Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 19

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

The following adds nothing to the page which is pertinent to the topic of notability. I see no basis for adding this and no consensus in support. --Kevin Murray 22:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The notability criteria is based on Wikipedia content policies:

• For a verifiable article, the information on the topic needs to have been researched, checked, and evaluated through publication in independent reliable sources.
• For a
  partisan or fanatic editors
  .
• Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate directory of businesses, websites, persons, etc. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

A rationale section in general justifies Notability as being appropriate for an encyclopedia. This rationale section specifically explains how Notability is implied by the basic content policies. Rationales should be included in guideline and policy pages in general, so that the reader understands the justification for the guideline and is potentially convinced by it, without requiring repeated redundant talk page conversations about why a guideline exists. —Centrx→talk • 23:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. We can debate until our fingers fail. If you want to add this get a consensus, otherwise leave it alone. There is no problem in need of a remedy. This is just over-fussing for no purpose. --Kevin Murray 23:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You responding simply that you "don't agree" for no reason does not constitute you participating in a debate or you contributing to any consensus the change. The purpose of including the rationale is stated directly above, no reason has been given against it, and you are simply reverting without discussion as a perfunctory obstruction against three others who think it is a good idea. —Centrx→talk • 23:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

At least one reason has been given: the section misrepresents the concept of notability by suggesting a connection between the noteworthiness of topics to policies that govern how to write articles. Although intended to be a rationale for the notability guideline, it gives the impression that WP:N is completely redundant to WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of the rationale is to explicitly link the the core content policies with notability by standing halfway in-between. The fact that Notability is implied by the core content policies does not mean that the consequences of that combined implication are fleshed out, without Wikipedia:Notability.

The only more precise wordings I can come up with might be convoluted. A "verifiable article" is a clear concept even if strictly read

verifiable such that the total article can, in sum, be called a verifiable encyclopedia article." The neutral one might start as "A necessary pre-condition for making a neutral article..." —Centrx→talk

 • 00:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

My main objection is not to a particular wording ... it's to the mention of WP:V and WP:NPOV in the first place. The "Notability" inclusion guideline is derived from WP:ENC and WP:NOT; it is not implied by WP:V and WP:NPOV, which are primarily about content in articles and have little to do with the topics of articles, to which the concept of notability applies. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that I've made my points quite clearly. Recap: (a) no value added (b) potential confusion (c) not relevant to the topic (d) more words without further clarity. I don't think that we need to go beyond that. If you can show some broad consensus, add it, but two people do not represent a consensus here. You were bold and were reverted, now the onus is on you to demonstrate consensus for change. --Kevin Murray 00:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You have simply stated this without any reasons, in the face of reasons. The value added and the reasons why it is added are given above; this separate section with clear sentences is no more confusing than any other sections and sentences on this page, most of which are more legalistic and confusing; the section explained itself how it is directly relevant to notability; the rest of the page consists mostly of legalistic sub-definitions which are many words with almost no clarity. The whole page would be clearer if, with the exception of the introduction, it were replaced with this section. —Centrx→talk • 00:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Have a very nice evening! --Kevin Murray 00:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

<<< This is utterly ridiculous. How can a guideline bypass policy, subvert it, or replace it? It can't. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want to add this get a consensus Uh? There is consensus on policies. And this guideline must respect the consensus of the established policies: It does not stand alone. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

What specifically are you claiming is subverting policy? Mind your manners and discuss it please. Horrorshowj 06:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to second the above request for clarification. Please note that I don't disagree with the content of this edit, but I'm not sure where the issue of bypassing or subverting policy came into play... Notability does not apply to article content and, as far as I'm aware, never has. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I too support this addition: this edit, made by Jossi and supported by S-blade's reversion. --Kevin Murray 14:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

As a suggestion, might we say

"Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, and What Wikipedia is not."

instead of:

" Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not."

This might be more clear and consice.--Kevin Murray 14:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

(1) Wikipedia currently has articles on every single Pokemon character, as well as every comic book that ever existed. Are these notable? Why?

("Pokemon" as a whole has received much coverage, but that would not warrant this much detail. Similarly, Superman would merit an article, but not some obscure character like Dollar Bill.)

(2) Would "Bhutanese literature" be considered noteworthy? Surely yes, but why? Who has noticed it? And what about a scholar who is famous in the field of Bhutanese literature, but unknown to the general public? Would he be notable? Should his article discuss his biography as a human being, or as a scholar of Bhutanese literature?

