, and thus lacks the "multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." In fact, a strict reading by some would say it lacks any "non-trivial" sources if you consider this to be about the director rather than the film.

So how broadly are we supposed to interpret this? Obviously, there's not just enough information to sustain an article, but sustain a pretty good one, and one that probably, with some TLC, could be considered one of our best. Yet, because we've hammered out this fallacy of "notability" based not on achievement or purpose, but rather who decides it's worthy of recognition based on it, we're going to run into more problems like it. This is why a guideline on films, specifically, is more important than a one-size-fits-all guideline that fails to meet the needs of certain classes of articles.

That is, of course, unless you believe that the project is better off without articles like Mom and Dad or "She Shoulda Said 'No'!". I know I don't. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh...what's wrong with those? Those pass notability, plenty of sources are cited, and there's enough material there for a reasonably comprehensive article (I could see those getting to GA or FA status). They're not permastubs. I wouldn't see a single reason to delete those, but I also disagree they fail this guideline. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 02:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think he means that it's been written about in published books, but those books covered other topics too, so at least according to the sources cited right now, it's not been the subject of any works, if you define that extremely strictly as the only subject. But I'm not sure it's meant that way at all... a work can have multiple things that are "the subject" of that work. At any rate, we could clear it up. --W.marsh 02:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Well honestly, I never thought there was a good reason for any of these guidelines to read "the subject of..." instead of "a subject of...". As long as there's enough information to use, right? I thought that's what this guideline was all about, just making sure enough information exists... requiring a topic to be the primary subject just seems arbitrary, as it would probably exclude topics we could write perfectly accurate and neutral articles on. Although I question your example, this movie was never once reviewed in any newspaper? It was marketed in a sensationalist manner in towns all over the place, causing much hooplah, and no one wrote a word about that at the time? Admittedly it's much easier and probably a better idea anyway in this case to do encyclopedia article research from a modern book than digging through microfilm of 1940s newspapers... but I do find that example suspect, and if we really pressed it, I doubt these movies would technically fail even the current WP:N. However, If you want to change the guideline to say "a subject of..." you have my support, I honestly thought we'd already done that but perhaps it was just discussed. --W.marsh 02:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• WM, yes this suggestoin has my full support! --Kevin Murray 02:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• None that would be considered "independent," since most - if not all - of the hoopla was created by the actual production companies. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Jeff, I looked throught the references for the article on Mom & Dad; I think that film soundly makes the criteria. I looked at the writeup at the National Film Registry link; there is a brief but credible review of the film, which gives enough info. for a stub. There are two books cited, where taken on good faith the articles are robust enough to make the criteria. With all of the other background this is a clearly notable topic. As to whether all of the text is properly supported, I'm not sure, but that's not the issue at hand. I'm not sure how anyone who understands the guidelines would give you problems at an AfD. --Kevin Murray 02:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• On rereading i see the point more clearly about the need to be the subject of the article or book. I don't think anyone takes that too seriously. Change it NOW! --Kevin Murray 02:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Generally, I've been in support of a bit of a change to address that scenario, and I see the "central subject" bit as problematic. "A subject of" might be trivial too though, and encourage lawyering. Instead of the whole "multiple non-trivial" bit (which leads to lawyering over "Those two newspaper blurbs aren't trivial, and they're multiple!") I would just like to see it changed to "The article's subject has been the subject of sufficient reliable secondary source material that a comprehensive article can be written." That way, a few newspaper blurbs don't get counted, but several chapters in a book (even a book whose actual subject is something else) are weighted more heavily. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 02:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thinking on it more...what about "A significant subject of..."? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 02:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• I don't want to preclude the ability to build notability from several good sources that build cummulatively to notability.--Kevin Murray 02:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• I thnk that non-trivial and significant are different standards, just like notable is not the same as significant. --Kevin Murray 02:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• I've never like "multiple" I'd prefer "two or more" --Kevin Murray 02:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course not, but mentions should still be non-trivial. A "name-drop" in even a hundred sources wouldn't establish notability, while a couple chapters each out of three books which are all on the given subject almost certainly would. That's what I was hoping to accomplish with the "significant" qualifier. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 02:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Truly speaking, if you're worried about "lawyering," you're not contributing to a better culture, but a worse one regarding "notability." Isn't discussion about whether provided sources are enough a positive thing? I mean, truly, isn't this example exactly the type of "lawyering" you want to avoid? A film that's obviously "notable," with enough sources to sustain an article, but our silly guideline here means it doesn't meet the standard. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Not the way I've seen anybody interpret it, it doesn't. I mean, has this actually happened, that a well-sourced topic is nominated for deletion based on an uber-legalistic reading of this guideline? If a "rule" doesn't make sense (according to whatever reading of it), then people are encouraged not to follow it, right? You're right to ignore an improperly worded sentence in a notability guideline, and to call for it to be re-worded to reflect what you're already doing, i.e., basing an article on sources that are clearly sufficient.

I admit, Jeff, I'm surprised to see you, of all people, exemplifying WP:IAR and "our rules are descriptive not prescriptive". Good job. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe I am. After all, I did make the article before this abomination occurred. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I know. I was only teasing. Nevertheless, you would be entirely right to ignore any bad implications of a badly worded "rule", and I'd support you 100%. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Here is the footnote in explanation of non-trivial at the project page:"Note 3: Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The 1 sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker. "Tough love child of Kennedy", The Guardian, 1992-01-06.) is plainly trivial."

(in response to Jeff) I think you and I are actually in complete agreement (for once!) The type of lawyering you're looking to avoid is the exact one I am too, just from different angles. I've seen a lot of "They're the central subject of two small newspaper blurbs, so they're notable!" I can imagine the converse, that "Well there's been 600 pages written about them, but they weren't the central subject of any of those books, so they're non-notable" could also occur. That's why I would rather focus on sufficiency (although we should still require certain things, such as secondary sourcing.) The problem of trivial mentions would basically be solved completely by focusing on sufficiency-"name drops" and blurbs would very clearly be insufficient. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 04:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• That's essentially what i'm aiming for. Ditching "multiple, non-trivial" for "sufficient, independent." --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds pretty reasonable to me, as a description of the type of sourcing we actually need to support an article, and what people actually demand in AfD discussions. Why not "be bold"? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Because "boldness" on policy/guideline pages causes strife and ends up causing more problems than it's worth. If I can get more support on this, and it looks like the "concept" is getting there even if the wording needs help, then it can be done simply. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Huh. I've seen the BRD cycle work on policy/guideline pages, and I've seen it not work. I feel I've even seen it work on this page, but I guess different readers will take different lessons from history. One thing it does accomplish is to let you know rather quickly whether there's opposition, and who you need to talk with to sort things out. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm with BDJ on this, but I think that we can avoid discussion of independence if we reference to the reliable source guideline (see examples below). In one example I shortened BDJ's suggestion and tried to remove any inplication that more than one source is required. --Kevin Murray 19:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Rethinking the first sentence

A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and of each other. Please enter an alternative here AND IDENTIFY WITH YOUR SIGNATURE. Please put your discussion below the list.

• (1) A topic is notable if it has been prominently discussed in multiple published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and of each other.--Kevin Murray 04:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  (2) A topic is notable if it has been significantly featured in two or more published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and of each other.--Kevin Murray 04:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  (3) A topic is notable if it has sufficient, independent works that are reliable and can act as the basis for an article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  (4) In general, a topic is notable if it has been prominently discussed in multiple non-trivial published works that meet Wikipedia's reliable source guideline and are independent of the subject itself. TheronJ 16:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  (5) A topic is notable if sufficient source material which is independent of the article subject and meets our reliable source guidelines exists to write a comprehensive[1] article. ([1]: Could one day make GA or FA status.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 17:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  (5a) A topic is notable if there is sufficient source material which meets the reliable source guidelines. --Kevin Murray 20:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  (6) A topic is notable when there is sufficient information which meets the reliable source guideline. --Kevin Murray 19:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  (7) A topic is notable if consensus agrees that the topic has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself. Sancho McCann 19:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  (8) A topic is notable is it has been discussed in a reliable published work independent of the subject.

  (9) A topic may be notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and of each other.

  (10) A topic may be notable only if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and of each other.

• (11)

  (12)

  (13)

Discussion of above

If you rethink the first sentence, you will also have to rethink the first section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#The_primary_notability_criterion). I'd rather not.Kmarinas86 06:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think so. I believe that you are referring to the primary criterion section which expands on the statement above. Only minimum rewriting will be needed there. This whole guideline is still new and it is premature to assume that it has any stability which must be protected. --Kevin Murray 16:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Very true. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• A couple quick thoughts on my suggestion: (1) I added "In general," because there are items (primarily news events) that meet the "central criterion" but are nevertheless not notable. On the other side, I see no obstacle to permitting individual subject matter notability standards in some cases, where those standards are supported by consensus and the articles can still be verifiably sourced. (2) As I've been arguing, I think the "independent" requirement is poorly defined. If a major publisher chooses to publish an autobiography of a subject, or a major news organization publishes an interview with that person, I think that makes them more notable in my book than if those events did not occur. TheronJ 16:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Is there really a difference between #3 and #6? Also, #5 is insanely dangerous. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• 6 was meant to be a fine tune on 3, I thought about making it 3B. The subtle difference is removing the plural "works" and taking out the word "independent" with reference added to the verifiabliity guideline which discusses independence in detail. --Kevin Murray 19:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Erm...might you elaborate on why you call mine "insanely dangerous"? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 19:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• It's extremely anti-stub. It assumes that there are no encyclopedic concepts or subjects that lack a large amount of information. A few examples from my article creation list that would disappear with your idea include Pirate's Booty, Love Shack, and Ern Westmore. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with the anti-stub concern

• It was not intended to be anti-stub, which is why I put "could" rather than "is"-very few articles start as anything but a stub. My concern is more to be anti-permastub, stuff that's not just unexpanded but unexpandable. Regardless of that, though, we need to define sufficient somehow-"sufficient" is a meaningless term by itself, it asks the question "Sufficient for what?" Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 19:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• "sufficient" to establish "notability," I'd think. Anything more than that is beyond this guideline's scope, IMO. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Uh...isn't that a bit circular? "Something is notable if there's a sufficient establishment of notability?" That still looks to beg the question to me, "How much is enough?" Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 20:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• there is no escape from the ambiguity of any word which we plug-in, and to define the word within the text is problematic. I think at some point we ahve to leave it up to the editors who write, and those who review. --Kevin Murray 20:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Well, at some point, it's up to the editors who write anyway-this is only a guideline, so people are free to ignore it in an AfD discussion if they so desire. (Obviously this happens, the articles Jeff cites technically fail the guideline as written, but I don't think anyone could realistically argue they should be deleted. For my part, I'd certainly argue to keep them if they found their way to AfD.) What might be more useful then a definition, then, would be some examples where notability would be clearly established (a historic event which several noted historians have written in-depth works on), clearly not established (a garage band citing their own Myspace page), and borderline and likely to be contentious (a single mention in a newspaper article). If we're just going to say "Figure it all out as you go", we may as well have no guideline whatsoever-a guideline is supposed to be something people can look at and say "Oh, this subject I want to write about is definitely notable, I've got a ton of sources to cite" or "Oh, I guess my local pizzeria really isn't a notable topic." I also think we need some definition of encyclopedic scope here, some things are mentioned in several sources but are unencyclopedic, but that's another topic for another time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 20:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• My wording was poor. "Sufficient" to establish an article, I should have said. A quick mention in a news story about a fire, to use someone else's analogy, isn't sufficient enough to establish an article, but, like my examples above, there's enough material across books and newspapers to establish an article about Mom and Dad. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Well...then we're back to where we started. One probably could establish a stub on a fire that makes the papers, but unless it reaches the level of the Great Fire of Chicago, nothing more. You seem to be arguing both for and against permastubs, I'm a little confused here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 20:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, but would there be enough information to establish an article? That may be why I originally said "establish notability" - A few notes on a local fire doesn't make that fire "notable," but a number of unrelated mentions about someone who isn't the primary subject of a piece, but a primary subject would confer "notability." The problem here is trying to find a one-size-fits-all guideline when one simply cannot exist. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• To add to above-the three Jeff cites might not reach FA, but there's plenty of source coverage, I could certainly see all three of those reaching GA. I don't see any of those failing if we defined sufficient that way. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 19:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, technically, except for Love Shack, two of them technically fail to meet WP:N as it's now written, which is a problem. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm concerned that #8 opens the door to trivial mention. --Kevin Murray 19:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'd also be very concerned that it'd open the door to all kinds of things. Newspapers are reliable sources, but do we really need an article about "Santa Claus's 2007 appearance at Municipal Mall"? Newspapers do report those things. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 20:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• #9 I have become increasingly unhappy with the results of the "multiple non-trivial works" rule. I think changing it to be not sufficient in and of itself for notability would be not only a useful change, but would also reflect actual practice in AFDs and make common sense. As it is, we have what I will call "the culvert problem" - which is to say, in our increasingly online and indexed world, you can probably find multiple non-trivial reports on matters that are entirely trivial or mundane, and that perhaps even badlydrawnjeff might admit do not belong in Wikipedia - such as, say, a town project to build a new culvert or a local dispute over the zoning of a piece of land. We are now having AFDs over middle schools, elementary schools, libraries, and such, and while these are generally being deleted at AFD, it is fairly clear that if you looked hard enough, you could probably find the multiple sources to theoretically justify them. Comments? --Brianyoumans 18:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • #9 isn't informative at all unless you change it to say "may be notable only if". As it stands now, it doesn't give any direction for inclusion or exclusion. The others at least give direction for inclusion, but actually, I just noticed, all of these proposed phrases say nothing about the notability of a subject if it doesn't meet the criteria stated in the phrase, they only talk about the notability if the subject does meet the criteria. Sancho McCann 18:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, that is an improvement, that was my intention. I will make that #10. Having multiple sources should be a minimum for being notable, but I believe it is not sufficient.--Brianyoumans 18:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
      • "Multiple" sources is worthless if the "multiple sources" don't say anything. It's why I'm a proponent of #3 - "sufficient" makes more sense, because one source may undoubtedly show "notability" where three would not. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Reordering First Paragraphs

I changed the order of the sentences in the first paragraph so that the reason for the guideline is stated before jumping into definitions. --Kevin Murray 20:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The following is a bogus sentence

"This requirement ensures that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic"

Please enter an alternative here. Please put your discussion below the list.

• (1)This guideline ensures that the available source material justifies an encyclopedic article about the topic. --Kevin Murray 20:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  (2) This guideline ensures that the available source material provides information that justifies an encyclopedic article about the topic. DGG 00:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

  (3)

  (4)

  (5)

  (6)

Discussion

• Since our notability guidelines do not set criteria for any amount of material, how can the requirement say "enough"? These guidelines estabish criteria for being notable, not the volume of sources. --Kevin Murray 20:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Verifiability is covered elsewhere. The notability guidelines dont' ensure verifiability, they speak to a charactersitic of the subject, and how to establish it. --Kevin Murray 20:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • This is the crux of my issue with any sort of "primary" guideline. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Our core content policies are related, and must be understood as a whole, not in isolation. Where's the problem? Friday (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
      • To note that a) we need to make sure articles are verifiable and b) "notability" is established by X if the subject is Y doesn't isolate anything. The problem is noted above in numerous areas. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
      • "Our core content policies are related, and must be understood as a whole" is true, but to mistate the purpose of this guideline does not achieve that purpose. The interactions are discussed further into the page. --Kevin Murray 21:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
        • There is no mis-statement. Notability as formulated here is topic-based verifiability, and topic-based verifiability for an accurate, comprehensive encyclopedia article is one of the major reasons for requiring notability. —Centrx→talk • 23:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Well that's clear as mud! And how is that thought conveyed in the sentence under discussion? --Kevin Murray 23:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
            • What is unclear about it? —Centrx→talk • 23:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
              • Clarity is in the eye of the beholder. --Kevin Murray 23:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
                • No, a sentence uses words with accepted meanings which generally any literate person should understand. If a sentence is unclear, the words may be vague or there may be some error or gap, or there may be some better formulation, and regardless you must not think that the sentence was entirely and without exception unclear. There is nothing about the beholder except a superior or inferior understanding of the language used, and for any inaccuracy in the statement or misunderstanding of the beholder there is some area or some possibility you can explain. Otherwise, it does not matter that you think a statement unclear if it is not even clear what you think is unclear about it. —Centrx→talk • 02:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yawn --Kevin Murray 00:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

(arbitrary indent reset) I really see no need for a change. The whole point of the notability guideline is to ensure that something more then a permastub can be created on a given subject, and that the information put into that article can be sourced and verified. I don't see a thing wrong with that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 00:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• You perception illustrates my point beautifully. You are confusing notability with the size of the article. The guidelines for AfD are quite clear that the size of an article and lack of sources are not reasons for removal, while lack of notability of the subject is among the few reasons for deletion. Notability is an attribute of the subject not the article. --Kevin Murray 00:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I think you're conflating the current size of the article with the possible size of the article. (Actually, exceptionally small size can be a reason for deletion under speedy deletion criteria A1 and A3, but that's generally not an issue.) The argument that "this article is a stub" is not (and should never be) accepted as a valid deletion reason. What can be a valid one is "This article could never possibly be more then a stub, not enough source material even exists." I've seen that accepted many times, and frequently have argued to delete such articles. The question WP:N asks is not "Does a comprehensive article exist right now?" but "Can it ever?" That's a pretty valid question. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 00:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I will give you that point, but still the main point here is that notability is an attribute of the subject not the article. Size is another issue for another guideline. --Kevin Murray 00:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
      • It is an attribute of the subject of the article, and a stronger distinction should be made between whether there are now multiple independent non-trivial reliable published sources and whether such sources may ever be found in the future. Current or prospective size is a consequence of the fact that any subject on Wikipedia that warrants a separate article should have an encyclopedic treatment, for which these sources are necessary. —Centrx→talk • 02:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Could you compose a clear example in 20 words or less? --Kevin Murray 03:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
          • An example of what? —Centrx→talk • 03:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notabilty (artists)

Please see here for my argument that such a policy is needed (particulary for painters).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Is subjective

Can we remove the section on notability not being subjective. Arguments rage over what constitutes a reliable publiched source, and if that can't be defined objectively, it makes the statement: "The inclusion of topics on Wikipedia is a reflection of whether those topics have been included in reliable published works. Other authors, scholars, or journalists have decided whether to give attention to a topic, and in their expertise have researched and checked the information about it." a statement based on a subjective clause, and therefore neuters the point being made. Hiding Talk 11:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the point in context is clear -- WP:RS over WP:ILIKEIT. -- Dragonfiend 11:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree. "Has this been covered in editorially-controlled and fact-checked or scholarly peer-reviewed publications?" is a pretty objective question. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 11:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It's actually fairly "subjective," not to mention creates a systematic bias against recent and non-paper-based productions. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Given the self-selection biases in the editing population, and the easy of finding info on recent events in firstworldistan rather than long past ones in thirdworldland, I'd think that "systematic bias" should read as "necessary, but still wholly inadequate, corrective to other biases". Mileage may vary. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Eh? Could I have that in layman's terms? Hiding Talk 19:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Angus, do they also speak english where you live? --Kevin Murray 00:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll attempt to translate: it's a lot easier for people in English-speaking countries to find and interpret English sources, so why would there be a systemic bias against niche web communities (where there are plenty of editors) versus articles notable in non-English languages? If anything the bias is towards niche web communities, because there are plenty of editors affiliated with them. ColourBurst 00:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No, actually, they don't, and whether they spoke it where I grew up is the subject of a long-running Wikipedia content dispute. But ColourBurst has it right. In future, I'll stick to the USA and a randomly selected African or South-East Asian country if I'm making that comparison. The point remains: we haven't done any more than scratch the surface in many subjects, and yet most of our time is occupied arguing about borderline, and directory-entry style, Anglosphere material originating in the past decade or so. You'll excuse me if I find the increasingly desperate attempts to justify including material which is clearly in the WP:NOT category (not a directory, not a publisher of original thought, not MySpace...) completely pointless. Based on my preliminary survey, 90% of the people covered in two recent Belgian biographical dictionaries aren't on Wikipedia. The proportion for African and Asian countries will be nearer 100%. There are millions of things to write about which no reasonable editor is going to send to AfD which haven't been started, and hundreds of thousands which exist in easily expandable stub form. There's no need to agonise over the borderline material when there's so much else to do. The only reason this page exists is to ensure that the NOT material is deleted. If it sweeps up a articles which may belong here, that's unfortunate, but no big deal. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The assessment of "multiple" and "non-trivial" is inherently subjective. I thought that the page was right before Centrx's revision of my edits.[3] TheronJ 15:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Correct me if I'm misunderstanding people, but is everyone agreeing that it is subjective, but some people are stating it is subjective in a good way? I mean, "Has this been covered in editorially-controlled and fact-checked or scholarly peer-reviewed publications?" is a pretty subjective reading of "topics have been included in reliable published works". Hiding Talk 19:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • To some degree, anything done by human beings has an inherent level of subjectivity. Yes, there's some dispute over what constitutes reliability, but in general we can be pretty clear-Nature and The New York Times are reliable, Joe's Blog and an anonymous forum post are not. "Non-trivial" is a bit subjective, which is actually why I was discussing replacing it with a more objective criteria-"Sufficient secondary source coverage to create a comprehensive article". Is that still somewhat subjective? Well, to an extent, I suppose as long as WP:IAR exists, every last one of our policies/guidelines/etc. is to some degree subjective-if anyone wishes, (s)he can make a case as to why there's an exception to the rule warranted in any given case. Still, on the scale, it's pretty objective. It totally discounts "I've heard of it/I've never heard of it", "I like it/I don't like it", "Useful/useless", "Harmful/harmless", and a whole lot of other genuinely subjective methods of determining whether we should have an article on something. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 19:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Right, but the point here is whether it's subjective or not. Yes, we can quibble over all existenc being subjective, and yes, I take the point that we've moved away from I've heard of it arguments, but we do still seem to be rooted in I don't like it territory. A lot of debates now seem to be "I don't like that source". That's subjective. Hiding Talk 22:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The "primary" criterion in relation to WP:V

It seems that there's an assertion that the primary criterion is meant to act as a relationship between this and WP:V. How is that true?

1. WP:V doesn't require multiple sources for verification. The standards are that "any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source" and that "[i]f an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."
2. WP:V (which is eventually going to be part of our attribution policy is about making sure things are accurate and cited properly, and has nothing to do with "notability," a separate concept. The word "notability" only occurs once in WP:V, and only specifically in regard to self-published sources.

As it stands, it seems there is not much agreement regarding what this alleged "primary criterion" should say. What has been noted, here and elsewhere, is that the alleged "primacy" of the criterion, if applied ahead of the individual criteria that WP:N points users to, makes a lot of "notable" and/or "verifiable" subjects with either long histories, "notable" existences or encyclopedic value "non-notable" based on the flawed and improper wording:

• Jordanhill Railway Station, one of the better sourced and better written articles we have here. Many railway stations would continue to fail this guideline under current language, irregardless of their actual "notability."
• Mom and Dad, a 1940s/1950s exploitation film. Highly "notable" due to it being entered into the National Film Registry, arguably the most important film of its genre - it has not been "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and of each other," rather being mentioned either in conjunction with other films of its time or in tandem with its producer. She Shoulda Said No! is another film that is similar, yet fails to meet the current standard.
• User:Rambot added a number of townships that are unlikely to meet this criterion, although there's certainly no doubt of their "notability."
• Pirate's Booty is a well-known, highly-distributed snack food. It also toes the line, although comes very close to not meeting the criteria, depending on how you view the sources regarding the nutritional standards. "Notable?" Absolutely. Meets this standard? Probably not.
• Ern Westmore. Part of the second generation of the famed Hollywood Westmore family. The family has had a book written about them, of which Ern got very little play. He hosted a show, did a number of movies, and even won a special Oscar for makeup when the Academy didn't give out Oscar's for that sort of thing. One could argue the book isn't "independent" enough, and if there are multiple, non-trivial works about him, I haven't found them (and I've looked high and low for a separate, non-Wikipedia project I'm working on- they don't appear to exist). "Notable?" Highly. Very much so. Meets this standard? Nope.
• Robert Ehrlich (businessman), this one has an AfD to go off of, as well - near-unanimous keep even though he's not the "primary subject" of "multiple, non-trivial" articles. Again, is he "notable?" Most certainly, and an unrelated group of AfD participants agreed. Did he meet this standard? Nope.
• Starslip Crisis - Currently at AfD - meets WP:WEB, has enough sourcing to demonstrate "notability," but again lacks the "multiple, non-trivial" standard. "Notable?" Yup. Meets this? Nope.

These are only what have been brought up in discussions I've been having lately, and I'm sure we could build a list of more if we made the effort. But the point is that this standard is too high, and doesn't reflect reality - if we want a "standard" for "notability," we have to make sure it reflects the fact that things are "notable" without being the subject of multiple, published works, but rather having gained sufficient coverage in third party, independent publications to discern "notability." Debate on individual subjects is a good thing, and we should be encouraging this as opposed to trying to shoehorn everything into a flawed standard - "notability" is entirely subjective, and we need to reflect that, doing so without abandoning the core policies. We don't do that right now. We need to fix that, pronto. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I often don't agree with badlydrawnjeff in discussions of individual articles, but that is because he --and I hope I as well--talk about individual articles, not categories, and decisions on individual articles are inherently inconsistent and variable. Looking at the articles he mentions, they meet current and proposed criteria:I.

• For Jordanhill, in 06 it was 1/3 the size, and with 1/3 the references, but they included two newspaper articles and several official reports. Now there are 2 books, 7 newspaper articles, a number of official reports and maps, and some university websites.

  For Mom and Dad there are books and articles & obviously any number of newspaper reviews for the first release could also have been found. She Shoulda Said No, though not on the Registry, also has books and newspaper articles--& again there would be more reviews. Both meet N & V by all past & present standards.

  Townships i wont discuss, because I do not think them notable, unless used as a place to merge other local articles for schools, etc.

  Pirate's Booty, also unchallenged, has 4 newspaper articles. This is enough for N--which I regard as unfortunate, because i don't think it notable. If it were challengeable, I'd have challenged it. Some other snack foods have , however, been deleted after AfD.

  Ern Westmore makes it, with a book and an EB entry. Using those references, additional sources could also have been found. books and an article.

  Ehrlich is probably notable, but the present article doesn't show it, except to the extent of his being the manufacturer of Pirate's Booty. It was listed as a speedy, which is one of the many absurd speedys. At the AfD, I voted merge.

So I am not quite clear about the complaints. Not all the edit histories are complete, but I saw no other AfD's. Jeff, could you point me to the discussions--I didn't see any on your talk pages either. But there are always a few people who will take perverse positions bout almost anything, and no set of standards, detailed or general, can cope with them. The only thing that can is community pressure, in WP as expressed by AfD. But the result for AfDs are often odd, due to the chance of who is present and who does the closing.

There are some subjects where there is no consensus, or no stable one--many of them dealing with local history, and many IMO derived from the earlier choices made when WP was young and needed articles. Some people want to reverse some of them, and no adjustment of the rules will satisfy true splits about policy.