I use these examples as representatives of the larger question, not because I have any particular opinion about Pokemon or Bhutanese literature. --Dawud

There used to be an article for every Pokemon but that has since changed; all but the most notable (

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS

because individual pokemon had articles, and thus promoted the change.

As for your second question, remember that "notability" is defined not by its importance, fame, or knowledge by the general public. Is is now "significant coverage by reliable secondary sources". Even if the field is covered by books that would be in dusty university libraries, it still has coverage in secondary sources. A person working in the field, probably not as much unless their fame in the field can be qualified by secondary sources - if the fellow is the primary author of many books about the Bhutansese language, that's becomes a primary source, and as such, doesn't demonstrate notability. But if there was say a monthly independent journal that followed that field and cited the fellow several times as the lead scholar in the area, then you have your secondary source. Such an article should then primarily focus on his scholarly work and follow all other requirements of

biographies of living persons. --MASEM

14:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Conflict between

WP:V

?

Now I've not been editing very long, but it seems to me as if there is a conflict between the concepts of notability and veriability as seen on Wikipedia.

From what I understand, Wikipedia:Notability basically says that 'only things that are important ('notable') should have articles on Wikipedia'. The current standard by which this notability is judged (as per Wikipedia:Verifiability) is publication in 'reliable third-party sources' .

The problem, as I see it, is that third party sources publish things because they are already notable. A subject does not instantly become notable or important merely because an article has been written on it. I would even contest that if a subject was truly 'non-notable' it would remain non-notable no matter how many articles had been written on it.

In short, I believe 'Notability is inherent in the subject, not its reportage'.

If this premise is accepted, then Wikipedia has a problem, namely that there is a large corpus of knowledge that is unlikely to be reported on in the media (for such various reasons as concerns for academic image, editorial bias on the part of those sources that it is unimportant, the sheer bias of available academic or media-based studies etc.), or unlikely to enter third-party discourse for quite some time, that may in fact be notable.

I think that Wikipedia should expand its definition of Notability, whilst tightening up policy and action regarding the truly non-notable articles of the wiki; such as vandalism, personal attacks, advertising, spam, etc.

Anyone have any thoughts on this? Man from the Ministry (talk) 23:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It may help to think about it this way: because we don't do

original research, and because an encyclopedia is a tertiary source, the actual state of the world is not our concern. We don't directly observe things; we go by what other sources have already observed. So, it doesn't matter if notability is inherent in the subject- it only matters to us what reliable sources say. Friday (talk)

23:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I see what User:Man from the Ministry is saying, and I believe it stems from the difference in meaning of notability in common use, and the meaning of notability as used here, which is somewhat confused. You belief, 'Notability is inherent in the subject, not its reportage' is right, in a real world sense. However, some people try to contribute articles not because they are notable, but because they have some other motivation. These contributions are generally considered to be cruft or spam, and to be detrimental to the encyclopaedia as a whole. So how should you try to discriminate? Various notability subguidelines have attempted to create subject specific guidance for inherent notability, but unfortunately they tended to encourage original research, countering the intent of the core policy Wikipedia:No original research, and failed to encourage quality sourcing. WP:N, in tying “notability” to reportage, encourages quality sourcing. The nebulous “notability” is turned to mean instead “has previously, elsewhere, verifiably, been noted".

There is not a fundamental conflict between Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Notability. (If you see a specific conflict, fix it.) Wikipedia:Verfiability requires that all content be verifiable, but it does not say that everything verifiable is suitable content. Wikipedia:Notability helps to define the subset of verifiable material that is suitable content. If Wikipedia:Notability were to imply that certain things were suitable content without reference to sourcing, then there would be a conflict. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (poker players)

This is just to inform those who may have missed it that the members of WikiProject Poker have proposed a new notability guideline for poker players. Their proposal was incomplete, so I completed it by moving it to its current location and announcing it here. This is a procedural post only, and I make no comment here as to the acceptability of the proposed guideline. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 11:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you help me with setting up our guideline, I represent

WikiProject Overweight plumbers. We feel that a guideline regarding our inclusion is now merited at WP. --Kevin Murray (talk