None of this implies that I think the N criteria as stated are correct; I do not think them correct except in broad principle, but this note is long enough. DGG 17:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

There haven't been any AfDs for the majority of what I've brought up there, but there could be. The problem here is that you're not even applying the WP:N standard when reviewing them - even you agree that many of them are "notable," although they don't meet the standard. Having an EB entry isn't enough for this - you need "multiple, non-trivial works," something Ern Westmore lacks. As I noted with Mom and Dad, it's not the "subject" of any of them, and thus, technically, doesn't qualify. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

But, see, we interpret guidelines here, rather than interpreting some individual word in a very specific way to reach a certain answer. You're ruleslawyering too much on this- Mom and Dad most certainly is notable, by any reasonable interpretation. Only by bending over backward and squinting just right is it not the subject of sources. Friday (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no realistic way to interpret this guideline and have Mom and Dad be "notable" per how it's worded. You want to call it ruleslawyering in an attempt to belittle my opinion, it's simply not going to fly. If you have to bend over backward to try and make something fit when it doesn't, there's a problem with the guideline - period. I mean, if you're going to sit there and say "we need a primary criterion" and then turn around and say "Yeah, but we'll ignore it for X, Y, and Z," what's the point? Why is this even here? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it that way- you're objecting that Mom and Dad hasn't been the sole subject of enough works? Huh? I could write a book where each chapter has a different subject. Magazines contain many different articles, often with seperate subjects. Where did you get the idea that the sources don't count if they mention other things also? Thats bizarre, and it's not a reasonable reading of the guideline in any way I can figure. This is why I think you're bending over backward here. Friday (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Mom and Dad hasn't been the sole subject of any works that I've found. The closest it comes is the Reason article linked at the article, and even that is arguably about the producer. The books that I rely on most for the articles are about exploitation filmmaking and do not cover Mom and Dad specifically, or even as a major topic. With no independent reviews readily available because of the era and the genre, this simply fails to qualify. It has nothing to do with if a magazine or book covers multiple things - obviously, those count. The problem is that this specific subject lacks that. We can't realistically expect people to interpret this guideline any other way. If we want to, why have it? Or why not reword it to something actually worthwhile? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the point is here. Assuming that Badlydrawnjeff is correct (I don't think he is -- Mom and Dad certainly seems to be the "subject" of sources like the Reason magazine or L.A. Times/Washington Post stories), then he has at best found some exceptions to a guideline that clearly states "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception"? --Dragonfiend 23:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the Reason piece is arguable, but the LA Times and Washington Post ones certainly are not, they're actually interviews and stories with the producer. The point of the matter is that we shouldn't have to rely on exceptions in order to meet some arbitrary goal when we can do a better job, which we can. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, maybe I'm reading a different Washington Post article by Kenneth Turan then, because the one I'm reading is definately not an interview. I thought the LA Times reference was the same story with a different headline for that paper. If you're interested in this other Washington Post story which is not an interview, it is "Kroger Babb's Motto: 'You've Got To Tell 'em To Sell 'em'" from August 1, 1977. Anyway, I'm still not sure what change you're actually proposing, Change "the subject" to "a subject"? Create a guideline for which there will be no exceptions? -- Dragonfiend 00:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The Turan article I'm sourcing is a bio about Babb with a number of quotes interspersed from Babb himself, I have the photocopy in my hand. It's not about any specific film itself, and not a "traditional" interview, which was probably misleading of me to use - Babb was certainly interviewed for the piece. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• When I added the primary criterion to WP:WEB, my intention was to base it on WP:V. I agree however that the meaning of it seems to have drifted so far away from that basis that it has become meaningless. "multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself" I tried to delete the independent sources essay, but apparently my speedy of it was felt out of process even though I created it. That's being misinterpreted, since what I wanted to establish was simply that we shouldn't write an article using only the thing we are describing itself as a source. Now it appears the limit is that there are at least 5 independent non-trivial sources, with the definition of non-trivial being cranked up to mean 12 page treatises. I told you back in May 2006 that I intended the guideline to the guideline "move the debate from is this notable to is this a reliable source on which to build an article". That may have happened, but not in a fgood sense. I think I always tried to be guided by Jimmy's quote:

“ 'fame' and 'importance' are not the right words to use, they are merely rough approximations to what we're really interested in, which is verifiability and NPOV. I understand and appreciate where people are coming from on the 'Yes' vote, but feel that they will only get the unanimity necessary in a wiki environment if they rephrase the issue in those terms. Consider an obscure scientific concept, 'Qubit Field Theory' -- 24 hits on google. I'd say that not more than a few thousand people in the world have heard of it, and not more than a few dozen understand it. (I certainly don't.) It is not famous and it is arguably not important, but I think that no one would serious question that it is valid material for an encyclopedia. What is it that makes this encyclopedic? It is that it is information which is verifiable and which can be easily presented in an NPOV fashion. (Though perhaps only as a stub, of course, since it's very complicated and not many people would know how to express it clearly in layperson's terms.) ”

• That should be our guiding principle, if you ask me. Hiding Talk 22:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed. The question is - does this achieve it properly? --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Revisiting the discussion above

Per the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Rethinking_the_first_sentence above, it seems there is significant disagreement regarding what the wording actually should be in the first sentence. The dispute moves further when we start bringing in specific topics and articles, so in the interests of moving things along instead of keeping multiple guidelines in flux, it appears a few are favored over others:

1. Keeping it the same.
   • I note this because some don't seem to see the problem, and this is the initial consensus version for this page. I would like to think that the strength of arguments and pushback on implementation describes practice and consensus differently, but we're discussing it.
2. In general, a topic is notable if it has been prominently discussed in multiple non-trivial published works that meet Wikipedia's reliable source guideline and are independent of the subject itself.
   • Presented to allow for caveats. Probably the most open standard, and probably the most open to the type of "wikilawyering" so many people are afraid of.
3. A topic is notable if it has sufficient, independent works that are reliable and can act as the basis for an article.
   • My preference, and one that more than a couple people liked, but there are issues and some serious pushback from a couple people at this point, as well. I'd like to think it encourages discussion as to whether the sources are enough to go beyond a directory-style entry rather than bickering over whether a source is trivial or not, but some may disagree.
4. A topic may be notable only if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and of each other.
   • This had some agreement toward the end, but I personally feel that it's too similar to 2 in terms of the issues it presents.

So what direction should we go with this? Any further thoughts after sifting through the discussions? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm for 3. "Multiple" is fundamentally misleading; "sufficient" is closer to what is needed. A subject is notable if you can find sufficient reliable material to write an article which is NPOV, and isn't any of the NOTs. One point that needs emphasising is that when the subject is a text, it is not a sufficient source in itself. The presumption has to be that any article on a text based solely on that text is OR. That apart, the number of sources will depend on their subject and quality. As the sources become less focussed on the subject of the article, or more trivial, or less reliable, the number needed will increase. At some point, which will vary from case to case, there will no longer be sufficient material to produce an article which meets the basic inclusion criteria of ENC, NPOV, NOT, and ATT/V. (But some sorts of NOT-a-directory articles would clearly be included on the basis of ENC; gazetteer-type directory entries are generally found in a large encyclopedia.) The problem comes when people write articles based on OR and memory, then try to backfit references at AfD. That's never very convincing as the references are treated as karma points, some number of which of which will save the article from deletion. No matter what this or the related guidelines may say, I would much rather see articles written on the basis of a single good source than one with a dozen weak ones added as afterthoughts. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It seemed someone added it in, which I somewhat support, but hope people will discuss further if there's problems. This should replace the "primary" criterion as well, as it's a better description of what constitutes "notability," but I, again, won't change it without consensus. If it's uncontroversial where it was added, I'm hoping it's uncontroversial here, too. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Jeff that we will need to make the primary consistent with this sentence, and when we reach consensus on that, we should adjust the text in subordinate pages. All in good time though. --Kevin Murray 19:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Reviewing the discussion above and here the consensus seems to be for the salient terms of BDJ's option #3. However, it could be a shorter sentence in the context of the surrounding sentences, where the example above needed to stand on its own. --Kevin Murray 19:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm still for 3, but still if and only if we somehow answer the obvious question "Sufficient for what?" Sufficient to prove the subject exists? Sufficient to one day write a GA or FA (my preference?) Somewhere in between? "Sufficient", by itself, is a meaningless word. Consider the following couple sentences: "Do we have sufficient sugar?" "Is half a tank sufficient gas?" If you didn't already know what the person was asking about, those are nonsense. "Do we have sufficient sugar to make 3 dozen cookies?" "Is half a tank sufficient gas to get to Las Vegas?" These are meaningful, and so should the statement we put in. If we can define sufficient, I like Jeff's version much better. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 03:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Sufficient to write a decent article. And by "decent" I mean "Abides by guidelines such as WP:WAF which prescribe a real-world focus, or otherwise does not fall under the various things we are WP:NOT, particularly indiscriminate". Nifboy 08:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Sufficient to write a non-stub, policy compliant (WP:NOR+WP:V/WP:ATT; WP:NPOV; WP:NOT; WP:WAF (guideline, but mostly a long form of WP:NOT#IINFO #7); WP:BLP) reasonably-comprehensive article on the topic. I don't use FA because only the best articles should be FA, so to say all should be would be ridiciulous. I hope the GA standards aren't significantly different than that plus some reasonable quality of writing, but I don't know or care about them so I can't reference them. Also, GA and FA standards have changed over time, generally upwards, and we won't want this definition to automatically change meaning when they change next. GRBerry 14:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think GBerry nails it. I think that if (when? I think we're coming close to a consensus, but it was the weekend) we do the substitution, that wording would become the footnote for "sufficient." --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Basically, #3 solves a grand majority of our interpretation problems:

• WP:V states that we need to source our articles.
• WP:RS dictates how good our sources need to be.
• WP:OR, WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:WAF state that topics need more sources than simple observation.

And to cap it off WP:N (will) say that these sources (in whatever form they take) need to, at a minimum, exist, before we think it's worth even starting an article on. Instead of bickering about what's "trivial" or "published" or whatever, we get to look at all the sources and say "Can we write anything even remotely resembling a decent article?" And sometimes we get to cut corners and say "Well, decent sources obviously exist because X, Y, Z", where X, Y, and Z are our various more specific criteria. Nifboy 17:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• • So does it appear we have a working consensus here? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Crackpot science using patent as disguise

Let's say you "invented" a strong magnet and you use it to "magnitize" wine, beer, milk, whatever that costs more than 0.001 cent per liter and "improve" their tastes. You go to the patent office of your country and get a patent of it. Anyway, even crackpot science may be patented because the examiners usually only examine applications on paper.

You then make thousands of these magnets and sell them as "Magnetic Wine Improvers." Someone writes an entry for these MWIs and used the patent as a proof of credibility.

What is Wikipedia's policy on these stupid inventions? -- Toytoy 19:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC-8)

A patent, by itself, would be a primary source, as it's written by the (inventor/corporation/etc.) That's why we require secondary sources. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 19:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Centrality re-revisited

Let's see if we can get a clear consensus one way or the other. Is this a central guideline, to which "secondary" guidelines make suggestions as to what probably will pass, or do the secondary guidelines carve out exceptions? As an example, if a website has won an award (criterion 2 of WP:WEB), but is only given a brief mention as having won the award, and no other secondary coverage is available, should we cover it? Why or why not? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 23:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Yes, there should be exceptions. Jordanhill railway station is arguably notable as a railway station, yet has no "non-trivial" sources. --NE2 23:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Well, there will always be exceptions-even the guideline tag at the top of the page acknowledges that! Jeff and I have been looking to do some fixing to that as well (mainly replacing "multiple non-trivial" with "sufficient"). But if none of that information in the Jordanhill article is verified by its sources, it shouldn't be there-that's WP:V, nothing to do with WP:N. If it is all verified, there's a lot of information there, so there must be nontrivial sourcing available. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 23:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC-8)

None of the references for the station are specifically about the station; they all cover the line or the place. This is similar to the fact that a lot of maps show a minor two-lane dirt road, and there may be newspaper articles that mention it in passing. The railway station is notable because it's a railway station, not because of the number of trivial mentions. Similarly, there might be enough information on an album for an article, even when that album is only mentioned in the context of the band. --NE2 02:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC-8)

The concept of notability is tangential to some topics. WP:ENC is the ultimate content rule, and an encyclopedia normally includes a gazetteer. That's why we have Jordanhill Station, Rambot geo stubs, Asteroid cruft, et cetera; they're our gazetteer and simply part of the encyclopedia by definition. Angus McLellan (Talk) 03:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC-8)

I'm for a central guideline (multiple non-trivial sources) as primary with secondary guidelines (toured the US or whatever) that are supposed to be good indicators that the topic will meet the primary. --Dragonfiend 01:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC-8)

I also agree with Dragonfiend. The central guideline is a easily applied criterion especially as relating to contemporal ephemera such as Internet or TV phenomenons. Subject-specific guidelines may make limited exceptions, such as stating that e.g. localities (villages or towns) are notable even without links to coverage specifically about the subject, as long as of course the content is verifiable. Sandstein 02:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC-8)

I thought the thing that was being edit warred over is whether these exceptions should be allowed. --NE2 03:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC-8)

The "secondary" guidelines are the guiding principles. They're what govern "notability" for specific subjects beyond any sort of "initial" criteria. Given taht the "central" ignores "notability" in other areas, and tries too hard to expect more than what WP:V needs, there's nothing central about it and it's not being treated as such. --badlydrawnjeff talk 06:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC-8)

I'll also note that the expectation that such "centrality" will stick at the individual guidelines is hardly a given - people don't watch this place and are unlikely to know exactly what's being proposed here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 06:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC-8)

If the question is, does Wikipedia:Notability override the subject specific notability guidelines, the answer is no. WP:N is the simplified accents of the subject specific guidelines and gives a general overview on notability. But when it is in conflict with one of the subject specific guidelines, the subject specific guideline should be given the higher credibility.

After all, notability guidelines are about determining if a topic is notable enough for an article. It is not suppose to determine if there is enough material to actually right that article. That should be left to other guidelines and policies.

With that said, I think the primary notability criteria is misleading and adds to the confusion by giving the impression that it is the most important of the notability criteria. Instead, it should be renamed to the common notability criteria, thought it doesn't have quite the same flair. --Farix (Talk) 08:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC-8)

The primary criterion as worded today only lists what is sufficient for a subject to be considered notable, not what is necessary. This is because it says, "a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself", rather than only if. The implication direction is:

the topic has been the subject of ... => notable

To have the implication go other direction, that a topic must meet this criterion in order to be deemed notable, ie:

notable => the topic has been the subject of ...

would require us to change the wording from if to only if. So as it stands now, this primary criterion doesn't eliminate the possiblility that other guidelines can add criteria that subjects could satisfy as an alternative to satisfying the primary criterion. Sancho McCann 17:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC-8)

You've got a point there, but I'd sure be all for making that "only if" change! The only consideration we should be making is whether enough source material exists to have a decent article. Otherwise, we're putting the lie to a lot of things we say here. Here are some examples of how many of the secondary guidelines, if they were interpreted as establishing notability in and of themselves, would cause every one of the things we list here that "notability is not" to fail.

• "Notability is not subjective"

WP:BIO, has made a "lasting contribution" to the field-who decides what an important and lasting contribution is, if we don't leave that to the discretion of those who choose whether or not to write books and news articles about the person?

WP:MUSIC, "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network." This doesn't mean we can say anything about them but that, and is totally subjective as to what any given radio station happens to want to play. "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." A label being notable doesn't mean everyone who works for it is. McDonald's is notable, but most of its employees are not. California is notable, but most of the contractors it hires are not. And why two albums? Why not one? Three? Five? That is subjective, it's a completely arbitrary number that has no bearing on whether we can write a decent article. Most (if not all) of the others here fail similarly.

WP:WEB is likely the worst for this particular one. "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization." A lot of non-notable people and things win notable awards. Notability doesn't "rub off". "The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." Just because a reporter gets h(is|er) stories published through the Associated Press (a very notable organization) does not mean that the reporter is notable. Again, notability shouldn't "rub off", it should be established for every individual subject, every time.

• "Notability is generally permanent"

Not if we allow these sub-guidelines to allow coverage of "flash-in-the-pan" type events, which have barely been covered. Notability should be permanent, it is true, but in ten years, many minor bands which would technically pass WP:MUSIC will have long-since faded away, and you won't be able to find a thing on them. Unless reliable sources (which tend to be filed and archived) have covered them, their notability will pass with their careers. The same with internet fads that might win an award somewhere or get picked up by a bigger site, and pass WP:WEB-for three weeks. Of course, those big sites will dump it without a peep as soon as the hits and ad revenue drop off, and in five years no one will know or care it happened.

• "Notability is not popularity"

It sure is now! If we're going to consider AfD in effect a vote rather than a debate (see the RfC against Nearly Headless Nick), if we're going to have "popularity contest" guidelines (getting a gold record is entirely based on popularity, as is winning a web award or getting picked up by a big website). And look at the worst offender on this one, from WP:BIO:

Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Notability can be determined by:...A large fan base, fan listing, or "cult" following...Name recognition...Commercial endorsements.

How could we get more subjective, less permanent, and more of a "popularity contest" then that?

Of course, if we look at WP:N as central and primary, and the secondary guidelines as suggestive as to when a subject might meet WP:N rather than prescriptive as to when a subject is an exception to it, none of these problems apply. Sure, people who have lots of fans, web sites that win big awards, and bands that get gold records probably have enough sourcing to write an article on. But "probably" doesn't mean "certainly", and we've already got enough trouble with unsourced articles. Let's not carve out exceptions to sourcing. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 18:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Yes, they disappear and instead end up eliminating a lot of otherwise "notable" things because it doesn't meet a shortsighted criteria that fails to tkae specifics into account. It's similar to why WP:RS is so flawed - a one-size-fits-all rationale doesn't make sense - what's "notable" for a musician isn't "notable" for a website, just like what's "reliable" for a historian isn't "reliable" for a scientist. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Jeff, you can write specific guidelines for inclusion until you are blue in the face, but you can't provide text for the articles unless it comes from legitimate sources. So why have all of these confusing special rules? --Kevin Murray 18:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Because notability is still different than verifiability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC-8)

In theory yes, but at WP verifiability is a surrogate for notability, since the latter can not be objectively defined. I think the whole concept of demonstrating notability is a recently concocted farce to introduce subjectivity in the guise of guidelines, by deletion minded editors. --Kevin Murray 19:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC-8)

(edit conflicted reply to Jeff) Personally, I see no reason why we can't have some ground rules for reliability altogether. Is the source anonymous? Is it fact-checked by professional editors or peer-reviewed by respected scholars, or is it published in a way that anyone could've published anything, true or not? Is it a long-established, well-respected publication, is it something without much of a track record, or does it have a longstanding reputation-for publishing garbage? What's the depth of coverage? What's the credentials of the person(s) who wrote the piece? This applies equally to historians, scientists, music critics, or anything else. Now, does that mean that a lengthy and reliable music criticism will be the same length as a lengthy and reliable quantum-physics paper? Of course not. But the basic questions can always remain the same, even if the answer will by definition be case- and subject-dependent. And Jeff, once again-should we have exceptions to sourcing, or not? Notability and verifiability are not separate issues. Notability ensures that we can write an article from reliable sources. Verifiability requires that we actually then do that. They're as closely related as you could get.

(to Kevin) I suppose there will be some inherent degree of subjectivity in anything human beings do, no matter what it may be. Anyone who denies that is just deluding h(im|er)self. That aside, though, I think you can make things more objective or subjective, and I think this central guideline is about as objective as we're going to get. On the other hand, if we don't accept this one as primary, it's highly subjective. (Which awards count for websites? Who decides? We do! Why gold albums? Why not platinum? Why two, why not one? Three?) These are highly subjective criteria. Saying "We'll leave it to writers to determine what's important enough to write about, we'll leave it to reliable publications to determine what's important and reliable enough to publish", is about as unsubjective as we get. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 19:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC-8)

I agree. But if we have to have a notability guideline, let's keep it simple. --Kevin Murray 19:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC-8)

You keep asking if we should have exceptions for sourcing as if I've ever suggested such a thing. "notability" ensures one thing - that the subject is important enough for inclusion, period. "Verifiability" only has to do with quality control, which keeping the integrity of the encyclopedia intact. They are different issues - things are "verifiable" without being "notable," things are "notable" without being "verifiable." They're entirely different subjects. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC-8)

• I think it should be possible for the sub-notability guidelines to create exceptions to the primary (or common) criterion. If you can create a verified article supported by reliable sources on an encyclopedic topic, I'm open to letting you do it even if you can't find multiple independent non-trivial publications. WP:EPISODE is a real world example that claims to be supported by consensus, and my hypothetical exceptions would be that it would be reasonable, if consensus agreed, to decide that we would permit verified, reliably sourced articles on any Fortune 1000 company or award-winning novel, whether or not multiple non-trivial independent published sources could be located. TheronJ 07:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC-8)
  • Your logic is not thought through, and appears to be based upon a dichotomy that the page explicitly states does not exist. You posit that multiple non-trivial published works, from sources independent of the subject, do not exist about a subject. Then you posit that there are reliable sources to support the article. The only circumstances where this is true is where the reliable sources are trivial, i.e. they address the subject only peripherally or tangentially, whilst actually discussing a different subject. In that case, it is impossible to build more than a perpetual stub article from those reliable sources. A perpetual stub article is presenting the information in Wikipedia in the wrong way. As the guidelines say, such a subject is not notable, and an article on it should be renamed, refactored, or merged into an article with a broader scope. (You appear to be mistakenly thinking, when you say "I'm open to letting you do it", that deletion is the only way to deal with non-notable subjects. The guidelines clearly say otherwise.) You point to WP:EPISODE as some sort of real world example that supports your logic. In fact, it does not, but rather supports the Primary Notability Criterion as given here, and the ways, also given here, for dealing with subjects that do not satisfy it. It explicitly does not condone having perpetual stub articles about individual television episodes, both by the ways that it suggests that articles be created in the first place and in what it says about problem articles.

    Seeing that you bring up the idea of real world examples, I suggest looking at what happened to your hypothetical exceptions in the real world. You mention exceptions for Fortune 1000 companies. WP:CORP explicitly had a secondary criterion that stated that companies on the Fortune lists were notable, right from its very first version. It was recently removed in favour of only having the PNC. You mention award-winning books. There's a discussion running on Wikipedia talk:Notability (books) where at least one editor has opined that "A bold guess, I think we basically agree: there's only one ("one") notability criterion for books in Wikipedia context, that is: 'having been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself'."

    The PNC has been around, in one form or another, for a long time. (I did not invent it from whole cloth.) It enjoys widespread support, and there are quite a few editors who agree with it whilst disagreeing strongly with many of the more specific secondary notability criteria (such as "has won an award"). Uncle G 09:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC-8)

    • You wound me, sir. I may be wrong, but I can assure you my logic is well thought through.  ;-P (1) IMHO, your analysis begs the question. It is certainly possible to write an article that is fully sourced to verifiable reliable sources that are entirely "trivial" or "non-independant." Whether we want to do so is an issue for consensus, but my opinion is that there are cases where it is likely to be appropriate. (2) It seems somewhat silly to shout down people's opinions with the statement that there is supposedly "widespread support" for the opposing opinion. We test for consensus by discussion, not by bald statement. I think my opinion is right for the reasons I state, and look forward to discussing the issue. Thanks, TheronJ 10:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Since currently, the primary criterion is worded as a sufficient condition, but not a necessary condition (see a couple of comment upward) a further question that we should explicitly answer and have reflected in the guidelines is: "Can subject specific guidelines require a subject that meets the primary criterion to meet additional criteria?" This would be a true "exception" to the primary criterion. Adding alternative tests for specific subjects-areas that would deem a topic notable in lieu of passing the primary criterion (something that I believe most editors here seem to feel okay about allowing) is not an exception to the primary criterion as currently worded. Sancho McCann 09:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC-8)

There should be no guideline but this one, and only exceptions if they can be derived from the fact that this is an encyclopedia (i.e. the geographical stuff). Additional guidelines aren't needed. If there's material to write a proper article, then an article can be written. If there isn't, then there's no way to write an article, and no need to consider whether the subject is notable. The fact of having won an award can only come from a source (we don't believe people when they say they won an award, do we?) so there's no need to spin that out into some separate guideline. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC-8)

If that is to be the interpretation, we need to change the if in the PNC to an only if. I think that there is need for subject-specific guidelines, though. (The only way to eliminate this need would be to find a wording of the PNC in which we could use the phrase if and only if.) Also, the meanings of trivial, and independent from the subject may have subtle interpretations that change from subject to subject and that need detailed descriptions in order to capture the general consensus of the community. Sancho McCann 10:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC-8)

There has to be the other guidelines for reasons explained ad nauseum. Verifiable things aren't always "notable," "notable" things aren't always verifiable. Besides, we base an entire speedy deletion criteria on "notability," and speedying due to lack of sources has been soundly rejected. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC-8)

The fact that an article subject won an award may well come from a "trivial" source, such as a list of award winners, or from an "non-independent," but still reliable source, as dependent sources are reliable for non-controversial claims. TheronJ 10:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC-8)

I just realized another question that has to be answered. Has the purpose of the notability guideline changed from ensuring "that there is sufficient source material to include a verifiable, encyclopedic article about each topic"? Sancho McCann 10:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Common

Farix is right, this should be the common criterion. I added it to the page since it was common to all notability guidelines, not because it held primacy. Hiding Talk webcomic warrior 06:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC-8)

• Actually, it is primary in the sense that it came first. One can find the germ of it all of the way back in the March 2003 version of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Also, it was I, not you, who added it here, back in November 2006. Uncle G 09:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC-8)
  • Primary is being interpreted as the most important, not the first. That's the cause of a lot of these problems. --badlydrawnjeff talk 09:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC-8)
    • Well, that's because it is the most important. Subjects that cannot meet this will inevitably be NOT material: original thought, directory entries, indiscriminate info, advertising. We can argue about which sources are reliable, but not whether sources are needed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC-8)
      • Well, no, it's not the most important for notability. That was arbitrarily decided without consulting people who work with the specifics, and the specifics have held equal footing for notability for ages. If it's actually the "most important," I question whether that's really widely accepted for notability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC-8)
        • The only purpose of subject specific guidelines would be to leave out certain things that meet the primary criteria. If we decide that local papers covering the local high school football team are "non-trivial", we'd need a subject-specific guideline that basically says "high school football teams are not encyclopedia material". The primary criteria should be considered most important because without it, there can be no article. The specific guidelines have always taken a back seat to sources, which are required first. Friday (talk) 10:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC-8)
          • I don't agree with that. The subject specific guidelines have never taken a backseat to an overbearing "notability" guideline, which is what we're talking about. Verifiability needs have not and are not changing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC-8)
        • Currently, it's wording does not eliminate the possibility of subject-specific guidelines of providing alternative criteria that a topic can pass in lieu of the PNC. So, even if it is the "most important", it's not much more important than these others since it allows them to add alternative (but not additional) criteria. Sancho McCann 10:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC-8)
          • May I point out that there are different criteria for some types of content: geography, for example. Places are considered notable with only one primary reference--government recognition of the place name. It is not considered original research to say the place exists based on this. It's not necessary to have two books written about a mountain to make it notable. Dhaluza 10:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC-8)
            • That's one of the reasons we've moved from "multiple, non-trivial" to "sufficient." --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC-8)
            • I have seen several editors in AFD discussions declare, though never outright, that the PNC overrides the other criteria in the subject specific guidelines. Articles that would normally pass WP:FICT are often the victims of such claims. The PNC is not the supreme notability criteria, but the term "primary" gives editors that impression, regardless of the text of the criteria says. And again, whether there are enough reliable sources to write a viable article is not something that should be left to any of the notability critera. The notability guidelines are there to help determine a subject's notability, not whether a viable article can be written about the subject. --Farix (Talk) 10:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC-8)
              • Notability (fiction) is incredibly vague, and exceedingly unhelpful. What is a "major character"? It mentions "sufficient depth to sustain an independent article", but again, that's a wholly subjective judgement. That judgement is being exercised by editors sufficiently interested in the subject to write an article, so there are major bias problems. Fundamentally, I see no reason why fictional works should be treated any differently from real things. We don't accept the original thought of editors in any other field, so there's no reason we should do so when it comes to fiction. If no other writer has examined character X or object Y, we shouldn't be the first to do so. Without sufficient sources, what could we possibly write that wouldn't fall foul of one of the What Wikipedia is nots? Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC-8)
                • Without deciding at this point whether WP:FICT is a notability guideline or a good idea, I will not that (1) it seems to represent a consensus (which, of course, can change but probably shouldn't be ignored outright); and (2) articles about "primary source" materials such as published books or movies have access to one source that the notability guidelines ignore: the work itself. (Articles about books also draw heavily on "trivial" but still reliable sources such as WorldCat or their Library of Congress entries.) If done consistently with style guidelines, digesting a book or movie for an article about the book or movie itself isn't any more OR than digesting a massive secondary source for a much shorter article on that secondary source's subject. (3) as for articles about characters, it somewhat highlights the problem with the "independent" requirement as applied to notability. For purposes of WP:OR, surely the The Silmarillion is at least on a par as a source regarding the characters in Tolkien's other works as A Guide to Middle-earth, notwithstanding that one is "independent" and one is not? TheronJ 12:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC-8)
                  • The point about independent sourcing is working out if there is a value in writing about the topic, and if we can do so from a NPOV. But fictional characters are a damn tough nut to crack, which is why the guidance there is vastly different from other notability guidelines. You can write an article on any fictional character just from the work itself: Lewis is the older brother of Prentice, and a supporting protagonist in Iain Banks' The Crow Road. Lewis is a stand-up comedian and... You get the idea. Now I could do that, but I have to ask myself how valuable that is. If all I am telling people is what they would find in the work itself, should I bother? Is that our goal? Are we here to replace the work itself? To act as a catch up for followers of serial fiction? Or are we an encyclopedia? To me every article probably needs a secondary source, if only to denote that someone else considers it worthy of discussion. Without that, I think it is a point of view to assert that a given topic is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, because I think that confers a status on the topic. Hiding Talk webcomic warrior 12:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC-8)
                    • Aren't most fictional character articles content forks anyway? As a subarticle of the work they inhabit, there shouldn't be any problems as long as the overbearing work meets the standard, right? --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC-8)
                      • They may be "valid" subarticles, but they're not desirable ones when they're a playground for original thought, as they usually are. V for Vendetta (film), an article which had had a great deal of attention, caused you serious concerns as I recall. The average TV episode piece or minor "major" character doesn't bear comparison. Most are only created because lots of editors won't (edit that is), and insist on regurgitating plot summaries, and adding self-made lists of "cultural references" in the main articles. Articles which are nothing but directory entry, plot summary, and fan-exegesis have three strikes, but they aren't out. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC-8)
                        • • Sure, but the V for Vendetta issue had to do with pure original research, not basic statements from the movie (X happened, then Y). Having a subarticle saying "Harry Potter is a young adult who goes to wizard school" isn't OR, but "Harry Potter's journey to wizardry school is supposed to be analogous to the plight of the serfs in medieval Europe" while pointing to some text that doesn't mention either is. But we're sliding off track. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC-8)
                    • I tend to agree that we probably don't need articles like Weapons of Middle-earth, but (1) I don't think notability is the way to get rid of it, certainly not if notability is a proxy for "sufficient quantities of reliable sources" and (2) my attempts to nominate similar articles for deletion have close to a 0% success rate, which tends to suggest that consensus goes the other way. TheronJ 12:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC-8)
                      • No, Wikipedia:Content forking is when two different articles cover the same subject, i.e. the same character in your example. POV forks are when two different factions write different POV on the same subject. Dhaluza 12:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC-8)
                      • <smalll><edit conflict>God, you wouldn't get a consensus to delete, no, but that doesn't mean the article should exist, just as much as a consensus to delete at afd means an article shouldn't exist. No, notability probably isn't the way to get rid of it, but WP:FICTION predates current thinking on notability. It was formed to work out how to deal with fiction, and would probably now be something completely different. And to reply to Jeff, no, sometimes article forks are bad things. POV forks can assert undue weight by giving greater coverage than is warranted. But again, it's subjective. Where I edit most we get a lot of character articles that really, I can't see a value in. Do we need to know the villain's wife in every Sherlock Holmes story, for example? As the saying goes, the devil is in the detail. If someone asks you who Gunther is from Friends, for example, a one sentence precis is all that's needed to get across the pertinent detail, no? "He worked in the cafe, he had blonde hair, was a bit part character and fancied the knickers off Rachael." Are we here for a general audience, or a specific audience? Hiding Talk webcomic warrior 13:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC-8)