) 16:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Subject-specific notability recommendations are very useful if you are trying to participate in an AfD debate on a subject you don't know much about. If you don't like such a recommendation, you don't have to follow it. How am I supposed to know which Australian football teams deserve articles? If we decide all debates based on which article subjects are *already* heavily covered by reliable sources at the time of the AfD, many of these would get deleted. EdJohnston (talk) 17:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ed, if you are going to participate in AfD, then you should know how to apply WP:, BIO and ORG. I really don't why we need the last two, if WP:N is well understood. We don't need more guidelines, just better understanding of what we have. Unfortunately AfD is really more of an ILIKEIT vote. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If the concern falls well within the bounds of a Wikiproject, there's almost no reason to have a Wikipedia-wide policy/guideline on it; it can be incorporated into the project guidelines, and still be given it's own moniker (eg WP:POKER/N) if so desired. --MASEM 17:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Have to agree with Masem. And my read of the project page is that they never intended it to be WP-wide. Accordingly, I am deleting it from the template and marking the proposal as rejected (with the clarification on its talk page). UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If its going to be applied in AFD debates, it needs to be more than just something the project makes up. Otherwise what's to stop every project from just creating a guideline that just makes almost everything they cover notable? Mr.Z-man 18:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That does indeed seem to be the goal of some of our projects. Not sure how exactly to solve the problem, but we need to find ways to keep projects from becoming insular, with their own agendas that don't match the overall goals of Wikipedia. Friday (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It's easy - enforce the policies, especaily

WP:NOT. Change the discussion from "this subject is not notable" to "the article on this subject has no sources and never will." UnitedStatesian (talk

) 18:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Your personal "rejection" of a proposal is totally inapprpriate. Please remove it from the page yourself before someone else dows, and particpate with the discussion. There is a clear consensus for the guideline among those who have commented on it. One of the two people opposing it adding a tag saying it is rejected is silly. 2005 (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I would hardly call that 9 support/8 oppose straw poll a consensus for it. Mr.Z-man 20:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Kevin, I find your "humor" insulting and rude---borderline NPA on anybody who is interested in the subject of poker.Balloonman (talk) 08:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

BM, I find your balloon a bit inflated. --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

But I do have a few comments:

First, the poker project wasn't attempting to usurp power from

just by competing in the OPEN, he is notable! Same things for a tennis player who qualifies for a single major tennis open. Even if the player never plays another major event. We have identified the events/criteria that are significantly higher. Why did we do this? To tighten the guidelines around Poker Players to prevent eliminate repeated discussion at AfD's about why the criteria for athletes is too liberal for Poker Players! At just about every AfD for non-notable poker players people make the argument that "Poker players use the same criteria as athletes, thus this player is notable because he played at the WSOP." Our guidelines were closing that door, demanding that poker players demonstrate their notability via secondary sources.

Second, I think it is entirely appropriate for the different projects to come up with what THEY THINK is notable. People at the Wikiproject Poker have a better idea of what makes a poker player notable than those who are unfamiliar with poker. People interested in Australian Football have a better understanding of that subject. That doesn't mean that anybody has to accept it.

is more likely to know what defines a notable baseball player. Now, nobody is required to accept the views of the various projects, but it does provide a baseline for understanding what THAT community deems notable.

Third, to prove the point, can anybody point to any of the proposed criteria that are weaker than those established by Bio? I don't think so. What we've done is defined what it means in the poker realm to "competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport."

Finally, we were having this discussion on a centralized talk page---and only after a user who !voted in the project marked the discussion as closed do we even learn that a parrallel discussion is occuring related to our criteria? I find that to be bad form.Balloonman (talk) 08:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

PS, we have modified the proposal based upon the discussion, to Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(poker_players)#New_ProposalBalloonman (talk) 10:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, a few replies:

But, this is no different than a NASCAR racer winning a race or a golfer winning a PGA event. - We don't have special guidelines for race car drivers or golfers, why do we need one for poker players if the criteria are so obvious? Secondary sources are already required by the main

WP:NUMBER

).

People at the Wikiproject Poker have a better idea of what makes a poker player notable than those who are unfamiliar with poker - They also have a natural bias and the best interests of their project in mind.