(arbitrary indent reset) Actually, given that there are a lot of secondary sources on Tolkein, one just might be able to source Weapons of Middle-earth, but if not, notability is exactly the way to get rid of it. As to Jeff's assertion-yes, most fictional character articles are content forks, no, that doesn't make them acceptable. Probably, if an article about a fictional work which in itself is barely secondarily sourced is getting overly long from plot summaries, descriptions of characters, detailed descriptions of in-universe items, vehicles, etc., but none of those things are notable in and of themselves, this probably indicates not that it's time to split, but that it's time to cut. Like WP:FICT says, we should be writing about fiction from the standpoint of its real-world effect. And correct me if I'm wrong, but while Pokemon has had a significant real-world effect, individual characters from it generally have not. That's not to say no fictional character would ever be appropriate-certainly, Superman, Darth Vader, and Gandalf are of iconic status, and many other such fictional characters are as well. Those are the types of fictional characters we should have articles on, not minor TV show characters. Quite possibly, even a lot of major TV show characters shouldn't have more then a paragraph in an article about the show. We shouldn't say more then the blazingly obvious about a fictional character without being able to secondarily source it, and if no secondary sources have seen fit to cover the character in depth, why should we? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 12:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC-8)

"multiple, non-trivial" -> "sufficient"

My apologies for being late to the discussion. I am uncomfortable with the recent change for "multiple, independent, non-trivial" sources to "sufficient independent" sources. "Multiple" and "non-trivial" give clear guidance. They are claims that are easy to test and relatively easy for users to interpret with general consistency. "Sufficient" is a very vague word that gives little functional guidance to readers of the page.

I recognize that there are sometimes exceptions - articles that really can be written based on a single highly reliable source. We should manage those exceptions as exceptions, not try to rewrite our policy for those few outliers.

I can't think of any exceptions to the prohibitions against "trivial" coverage of a topic. In fact, the "trivial" clause has been one of the most helpful in sorting out useful coverage from not. This new version seems significantly less useful than the old formulation. Rossami (talk) 12:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC-8)

I agree. We should not be aiming for covering every case in the guideline, exceptions are sometimes allowable. Friday (talk) 12:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC-8)

This still doesn't cover every case - I was thinking about Presidential executive orders today as an example to this - but it covers significantly more cases than the previous and does a better job covering encyclopedic topics as discussed above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC-8)

• The "trivial" was the basis of many a contentious and uselsss discussion. "Sufficient" takes away that sort of argument and instead a) forces us to rely on what the reliable sources say as opposed to how much they cover, b) notes that a subject can be "notable" with wide coverage even if the subject is never the primary subject of any books or articles, and c) makes sure we're coming at it in terms of what's being said as opposed to anything else. The exceptions and issues with "multiple, non-trivial" were many as listed above, and it appears most agreed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC-8)
  • The exceptions and issues with "sufficient" are the same as the ones that you present. It's far vaguer and does not convey what we are actually looking for. Your argument about primary subject is bogus, since the PNC has never stated "primary subject", only "subject". Uncle G 06:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)
    • What are we looking for, then? And "subject" is the same as "primary subject" in practice, see the plethora of AfD and DRV discussions. We're looking for enough information to establish an article - "multiple, non-trivial" doesn't do that, "sufficient" does. --badlydrawnjeff talk 06:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)
      • Wrong. "Multiple, non-trivial" does do that, and "sufficient" does not. And "subject" is clearly not the same as "primary subject". You mention AFD discussions. AFD discussions have been using the "multiple, non-trivial" formulation for approaching two years, now. "sufficient" is not in use, and is entirely circular. "'Sufficient' is that which is sufficient." is the bad definition being propounded here. "Multiple, non-trivial", with expansions for each, actually explains what is being looked for. See fallacies of definition. Uncle G 07:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)
        • "Sufficient" is not in use because it's recently been proposed and agreed to. It's not circular, it opens up discussion. Please read the discussions above to get an idea as to what's going on here, because you don't appear to have done so. --badlydrawnjeff talk 07:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)
          • It hasn't been agreed to. Only you have agreed to it. Several editors, in this section of the talk page alone, have expressed their disagreement with it. You didn't even receive an answer to your question about having a consensus. The answer to your question, as should be clearly evidence, is that you do not have a consensus. Uncle G 07:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)
            • Then you are simply not reading the discussion. Unless, of course, the section I pointed you to never happened. --badlydrawnjeff talk 09:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)
              • Clearly I am. As I said, the discussion section ended with a question, to which you didn't receive any answer. Uncle G 11:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)
                • One subsect, sure. Interestingly, the question more had to do with your wording, not what was eventually adopted. But if you have actually read it, you'd know full well that I'm not the only person who agreed to it. Please read the discussions above if you still believe otherwise. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)

I'm entirely against changing to "sufficient" without defining "sufficient for what". "Sufficient" without a qualifier is an absolutely meaningless word. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 12:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Oh, it is defined-enough to write a non-stub article on the subject. Not as strong as I'd like to see, but it's a definition, at least. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 13:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Well, GA-level/FA-level is nearly impossible anyway - some topics simply will never reach those pinnacles even if one tried hard to. I was going to point you to GRBerry's response to you above, but it appears you've seen it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC-8)

• <edit conflict>I disagree with "sufficient", but I also disagree with the notion that people allow exceptions to this guidance. Which is, after all guidance. To me, people seem to be imparting policy status on it. Hiding Talk webcomic warrior 13:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC-8)

(edit conflict)In my experience, subjects that could never possibly reach GA/FA from secondary sources are the exact ones that don't belong here. GA allows a criterion for smaller articles without tons of sourcing to reach, but if all we can write about the thing is three paragraphs, and it's unexpandable from there, it's probably better off merged somewhere. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 13:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Well, if it's any consolation, I still think the non-stub is a bit strict, but that's a compromise I'm willing to make. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Realistically, I'd imagine it's probably about as close to the middle as anyone could get. At the very least it'll prevent permastubs, which are generally the biggest concern. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 13:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Why are "perma-stubs" a "big" concern? Won't they eventually be expanded or merged as Wikipedia grows around them? Isn't losing these place-holders a bigger impediment to making WP a better encyclopedia then having them as islands of information that people can use to navigate around in the vast sea?

Personally, I don't have a problem with stubs hanging around (as long as they are tagged). I am more annoyed to find that when I am looking for something, I find it in the deletion log. As a content creator, I am constantly Wikilinking items "in the blind" and then following the links to see where to redirect them. Having "perma-stubs" would make my job a lot easier. I'd be a lot more likely to expand one, or merge it, if I found a link to it in an article I'm creating. Sometimes you just have to be patient and wait for someone stumble into it in the dark. Dhaluza 13:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC-8)

A stub article that can be expanded, and hasn't yet, is not a permastub. It's just a stub, no matter how long it stays that way. Perma-stubs are subjects on which there just isn't enough source material to ever expand it beyond a stub, no matter who may want to, unless someone uses original synthesis or personal experience. And eventually, with these things, someone will. Look at our TV show articles! "We can't have stubs on my favorite character! I'll just put down what I know about the show from watching it!" Stubs are not bad. Permastubs are. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 13:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Well, that's not OR unless they're making some sort of analysis, to be a nitpick - the television show is "published," it's simply a writing of what occurred from the primary source. Permastubs aren't necessarily bad things if the subject has encyclopedic merit. The Best is Yet to Come is my permastub du jour - definitely encyclopedic, but I'm not sure if any information will surface to expand it past what's there. Then again, I have waited on making Father Bingo... --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC-8)

That's not what we used to say. We used to say that sometimes a small article on a topic with a narrow scope was not a stub. Hiding Talk webcomic warrior 13:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Well, the thing is, you generally can't prove that an article can't be expanded. Yes, some stuff is crap like your TV show example. But for serious subjects, you don't know what you don't know. There could be books in a foreign language with reams of info on a subject that you don't even know exists. Then when someone transwiki's the stub page name, you suddenly find there's a foreign language page with refs you can translate.Dhaluza 14:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC-8)

One can demonstrate that the article cites no works that satisfy the PNC and that one has made a reasonable effort to find any such works, with bibliographic searches and the like, and come up entirely empty-handed. Uncle G 06:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)

What is a reasonable effort, a Google search? For a specialized topic you would need specialized resources, a technical library at a major research library, maybe in a faraway place. And such a search could take hours or days. I'm not saying that we should accept material without sourcing, but we can accept limited information with limited sourcing, and patiently wait for additional information and sourcing to be added later. We don't need to make a snap subjective judgment on notability and toss out something potentially useful. Dhaluza 16:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Here is an example of why the guidelines should not be too specific. I can write a non-trivial, non-stub, verifiable, encyclopedic article on a subject using only one single primary reference — a government issued topographic map. I describe a place, relate it to surrounding places, describe topography, topology, hydrography, and whatever else is depicted on the map. As long as I don't interpret what is depicted, and only transcribe it, that's perfectly acceptable. Obviously, secondary sources would make it even better, but are not necessary for the article to be encyclopedic. Now some people might argue that the map only makes trivial reference to the place, because the name only appears once, in simple text, on a single sheet; but it's the context that's important. Dhaluza 13:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC-8)

• You can write a directory from that topo map, actually, which Wikipedia is not. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 13:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC-8)
  • Well, no, he can write an article based off of that information - he has sufficient independent material in which to build an encyclopedic article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC-8)
    • And there's always been an exception for "real places" like that, so to speak. I don't like it much, but at least that particular one is not likely to change. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 13:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC-8)
      • When exactly did we stop wanting permastubs? Hiding Talk webcomic warrior 13:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC-8)
        • Since the very first version of Wikipedia:Deletion policy, written in 2002. Uncle G 06:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)
          • The current version of deletion policy doesn't seem have an instruction to delete permastubs, can you link to one that does for reference? Another issue is what constitutes a "permastub." A well-written, verifiably and reliably sourced article of 2-4 paragraphs may or may not be a stub, depending on who you ask. (Confusing matters still more, WP:STUB seems to reject the whole concept of permastubs as logically contradictory, since it defines a stub as a short article that could be easily expanded by a competent editor using google, so we don't even have an agreed definition of permastub). TheronJ 06:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)
            • The current version of deletion policy has just within the past day had quite a lot of the specifics removed from it by Radiant!. Read the earlier versions in the edit history. At various times over the years it has addressed stubs with no possibility whatsoever for expansion with various wordings, but that is what they have all boiled down to. Prior to Radiant!'s edits, notice that the policy used to have two tables, the implications of the instructions for which were that one should try to expand stubs, and either merge them or nominate them for deletion if one found them to be unexpandable. Uncle G 06:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)

"Sufficient" was bad. It was vague and conflated two separate things: the number of works and the depth of each individual work. I've changed to a compromise, that retains that important distinction whilst eliminating "trivial". Uncle G 06:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)

• Your compromise is not a compromise, but in fact MORE exclusionary than what's already there. The number is not relevant, it's whether there's enough information to establish "notability." "Sufficient" was great, and many people agreed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 06:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)
  • By my count of reading the talk page discussion above, "many people" is just you, given that Seraphimblade has stated that xe is "entirely against" changing to "sufficient". And there's nothing more exclusionary about the compromise wording. Your straw man argument that "the number is not relevant" is clearly in part not based upon reading the text, which says, and has said for a long time, that multiplicity is "not specific as to number", and entirely counter to the rationale underpinning the criterion, which is that more than one person has demonstrated that they deem the subject to be notable by creating published works of their own about it.

    I should note that the compromise wording is in part inspired by what is written by Centrx and Kevin Murray in the #Chinese version policy discussion section right at the top of this very talk page. Uncle G 07:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)

    • Then your count is incorrect. He was "entirely against" it without a definition, which has been provided. Furthermore, five other people agreed on the proposed wording here. I again implore you to read the discussion, note the way your protests have been dealt with, and then we can continue.

      And as for Centrx's propsal, it predates the discussions recently that came to the "sufficient" wording, so i'm not sure how, again, that constitutes a compromise. --badlydrawnjeff talk 07:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)

      • Hold the phone! I also thought sufficient was more appropriate, and I gave the example of using a topo map for why the less prescriptive sufficient was more appropriate. Here is another. I have an obscure but useful tool in my toolbox, so I create an article on it by writing: "A is a hand tool used by B for C. It is made from D, and is available in left and right handed configurations. They are manufactured by E in F." Now I have a short but encyclopedic article that is more than a dictionary definition or directory listing, and the only source I used was the instruction sheet, but that is sufficient in this case. Dhaluza 07:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)
        • You are missing what notability governs. Your examples relate to how one can create verifiable content. Notability is, in part, how that content is arranged into articles. That you can create three short sentences on a specific brand of hand tool from a specific manuacturer by using source material published by the manufacturer does not mean that it warrants an entire article all to itself. Indeed, as WP:CORP explains in its section on products and services, verifiable information about specific products from specific manufacturers that aren't notable, because there is not a multiplicity of non-trivial published works from sources independent of the manufacturer itself, should be in an article about the manufacturer, or the manufacturer's products as a whole. Uncle G 07:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)
          • Nor would that meet any standard being offered here. Your example has nothing to do with this discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 08:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)
            • I think this logic is a circular self-reference to the notability guidelines. As you stipulate, the content is verifiable with one reference in this case. The subject is a real three-dimensional object. There is no doubt it exits--you can even post a picture of it to the article. As the information is strictly factual, and not in dispute, the manufacturer's info is sufficiently reliable, and it fits within WP:NPOV and WP:NOR as well. So what is wrong with this article? You may not think it is worthy, but a non-trivial number of people think the tool is noteworthy enough to pay money for it and spend time using it for some constructive purpose. It's better known than a "garage band". So why not let such an article stand? Dhaluza 16:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)
      • The objections to "sufficient" raised by me and by other editors have not been dealt with. It constitutes a compromise by replacing the word "trivial", which you state to be the root cause of your objections, with the alternative wording that several editors have used, in explaining the idea, on this very talk page, thus addressing the concern about "trivial" being misunderstood whilst also addressing the concern that "sufficient" is entirely circular and loses an important separation between depth and multiplicity.

        It's also a compromise because I explicitly included in it the new wording about creating non-stub articles, that accompanied "sufficient". Ironically, you removed part of your very own idea when you reverted. Uncle G 07:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)

        • There have been few substantive unresolved objections at this point. One argument was based on being uncomfortable due to the "Clear guideance," which has been dealt with, and the other wasn't comfortable, as far as I could read, with either of them. But we did have 5 people agree above, and while I wouldn't have changed it yesterday, someone else apparently felt there was consensus. There's still more agreeing to my change than your alleged compromise at this point, which has zero to do with sufficiency. --badlydrawnjeff talk 08:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)
          • There have been quite a few objections, from me, Rossami, Seraphimblade, and others. You've unilaterally declared them resolved, but that doesn't make that so. There's also been a compromise written that actually does attempt to resolve the concerns of both you and the editors that object to your proposed wording, but you keep reverting the compromise, for reasons that are unfathomable and seemingly more to do with a focus upon reverting rather than editing and working towards ageement, since the compromise addresses both your objections to "non-trivial" and the objections that others have to "sufficient". Do you have any reason for not accepting a compromise? You haven't actually stated one. You are repeatedly declaring that no-one objects, in the face of several editors that have said that they do object in as many words, declaring consensus to support your change, when there was clearly wide disagreement (see "insanely dangerous", for example) between you and other editors about what to change to, and refusing to accept compromises. What is your reason for these? Uncle G 11:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)
            • I have noted that one was dealt with. Not resolved, not unilaterally. There has not been a compromise written at all that resolves any concerns with the proposals, the "compromise" came before the idea of sufficiency was even introduced. As noted below, it does not address either issue - it does not address "non-trivial" because it expands the idea to "in depth," and it doesn't touch "sufficient" at all because it ignores the entire idea. Now, you then say I claim no one objects - I did no such thing. I want a discussion on this, I want consensus on this - that won't happen if you continually misrepresent my statements and fail to read what's been written about it. By the way, "insanely dangerous" were my words about an alternative wording that had no support. Please, get your stories straight on this so we can get consensus and move on. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)
• A separate question, Uncle G: why no input to the discussion that started this? --badlydrawnjeff talk 08:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)
  • That's a disingenuous question, for several reasons. One is that changing the first sentence, which is a summary in the introduction, isn't the same as changing the PNC wording. You're now changing the PNC wording, not the first sentence. Uncle G 11:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)
    • It isn't at all. The discussion started there and moved onto the "PNC wording" from there. Please follow the discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)
• I still don't understand why "sufficient" is such an awful word that the entire criteria has to be replaced with something that no longer directly points to the fact that we are building an encyclopedia here. Nor is it in my understanding that depth and quantity are so distinct as regards the sum of information that conflating them is a bad thing. (Also, Re:Badlydrawnjeff, I saw enough of a consensus that I wanted to be bold and spur on discussion.) Nifboy 10:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)
  • Perhaps the reason that you don't understand why the entire criterion had to be replaced was that the entire criterion was not replaced. Uncle G 11:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)
    • Tell that to some other people, then. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)
      • Quite realistically, if "sufficient" even stands a chance of being interpreted to allow an article on a hand tool from an instruction manual, that's probably indication enough it's a bad idea. At the very least, we must clearly define "Sufficient for what?" Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 22:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)
        • This is all a farce if you bring in the question of defining to pure objectivity. None of the optional words can be defined any better than "sufficient". --Kevin Murray 22:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)
        • You dismiss the hand tool example out of hand, without explanation. If it meets the policy requirements, why should this guideline supersede policy? Dhaluza 00:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Multiple

Don't shoot me but I took out the word multiple, based on the fact that we have a plural in "in reliable, published works". That reads to me like there has to be more than one, same as what multiple means. See where we go. Hiding Talk webcomic warrior 07:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)

The "multiple" criterion however deliberately excludes reproductions of the same content by different news agencies, for example. Without it, that exclusion is not clear. -- Black Falcon 00:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Notability = Noteworthiness ?

In the article on Johnny Depp, I saw that the "Notable roles" listed in the actor box are *incidentally the roles in the highest-grossing movies he featured in. Instead of taking this excellent opportunity to start a revert war, I decided to ask around: Is there any guideline that prescribes the criteria of notability of a piece of art?

In other words: The box office result of a given movie certainly affords quite an objective measure of its impact, but it's not the only one. Time treats different pieces of art differently. Some movies or albums or books age "gracefully", like good wine. Others may enjoy great success at the time of their release, but then descend into a "retrospective-only" notability. Some authors like Kafka did not even publish anything during their lifetime, yet their work is surely recognized as very notable. Privately, I'd argue anyone claiming that Johnny Depp's "Willie Wonka" in "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" had a wider impact than his longer lasting portrayals of, say "Raoul Duke" in "Fear and Loathing" or his "William Blake" in "Dead Man", but on-wiki I can't do that, of course. Again, is there anything in the guidelines as to the notability of pieces of art, in this special case concerning actors' performances in certain movies? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC-8)

woops - I think I made a small edit without seeking approval

Sorry if I should not have made an edit.Osborne 07:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)

"In-depth" versus "non-trivial"

Please revert back to "non-trivial" -- from the edit histories I garnered just two editors agreed to change it. With all due respect, two people does not a consensus make. Also, whereas "non-trivial" clearly refers to the quantity of directly-relevant material, "in-depth" can be mistaken to refer to the quality of that material (i.e., deep and meaningful vs. superficial coverage). -- Black Falcon 08:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)

• I read "in-depth" as an attempt to better explain what's meant by "non-trivial", so I don't see this as a major change. Friday (talk) 08:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)
  • It's quite a major change. "In-depth" can easily be read as not an article that doesn't deal with a subject in a substantial way. --badlydrawnjeff talk 09:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)
    • It's not a major change at all, given that it's the explanation of "non-trivial" that has been given several times on this talk page. And that it can be read as being an article that doesn't deal with the subject in a substantial way is not a change at all, given that there's been a footnote against non-triviality, giving examples of how, indeed, a work that doesn't deal with the subject in a substantial way is trivial, for three months now. Uncle G 11:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)
      • "Non-trivial" and "in depth" are not similar concepts. Your "compromise" now could interpret an article about a subject as superficial, as it's not "in depth." It's why more thought needs to go into the language which hasn't, people will "wikilawyer" them to death. Then again, "sufficient" is simple and clear in this regard, but you don't like that for reasons yet to be produced. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)
  • I thought of it in the same way as badlydrawnjeff. -- Black Falcon 09:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)
    • I don't like "in-depth" either - I think it opens the door to a lot of disputes we don't need. TheronJ 09:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)
      • It doesn't open any doors. Uncle G 11:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)
        • Sure it does. See above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)
          • I think it does. For instance, I could consider an article about the Iraq War as not addressing the subject "in-depth" because it does not address all of the issues related to the war: the full history behind, its timeline, motivations, consequences, etc. Non-trivial, because it applies directly to the quantity of coverage, is a more objective and neutral term. -- Black Falcon 13:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Common vs. Primary

Also, I'm a little unsure as to why common replaced primary (yes, I read the discussion above). Common doesn't make sense without reference to the other notability criteria. Also, it can be misinterpreted as "usual". Also, this notability guideline is primary in both the sense that it came first and that it is the most general/most important. Other, more specific notability guidelines are simply extensions of this one. -- Black Falcon 09:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)

• There's very little agreement at some of the individual guidelines that this is the most important part. As "primary" was being misconstrued - and allegedly, per the author above, was never meant to be considered the "most important" - that's why common changed. --09:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)
  • I don't understand. How is it possible that this was "never meant to be considered the 'most important'" when this is the main notability guideline page and all the rest are derivatives? I'm not saying the subject-specific guidelines cannot be stricter than this--they can and often should. However, how can the basic principle upon which all the other guidelines are based not be the most important? -- Black Falcon 09:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)
    • This page as a guideline is newer than most of the individual criteria, and points to the individual criteria. It's hardly the basic principle - "primary notability" is functionally an afterthought. --badlydrawnjeff talk 09:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)
      • Really? Huh, I didn't know that. Anyway, this seems mostly a stylistic issue to me (I don't agree with arguments that the PNC should override subject-specific criteria). But still, "Common" doesn't make sense without reference to the other notability criteria. To what class of objects, exactly, is the notability criterion common? -- Black Falcon 09:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)
        • That would be done by the sentence One notability criterion shared by most of the subject-specific notability guidelines right underneath the header The common notability criterion wouldn't it? Hiding Talk 10:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)
      • That's statement is pretty much wrong in every single respect. That the page is newer doesn't make the PNC newer. As the text says, the PNC is even common to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, which has contained "featured in several external sources" since March 2003. That even pre-dates our oldest notability criteria Wikipedia:Notability (people), which was created (as Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies) in August 2003. Far from being an afterthought it was the first; and there exist editors now that do think that it is the basic principle and that other criteria are secondary. Uncle G 11:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)
        • True, but the WP:NOT reference is specifically limited to people. And that is probably wise. But expanding this to cover every possible subject is not. Dhaluza 17:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)
        • I can't handle the revisionism here. This specific page, which has been trotted out recently as the "primary" (read: most important) guideline, is new. This was only recently considered a guideline, and is an afterthought for "notability" in comparison to many of our longstanding subject-specific guidelines. That WP:NOT had similar language before much of this recent hubbub is not evidence that this, as a guideline and as "primary" (read: most important) is not new. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)
          • Whether it came first or not is not really the issue here, as I see it. The issue is that it is the basic criterion which is the basis of all of the subject-specific criteria. Whether it was such from the outset or became such over time doesn't matter much. -- Black Falcon 13:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Why not have both? Make the overarching definition of notability our encyclopedia-focused "A topic is notable if it has enough sources that can act as the basis for an article." and then turn around and say "The most common way of thinking of notability is that a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself". There seem to be enough really long-winded AfDs that focus solely on the latter without considering the fact that, y'know, we're really here to write an encyclopedia, not wikilawyer about the rules. Nifboy 17:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)

This wording is not sacrosanct. The whole notability infrastructure is rather recent and in my mind not needed, since it really only overlaps verifiability in objective application. The rest is all about interpretation of the word "trivial," where in reality there is not an objective definition of this word, except by using equally ill-defined antonyms. I see this whole mess and the root of 80% of wikilaywering. --Kevin Murray 12:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Problems with recent changes

Some of these recent changes are a hodgepodge. For example, "multiple" is removed from the introduction, but not from the PNC. "Common" devalues PNC, yet elsewhere it is made more central. "Sufficient" is not explained at all. Instead, it would be best to form some sort of stable proposal. Also, as explained above, notability is relevant to whether article content is included. The notability of the information and the reason for the notability of the subject is explicitly referenced in WP:BLP and WP:RS, and otherwise is the major factor in whether information is included in an article and how it is organized. —Centrx→talk • 19:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)

I agree with all of the changes you have made. I think the proposal should stay largely as is. This is the version almost every editor is familiar with and that is based in consensus. There's nothing wrong with minor corrections/fixes, but I see no reason for any major alterations to WP:N. Cheers, Black Falcon 05:06, 21 February 2007 (UT

Devalues? Actually, I think the term "primary" gives far too much value to the criteria. The criteria is not the overriding notability criteria on Wikipedia, which the term "primary" implies and has been taken by some editors on AfD. "Common" hits it about right as it is only the most common criteria used. But perhaps we can meet half way in the middle and use "general". Like "common" it doesn't set the criteria above any of the other subject specific notability criteria while at the same time lets this criteria cover topics that are not covered by any of the subject specific criteria. --Farix (Talk) 04:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC-8)

I think general is actually better, because as I have pointed out, there are notable exceptions to the notability criteria, particularly place names. I think the guideline is trying to be stretched to cover all possible cases, and this will only lead to problems. Dhaluza 04:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Disputed

There is still significant dispute over whether the change to "sufficient", especially in the absence of a definition of that word, is acceptable. Accordingly, I've placed a "disputed" tag on the affected section. I'm not going to start an edit war, but I don't believe there's consensus for that version. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 22:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)

A topic is notable if it has sufficient, independent works that are reliable and can act as the basis for an encyclopedic article.