Now, nobody is required to accept the views of the various projects - Doesn't that defeat the purpose of a guideline? Mr.Z-man 20:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

We've already got an excellent guideline here at

biographies of living persons, either enough sourcing exists for a substantive biography of the person or not. My suspicion is that for the vast majority of poker players, the answer is "not". They can easily enough be briefly mentioned in a subsection of the article on the tournament (which very likely is notable) or on a separate List of winners of the Somethingoranother Poker Tournament if that grows too large. That's not to say there might not be some exceptions where we really can write a full biography of a poker player, but my guess is that's the exception rather than the rule. If I'm wrong, find the sources, but don't set arbitrary criteria. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me}

20:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

the guideline is excellent. We want to add a sentence that claifies the subject to avoid arguing. It is obviously not CREEP. This the seond time someone mentioned that, apparently having never read

WP:BIO. Finally it would be good to keep the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(poker_players) so these same concepts don't keep coming up in two places. 2005 (talk

) 03:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

To avoid redundancy, please comment at [[Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(poker_players) 2005 (talk) 03:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Studies, in which his research continues to be extremely influential. (I would say that he is one of the five or six most important recent writers. Certainly no one in the field could avoid his work.) The current article on Cole includes both aspects in considerable detail. For example, some of his articles (and one book) on the Baha'i religion are summarized.

Now, it so happens that Cole was a member of this religion until the mid-1990's, after which he quit the organized form of it. Most of these articles were published then, and are intensely critical of the religion's administration. (Members, by contrast, are not allowed to publish without the permission of these authorities.) One Baha'i Wikipedian is attempting to delete descriptions of these--despite their importance to Baha'i Studies, and to Cole--by saying that they are not notable. (It may or may not be relevant that various Baha'is, including this guy, have been systematically erasing material embarrassing to them from Wikipedia.)

So, what say ye? And what can be done about a dedicated group with an intense interest in making ideologically-motivated edits to obscure topics? Assumptions of "good faith" hardly seem applicable... --Dawud —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.167.167.60 (talk) 05:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

A more logical place for you to air this concern is the

WP:COIN is semi-protected so that anonymous editors cannot make comments there). EdJohnston (talk

) 19:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hole in Bio

I think we were starting to have meaningful discussion on the Wikipedia talk:Notability (poker players) discussion when it was closed. I have no problem with it being closed, because I can accept the notion that specific guidelines for poker players do not need to be created. (Previous discussion at WikiProject Poker nixed the idea---we only were looking for something to close the loophole on the number of vanity articles we see being created.)

That being said, we do have a hole with with the guidelines per

) 21:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to revisit the need for any special criteria at either BIO or ORG, not to mention the further permutations. If WP:N is well understood and evenly applied it should cover all bases. The grey areas really come in determining what are credible sources for estabishing notability. Rather than trying to predefine classes of people or organizations which are automatically in or out, let's fine tune the critieria for credible sources. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above. The Poker project had discussed creating notability guidelines before, but decided against it because

WP:N was sufficeintly well defined that any guidelines we created would be redundant with N. The problem that we have, is when the criteria was applied to categories. Once that was done, people start looking for the closest analog to the article in question. I believe that these notabiltiy sub-guidelines allows for more articles to exist than would otherwise exist.Balloonman (talk

) 22:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems that there are two distinct sets of fans for the subject specific guidelines: people who think that WP:N is too lax and those who think it is too restrictive. I think there is a third group which is either unfamiliar with WP:N or doesn't understand the concept. --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Then there is the fourth group who don't understand what BIO says. It does not say in the specific guidelines that certain people ARE notable, just that they are generally notable, but any articles about generally notable people can still be afd'ed. Being part of a group that is generally notable does not mean you are notable. 2005 (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I am sure that I understand what BIO says, and means to say. However, I believe that notions of "generally notable" are unhelpful and confusing with regard to the creation and improvement of wikipedia articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly it is a valid opinion that it isn't a good guideine, or that it is contradictory, or it could be improved. However, as o now those supplementary passages allow exactly zero more articles tobe created, and prevent exactly zero. Basically they only say that creating an article on a person in a generally notable group is not a vanity exercise, even if it may not survive an afd. There have been a lot of mistatments saying these these specifc group guidelines open the doors or "allow" articles, and they plainly do not. The guideline also does not contradict itself. A generally notable group does not mean every member of the group is notable. People should not ignore the word "generally". 2005 (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

There is an old saying that a camel is a horse designed by committee. BIO is an odd set of compromises, but it is the lesser among evils. --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)