This is nonsense. No book, movie, play, or any other literary endeavour is going to have its synopsis section based on secondary sources, and it would be ridiculous to expect it to. To expect the whole article to be based on secondary sources is simply not thought through. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)

This phrasing doesn't require that a topic satisfy these conditions in order to be notable. It only says that if it does satisfy them, then it is notable. It leaves open the possibility that other subject-specific guidelines give other ways for a topic to establish notability. So, it's not as restrictive as you've interpreted it. Sancho McCann 23:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Eh, weel, still, after seeing entire pages of people against it up above, I was bold and reverted. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)

It's not that the whole article need be based on secondary sources. It's that if the primary source were forgotten, a significant amount of content could be added solely from secondary sources. If that's the case, the primary source can be used (with caution, as per WP:V) for supplementary material. If not, though, the primary source shouldn't be used as the main or sole basis for an article's content, only as a source of supplementary content. It doesn't mean "no primary sources ever". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 23:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)

True, but guidelines ought to be written so that they are as clear as possible. That phrasing implies several things we don't mean to imply, and so fails clarity (particularly as the guidance below it was not updated to handle the new phrasing). Better, instead, to mention it as notes on interpretation. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)

A synopsis is not the basis of an encyclopedia article; analysis and reviews are. Plot summaries are secondary in importance. Nifboy 07:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC-8)

That depends entirely on the subject. For instance, Emma, Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution, Mazeppa (opera), Something Positive, The Comedy of Errors, Thucydides ("Almost everything we know about the life of Thucydides comes from his own History of the Peloponnesian War..."), The Marriage of Figaro, Great Expectations. The primary source of any encyclopedia article on any literary endeavour will always be the thing itself. Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Downgraded to proposal

There is too much disputed material for a claim of consensus to justify that this is a guideline for WP. I downgraded to a proposal at this time.

Salient issues

• Do we really require multiple sources, or are there enough situations where a single solid source could suffice?
• Is the hyphenated word, "non-trivial" the best we can do? Is trivial more solidly definable than other options such as: significant, meaningful, etc.
• Do we need to clarify that notability must be established for all content within the article, or just to the subject itself?
• Name for "main criterion." Among the options are "primary", "common", "central".

--Kevin Murray 10:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC-8)

• • We can certainly do better than "non-trivial," and I still think "sufficient" does the trick perfectly - the quality of the information in terms of notability is what we're aiming for, and sometimes one will be enough, other times you'll need four or five. I don't think we need to govern content, though - traditionally, this never has. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Let it be noted my main objection was not to "sufficient", but to "that can be used as the basis of an encyclopedic article. This was a substantially new criterion. Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Adam, can we more clearly define your objection, perhaps by demonstrating the prefered text? Then we could add your concern to the list of salient issues above. Thanks. --Kevin Murray 11:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC-8)

I had no idea that was a controversial part. I apologise for that. What bothers you about it? --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Well, the text, as then revised, said that it required "sufficient, independent works... that can act as the basis for an encyclopedic article." As few book reviews actually give a full plot summary, and for other creative endeavours it's even less likely, I can't help but reading that phrasing as saying that no article on a book, comic, movie, essay, et cetera can be written unless it has a Cliff's Notes, and that this Cliff's Notes and other summaries of the plot should be used in preference to anything in the book for describing plot and characters. Now, I doubt it was actually meant to be that restrictive, but my point is that, well, let's take a hypothetical example, that I think makes my point clear:

Book X has launched, to much critical praise. Reviewers are widely supportive of it, saying it's the best book they've read in years. It reaches the New York Times Bestseller's list, and wins several awards. However, while there is much gushing over the work, book reviews carefully avoid spoilers, so only a criticism and awards section could be written from secondary sources. As encyclopaedic articles are meant to be on the subject itself, not opinions of the subject, it would not be possible to write an encyclopaedic article on Book X from these secondary sources.

This is not actually exaggerated from the state most literary works would find themselves in. It adds a criteria to the notability test that has nothing to do with actual notability, and which few notable literary works could actually pass, at least in a literal interpretation. As this can't be what was intended, and is full of possibility for misunderstanding, I feel it's a mistake. Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC-8)

That's fair - I'm trying to propose a wording that causes as little confusion as to intent as possible, and it appears that there is one piece. What kind of wording would you suggest? --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Adam, what I'm getting is that you are concerned that the notability criteria will be directed at content. In the example that you describe the topic clearly seems notable to me. I don't see that as the goal of notability either adn wouldn't want to imply that. I think the issue is covered in the third salient issue listed above. Am I correct? --Kevin Murray 11:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Aye, it's not that there wouldn't be some encyclopedic content in the reviews that show notability - the awards, reviews, and such-like could at least make a good introductory paragraph. But the phrasing makes it sound like it should be possible to write all the article solely from second-hand sources if the article is notable. And it's awfully hard to make the suggestion that they should be usable as sources for material without making it unclear that the primary source is fine, even as a majority of the article's source, as long as context can be demonstrated.

Perhaps that's it: "sufficient sources independent of the subject itself that can be used to give the article context." Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC-8)

(edit conflict)The intent of this has never been to say "You may not use primary sources as a source of supplementary material (per the WP:V cautions on that)." It is, instead, to say "If your article is relying mainly or solely on a primary source rather than secondary ones, and very little or no secondary material is available, that's a problem." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 13:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC-8)

"Book X has launched, to much critical praise. Reviewers are widely supportive of it, saying it's the best book they've read in years. It reaches the New York Times Bestseller's list, and wins several awards. However, while there is much gushing over the work, book reviews carefully avoid spoilers, so only a criticism and awards section could be written from secondary sources." This is counter to my reading experience -- book reviews generally tell us what the book is about. They may not spoil the ending, but they'll give enough plot summary to help write an encyclopedia article. I can't recal a reputable book review that simply gushed about how "it's the best book they've read in years" without actually describing the contents of the book. For example, here's a review of Mayra Montero's “Dancing to ‘Almendra,’”[4]. It includes: "Montero’s novel is narrated by a man named Joaquín Porrata, a 22-year-old reporter living in Havana during the last days of Batista, who shows up for work one morning and finds he’s been assigned the story of a hippopotamus that has escaped from the zoo and been shot to death. As it happens, that same night the mafia capo Umberto Anastasia was murdered in a hotel barber’s shop in New York City, and from a rather strange little zookeeper named Juan Bulgado (or Johnny Angel, or Johnny Lamb: in Havana even a zookeeper can dream), Porrata discovers that the two killings are related. Rebuffed by his boss, who wants to keep him on the entertainment beat, he takes his notes to a rival paper, which sends him first through the Cuban underworld, then to New York and then to the upstate town of Apalachin, where a mob summit has been interrupted by the police, though not quickly enough to spare Anastasia a death sentence from his peers. Along the way Porrata encounters a woman named Yolanda, a small-town refugee who ran away with the circus, where she lost her arm serving as the model in a magician’s sword-through-a-box trick. She’s rumored to have a lover of her own, Santo Trafficante — himself a Mafia boss and a very scary man. Nevertheless Porrata pursues her as he pursues the story, and winds up getting them both, though not without being roughed up a few times along the way. In fact, between the animals in the zoo and the mobsters running the casinos, the book gets very bloody." --Dragonfiend 13:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC-8)

True, it's possible they may provide summaries, but I wouldn't want to try and write a summary based on other summaries: You end up expanding on errors and simplifications, and end up distant from reality. I suppose my main objection is that we shouldn't imply that just because an article uses a primary source for a significant part of its content that that is a Bad Thing (tm). In any case, a theoretical capability to use reviews for the full article seems an awkward guideline, and, in any case, later volumes of very large scale works, or sub-articles spun off from a main one, could fall into a gap. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC-8)

I'd rather editors rely on reputable secondary sources for summarizing a work of fiction's major plot and themes rather than rely on editor's personal points of view or original research. And again, your idea that secondary sources like reviews "may provide summaries" is at odds with my reading expereince. Do you often encounter book reviews that don't tell what the book is about? --Dragonfiend 14:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Most of the book reviews I see tend to be fairly short. However, as I don't take a newspaper, it's possible that I have a skewed view. I disagree with the practicality of using secondary sources for plot summaries, but, while I disagree with it as a guideline, I have no objection to anyone who's actually able to do it, though I can't think of ever seeing a cited summary on Wikipedia. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC-8)

RE: "can't think of ever seeing a cited summary on Wikipedia" For example, see Gene Yang for cited plot summary of his most prominent book. But, think we're drifting away from your main point, which is that you're worried that this guideline may be rewritten to imply that only independent sources should be used in articles. This is a vaild concern -- we can of course use non-independent sources in articles; we just can't rely on them predominately or exclusively. What' simportant here though is that we can't use non-independent sources to verify notability. --Dragonfiend 15:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Definately agreed on the notability front: I don't think that could be disputed. Certainly, primary sources should never be used to talk about the importance of something. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC-8)

I tend to agree with Dragonfiend too. If we work from secondary sources, we can put their analysis of the work into the summary. We can't, however, put our analysis of the work in without violating WP:NOR, so from the primary source, we can put only the most dry and obvious stuff (a character's actions, not guesses at h(is|er) motivations, etc.). On the other hand, if a secondary source says a character is "out for blood", we can say that even if the book itself never does! Almost all notable books have critical reviews with plot summary material, TV shows are constantly summarized on tv.com, etc. If we can do it, well, why not? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 20:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC-8)

May I point out that my main contributions have been on obscure Victorian plays? Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Damn. Now I have to go start obscurevictorianplays.com! Though yes, in that case, so long as there's secondary source material existing regarding the plays, I can understand doing a plot synopsis from the play itself. That can be done, one ust must be mindful of WP:NOR. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 07:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Note on content

In the interim while we wrestle with the language, I have offered a compromise test, which I think expresses the intent of whole. Specifically leaving the last reversion in place, but adding the option for a single substantial work.

This wording doesn't require anything

So many of the discussions on this page are revolving around what this guideline is requiring of topic but in fact, it doesn't demand anything from a topic. It only says that if a topic meets this criteria, then it is deemed notable. It doesn't say that this is the only way for a topic to be deemed notable. It isn't restrictive at all. It doesn't limit inclusion of anything, it only provides one way to display notability. Sancho McCann 11:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC-8)

"A single significant work could demonstrate notabilty"

If a work is truly significant, there will usually be many other sources that comment on the work, and therefore there would be multiple sources. If no other sources have commented on the work, that would seem to mean that it is not in fact "significant". Is there any example of a such a "single" significant work where there are no other reliable sources about the topic? —Centrx→talk • 13:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC-8)

In addition, if a page is based only on one work, that makes for a book review not an encyclopedia article, and no source that corroborates or comment on problems with that supposedly significant work. —Centrx→talk • 13:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC-8)

That's why the subject-specific ones are important. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC-8)

How is that related to the subject of this thread? Is there any example of an obviously notable topic that has a "single" significant work about it and no other reliable sources? Better yet, is there an example of a good, actual article that is about such a topic? (not merely an article based on one source) —Centrx→talk • 14:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC-8)

• I see this from time to time at AfD. We get one very good source and then only a lot of chatter on the net etc., where the accumulation of minor other sources supports the existence of the topic through essentially primary research. Another good example might be an ancient military leader who is mentioned in a substantially respected work, but where wikipedians don't have access to more obscure materials which would corroborate. --Kevin Murray 15:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC-8)

• For AfD, that is case where we have only one good source, but there is otherwise indication that there are other good sources, which we do not yet have. This indicates notability in the prospective sense, but not the actual sense. If there is actually only one reliable source, then the topic is not notable, but often the existence of one significantly good source indicates the existence of others. Similarly, for the ancient military leader, that most Wikipedia editors do not have access to the more obscure materials does not actually mean that there do not exist such sources from which a proper article can eventually be created. That is, there are multiple reliable sources in such case. Also note, for example: if someone is mentioned in Livy or the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, there will be later research and evaluations in later histories, i.e. there will be multiple reliable sources. —Centrx→talk • 16:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC-8)

• Centex asks for an "obviously notable topic;" obvious is relative to the perspective of the writers or evaluators. If it is truly obvious it won't end up at AfD; it is the gray areas that are so problematic. --Kevin Murray 15:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC-8)

• It doesn't need to be at AfD. Find any topic or any article for which there exists only one reliable source, and "obvious" only means that your example won't really work if it is not obviously notable. Anyway, we can ignore that and suppose that if the topic is the subject of a "significant" work, then it must be notable. Find any topic where the only reliable source is one "significant" work. —Centrx→talk • 16:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC-8)

• I've already highlighted geographic places. There are thousands of U.S. Census designated place articles based on United States Census Bureau data as the single authoritative source. Other examples with thousands of pages are airports, using government licensing data, and aircraft using manufacturer data produced under government regulation. Another example might be pharmaceuticals, and there may be other similar examples in government regulated industries. In each of these cases, the subjects are considered notable by government recognition alone, and a single authoritative source is sufficient to establish notability and write an article. Sure the article can be improved with other secondary and/or independent sources, but one authoritative source is sufficient to start. So the multiple source policy for people is not universally applicable to all things. Dhaluza 04:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC-8)

• You haven't thought things through. Places that are notable, by their very nature, have more than just census data. They have histories, guidebooks, surveys, and the like. Your whole "single authoritative source" argument is built on the foundation of sand that that is the only such published work, and is fallacious and a red herring. You also clearly haven't followed the schools notability debate, where a "single government report" does not, by itself, demonstrate notability. Uncle G 15:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• Yes, places that are notable have lots of sources, but they may not be readily available. So if I am creating a series of articles for a project, especially if I want them to be consistent, I may only be working from a single substantial, authoritative, but primary source. This should be sufficient to establish notability by itself. I should not have to worry about some idiot coming along and nominating all the articles for AfD (or speedy) because they "do not have multiple sources". The distinction is between actual and apparent notability, and possible misapplication of this guideline, where AfD experience is not always consistent. The schools example is not applicable because there is no consensus for comprehensive coverage for schools, as there is for geographic features. But, if you change the example to school districts, then a single government record would be sufficient. Dhaluza 18:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)

• If the article can be improved with other sources but just does not currently have them, that is irrelevant to this discussion. In addition: Many people do not consider these topics notable, especially once you get below the level of town; and all of these places typically do have many sources about them. There are articles about them in local and regional newspapers, and often books devoted to the history of the town. —Centrx→talk • 07:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC-8)

• I don't understand your point. I agree that future improvement is not central, and that is what I was pointing out. Many people believe lots of things are not notable, so that's not relevant either. I don't think Pokemon are notable, but that train has left the station. They are notable because they have multiple references, so there's a case where this definition is counterproductive. As for towns and villages, the precedent that they are notable regardless of size. But my example was census designated places, which are bigger than a village. So I think that I have answered your challenge. Now what?? Dhaluza 15:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC-8)

If County Road 666 is shown in the Rand McNally Road Atlas, which is a highly regarded best selling reference book for how to get from here to there, is that a "truly significant" work which alone justifies an article? How about if a TV mast is in the Federal Communications Commission official database of masts? Sufficient? If a bus station or light rail stop is in a city's web site is that sufficient? Assume there is no question that the info is valid, the thing really exists, but should it have an article? What about government reports proving that a school or small public library exist? What is the real impact of this languafe in future AFDs?Edison 06:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

No, those are all trivial examples where a single source would not be sufficient for notability. I don't think anyone suggested that a single reference was suitable in most cases, just that it was in some special cases. If anyone was so misguided, you have now demonstrated the fallacy of that logic. But for the rest of us, this is not helpful. Dhaluza 15:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Are there better words than "non-trivial?

The sentence "A topic is notable if supported by sufficient, independent, and reliable published works" was introduced several days ago after being discussed at the talk page and reflected much compromise. Until reverted by Centex the following editors had left it as included in their progressive versions of the page: Kevin Murray, Uncle G, Hiding, Nifboy, Badlydrawnjeff, Sanchom, Dhaluza, Osborne, Black Falcon, Lonewolf, and Engineer Scotty. This is not to imply that each of these editors specifically supports the sentence, but they did not remove or modify it while a significant (or should I say non-trivial) debate raged around other text. How can a coupe of editors now engage in reversion warfare and deny that there is a consensus for moving away from their prefered "multiple non-trivial"?

Please support the return of the following sentence "A topic is notable if supported by sufficient, independent, and reliable published works". --Kevin Murray 16:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC-8)

There could be better words than "non-trivial", but replacing "non-trivial" with "sufficient" and then including no explanation of what "sufficient" actually means is the problem. "Sufficient" could be good in the general definition, but it needs to be explained, especially because it is essentially a merger of "multiple" with "non-trivial". —Centrx→talk • 16:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Can we suggest a better word? Or do we need a word plugged in there? How about "A topic is notable if supported by independent and reliable published source material". --Kevin Murray 16:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC-8)

That would be satisfied by telephone book entries, etc. And if you mean to get rid of "multiple" then "independent" becomes meaningless; this would be satisfied by a single newspaper article. —Centrx→talk • 16:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC-8)

• How can you write an article from a "telephone book entry"? If we require verifiability and independence and don't allow perma-stubs, where is the problem?
• I can't see how removing "multiple" affects "independent," since independent also refers to independence from the subject.--Kevin Murray 04:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC-8)

You cannot write a proper encyclopedia article from a telephone book entry, and Wikipedia:Notability must at a minimum exclude the sort of non-notable topics that are explicitly disallowed in WP:NOT. "Independent" means both unaffiliated with the subject and independent from each other. Even ignoring that, if you do not have "multiple" or something like it, any topic with a single newspaper article would qualify as "notable", which is not correct. —Centrx→talk • 07:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC-8)

• (a) you are just restating the obvious again (b) if you have WP:NOT the issue is already covered. --Kevin Murray 11:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC-8)

"Multiple, non-trivial" works for me. If there's some concern that the guideline for "no-ntrivial" needs improvement, I'd suggest working on the description of "Non-triviality." --Dragonfiend 17:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC-8)

• I think "multiple, non-trivial" is the better option (better than "sufficient"). Sufficient is a more subjective term that may refer to the quality of coverage, whereas "multiple and non-trivial" refers to quantity only. Also, please note, if I did indeed leave the "sufficient" sentence there, it was only because I was reverting another change. I most definitely do not support moving away from "multiple non-trivial". -- Black Falcon 17:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC-8)
  • As for the list of names you've written, many of the reverts were to prevent the inclusion of additional contentious material. Also, I think Uncle G is another opponent of "sufficient". -- Black Falcon 17:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC-8)
    • Wait a minute, strike all this above. I was going based on one version of the "sufficient" phrase, but looking at the page's edit history, there seem to be at least a couple. Kevin Murray, so that I can make a clear judgment, could you please give the definition of "sufficient" you intend. Thanks, Black Falcon 17:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC-8)
      • Falcon, sufficient came out of some options above where several editors proposed sentences and sufficient seemed popular. I'm not wed to that word, and would be happy to support another option. What do you think? --Kevin Murray 20:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC-8)
        • Kevin, I would support sufficient, but we must define it. "Sufficient" by itself is a meaningless word. Sufficient for what? I proposed sufficient to one day write a GA/FA from, Jeff proposed sufficient to write something expandable past a stub. But if we just say "sufficient", without a qualification of for what, this guideline becomes meaningless, because the word without context is meaningless. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 21:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC-8)
          • I see the folowing common definitions: enough or adequate for the purpose. Leaving a definition with subjective meaning. --Kevin Murray 05:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC-8)
          • Would we attempt to define "sufficient" within the text or in a footnote? I am opposed to a great deal of text, but am happy to have a concise footnote. --Kevin Murray 04:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Optional words to consider in lieu of "non-trivial"

--Kevin Murray 04:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC-8)

• prominent
• significant
• sufficient
• meaningful
• adequate
• in depth
• material
• relevant
• enough
• suitable
• incidental
• ommitting "non-trivial" without replacement. not trying to define the quality of the source material.

• swap "trival" for "incidental" SmokeyJoe 23:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC-8)

In each case, the use of the word trivial is a poor choice, an "incidental" is much closer to what is meant. The quality of the source is not really the issue (that's covered by reliability), but the depth of the commentary given to the subject by the source. A reputed source can make an incidental reference to a notable subject. I suggest changing every "trivial" to "incidental", including "non-trivial" to "non-incidental". SmokeyJoe 18:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC-8)

• "Trivial" in this case is in fact used to speak to the depth of coverage, it's already stated that the sources must be reliable. What do you see as the difference in meaning between "trivial" and "incidental"? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 18:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC-8)

The first use of “trivial” is in the following quote:

A topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other.

In the above sentence, “non-trivial” is used as an adjective for “published works”. I cannot see where it says “depth of coverage” (in the quote or elsewhere). Perhaps an appropriate use of “trivial” is: “For a specificed subject, an incidental reference is one that has only a trivial depth of coverage.”

Further down the page:

"Non-triviality" is an evaluation of the depth of content contained in the published work, exclusive of mere directory entry information, and of how directly it addresses the subject.3

The above is an attempt to redefine “non-triviality”. It is actually NOT supported by the reference. The character sequence “trivial” does not occur under “notable” at oed.com

The main difference is that “trivial” carries a strong connotation of worth (of the noun for which trivial is the adjective). Trivial published works are published works that are of little worth or importance. “Incidental”, as an adjective for “source”, refers to the way something occurs, or is used, or is found, without implications of inherent worth of the source itself. SmokeyJoe

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/trivial

2 a : of little worth or importance <a trivial objection> <trivial problems>

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/incidental

1 a : being likely to ensue as a chance or minor consequence <social obligations incidental to the job> b : MINOR 1

2 : occurring merely by chance or without intention or calculation

• In regards to what Smokey Joe is saying: A trivial source (a high school newspaper article, for example) may be independent, may be reliable, may have depth of coverage, etc. but does not indicate something is "attracting notice" in an encyclopedic sense. I suggest making it clear we're looking for both nontrivial coverage and nontrivial sources. That is, depth of coverage from non-trivial sources. --Dragonfiend 22:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC-8)
  • Disagree entirely, a school newspaper source is not always a non-trivial source, and as per WP:ATT sources need to be judged in context. We should not rule that certain types of sources are trivial, and that was never the intent of the word trivial. Hiding Talk 01:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Primary -> General

While a few editors have complained that the phrase "Common Notability Criteria" devalues the criteria too much, I've made an alternate proposal of using the phrase "General Notability Criteria". But so far, only one other editor has commented on it. This change still allows for the criteria to be applied across Wikipedia while avoiding the impression that the criteria supersedes the other subject-specific criteria. --Farix (Talk) 18:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC-8)

I think this would be a good replacement. This also seems to make sense in light of the fact that we have subject-specific guidelines. -- Black Falcon 19:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC-8)

I still think that dodges the central (not general!) question—is this guideline a central one, from which the other, more specific guidelines only provide a rough guide as to what's likely to pass here, or is it-well, toothless in effect, superceded by the subject-specific guidelines? I oppose anything that indicates or asserts that this is a "catch-all" for the rare cases not covered by WP:BIO, WP:WEB, etc., and this seems to do that. The secondary guidelines should be providing a rough indicator of what probably has enough secondary sourcing to pass, not exceptions to this guideline when no sources or only trivial or unreliable sources exist. Secondary sourcing should be required for everything. "Primary" clearly indicates this, in that there would be no more lawyering over "Well, X won an award, it's notable!" or "Y got content distributed by Yahoo once, we should write about it!" Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 20:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC-8)

I think you are the one who is mistake and one of the editors that has given too much "authority" to the criterion on this page. This page lists only one notability criterion that can be applied to all pages, but it is not the only criterion that can apply nor does it supersede any of the subject-specific criteria that will apply. A subject that doesn't pass this criterion can still be deemed notable if it can passes one of the criterion specific to its subject. The notability guidelines are only to help determine if the subject is notable, but not whether there is enough material to write a proper article with, which is a whole other ball of wax. --Farix (Talk) 04:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC-8)

This criterion most certainly can fulfill that function, of determining whether there's enough material for a proper article. Why shouldn't we let it? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 04:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Because notability and determining if there is "sufficient material" to write an article are two entirely separate things. Notability is determining if the subject is "of note". However, notability is no guarantee that there are sufficient materials to write an article on the subject. --Farix (Talk) 04:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC-8)

That, is why I don't particularly like the term notability-it too easily conflates with popularity or being well-known (despite the guideline specifically stating it is not either of those things.) Notability in this context means encyclopedic suitability, or in other words, we can write an encyclopedia article on it. Without sufficient secondary source material, we can't do that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 05:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Equivocation is a logical fallacy. Like "neutral", and "verifiable", "notability" is usually used in a technical wikijargon sense. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC-8)

I'm not convinced that there is concensus on whether notability means "of sufficient prominence to be included in the encyclopedia" or "containing sufficient independent, non-trivial sources so that an article could be written without the use of non-independent or trivial sources." I understand that some editors now consider the latter description to have become the primary purpose of notability, rather than a beneficial side effect, but I'm not sure that there is consensus on the subject. Certainly the historical understanding was closer to "prominence." TheronJ 13:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Well, at least we got Seraphimblade to admit his view that "notability" has nothing to do with actual notability, which would mean that this guideline is a self-contradiction. --Farix (Talk) 13:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC-8)

(outdent) I don't think this guideline ever had anything to do with notability in the English language sense. It is, at best, an approximation and at worst an unrelated concept. Nifboy 14:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC-8)

(reply to Farix) I'm not "admitting" anything but the fact that in the English language, words can mean different things in different contexts. To a school newspaper, a proposed tuition increase might be very noteworthy to their intended audience-notable. To our intended audience, it's not. In our context, "notability" means enough sources exist that we can write an encyclopedia article about it. We define that on the page that describes it. If there were any phrase to use that would probably be a lot more accurate, it would be "encyclopedic suitability", but that's kind of unwieldy.Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 15:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Well then if we are using a contrived definition of "notability" to describe "encyclopedic suitability", why not call it what it is? We could just call it "suitability" since encyclopedic is implied by the fact that we are working on an encyclopedia after all. I for one would support a proposal to change the name of this page to "Suitability" and rework it accordingly. I think this might help address many of the objections to "notability" that relate to the usual definition that fails to distinguish it from a popularity contest, and invites comparisons between AfD and The Gong Show [5].

You know...that might not be such a bad idea, and that's really not too unwieldy. I'd go for that, if everyone agreed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 16:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC-8)

I approve of additional clarity. Shall we break out {{move}} and put this into its own section? Nifboy 06:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC-8)

I'm not entirely convinced. Things can be suitable for inclusion without meeting this guideline. Further, unless it's generally accept that this is the Primary Notability Criterion, around which all other must be written, to rename it Wikipedia:Encyclopedic suitability, or anything similar, is to beg the question. Angus McLellan (Talk) 06:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC-8)

We can't just rename the page without reworking it somewhat, and that would probably be too shocking to some people anyway, so hold off on the {{move}}. I suggest creating a draft version of WP:N reworked as Wikipedia:Suitability on a sub-page, and submitting it for discussion. I can probably work on that this weekend. Dhaluza 09:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC-8)

• I think that this idea has merit; however, we should be cautious here since this is meant to be the cornerstone of a permutation of notability policy pages. It seems that any name change here should be echoed in other pages. Another problem I see is the proliferation of special purpose pages which may not be as necessary once we have composed a clear and comprehensive central guideline. I invite all of the participants here to peruse the various sub-guidelines to see how we might reduce the need to creep in a comprehensive solution. --Kevin Murray 10:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Options we are discussing

• Primary
• Common
• General
• Basic
• Fundamental

Others?

I am equally happy with primary, common, or general. Any prior implication of preference was in the spirit of compromise toward consensus. --Kevin Murray 05:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Please stop listing these words. It takes up space and it provides no reason why any of them should be preferred over another. —Centrx→talk • 07:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC-8)

It gives a short review of the discussion ina mound of circular text, and takes up very little room.

It gives no review of the discussion. If it did, there would be a brief explanation of the various advantages and disadvantages to each brought up in the discussion. —Centrx→talk • 14:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Pardon me for not specifically spelling out the instructions, which I thought were somewhat implied in the context of the placement. The point is to list some optional words which have been proposed above in various discussions, with the hope that we might evaluate the potential of each toward reaching a consensus. I believe that sometimes less is more and a hint is all that's needed. However, there is an old saying that among the blind a wink is as good as a nod. --Kevin Murray 14:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC-8)

Basic or Fundamental which is think the actual meaning. The others are special cases or derivatives. "Common" does imply "common to all". but it also implies "most used"; DGG 18:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC-8)