I agree that

) 12:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

(Please see

) 13:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Going back to the original issue of the poker player notability, I see nothing wrong with most of these being taken to appropriate wikiprojects to be used as project guidelines as long as those requirements for notability do not supersede this page's definition (that was my suggestion for the poker ones). I think there's a few on this list that cannot necessary, however, be cleanly packed into nice little Wikiproject pages - politicians, athletes, creative professions, to name a few, though certainly a small number of wikiprojects span those categories. I see nothing wrong with havig this page to "refer to appropriate Wikiprojects for further consideration on notability for persons" if these specific callouts are moved as examples to those wikiprojects. --MASEM 14:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, and this is the premise that the Poker Project began with, I believe that it is incumbent upon the different projects to define what they believe to be notability. I know that winning the World Poker Open is nowhere near as prestigious as winning the European Poker Tour---but does a non-poker player know that? Likewise, I have no idea concerning notability in Cricket or European Football. I rely upon people who are familiar enough with the subject to give us their guidance. Thus, IMHO, EVERY project should have a notability section. That being said, the notability sections within the projects would carry the weight of an essay. It would be their interpretation on how to apply the guidelines. (NOTE: that was our intention initially.)Balloonman (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I see the issue as trying to permit us to write articles, not argue about them. having a large class of articles accepted as notable prevents inordinate pressure of afd to consider every individual one of them separately. We are not St. Peter, dividing the blessed from the damned with total and permanent precision. If 9/10 of the people in a class are notable, its convenient to think they all are and avoid the need for discussing all of them.-- if we did, we wouldnt do any better, because if anyone thinks that the accuracy of AfD in either direction is anything like 90%, they should visit there for long enough to observe the lack of reproducibility -- if we dont decide the same issue twice in a row the same way, we're not doing so well that a simple white line is inferior. That we make a principle out of not following precedent shows we've given up on trying to actually consider each article in a responsible way. so we might as well divide the articles according to a rough sort, and be done with it. Remember that the default conclusion for dubious notability is inclusion, not rejection. If 3/4 of our articles were about things clearly non notable, we'd have a problem; if 3/4 are about things clearly notable, we're doing as well as we can expect. .DGG (talk) 04:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

What guideline do people generally use when assessing the notability of an article on a particular surname? Are they treated like places (i.e. generally considered notable, even in the absence of readily available secondary sources? JavaTenor (talk) 07:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Certainly not. The general notability guideline of reliable secondary sources applies. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 09:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• See
  MOS:DAB), and that new surname pages are created to take the weight off disambiguation pages, independent of whether a surname is notable or not. – sgeureka ^t
  •c 12:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for rationale section

I agree with Centrx that a rationale section would strengthen this guideline and help to head off some of the persistent questions and challenges that we get. I have therefore drafted a proposed rationale section based on the existing language and some of the ideas and arguments raised above. As I know Kevin will object if there’s no prior consensus, I am coming here first. So, I propose changing the existing “Notability requires objective evidence” section to the following:

==Rationale==

As Wikipedia is an

indiscriminate collection of information

, the notability guidelines require verifiable objective evidence that subjects are of sufficiently broad interest to justify inclusion. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines.

Substantial coverage in reliable sources also helps ensure that the content of the article will be fully

neutral

, and that a high quality encyclopedic article can be written.- Please comment or tweak.--

talk

) 20:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Some tweaks below.

As Wikipedia is an

neutral

, and that a high quality encyclopedic article can be written.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Why?

I don't see the why to this. This basically just restates the lead paragraph. Why not incorporate any variances in the lead? I don't object to the general message; I just don't see the value added of one more section. But I do appreciate an attempt at gaining consensus. --Kevin Murray 20:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Current Lead

Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity", although these may positively correlate with notability. A subject is presumed to be sufficiently notable if it meets the general notability guideline below, or if it meets an accepted subject specific standard listed in the table to the right.

These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles. Relevant content policies include: Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons.

Proposed rationalle

As Wikipedia is an

, and that a high quality encyclopedic article can be written.

this wording avoids the issues . We need a clear definition of just what is meant by an indiscriminate list of information, or a directory. These terms areusedin a variety of inconsistent ways, often amounting to nothing more than I dont trhink its notable.

Proposed merger as a new lead (rough draft)

Wikipedia is not a

. Notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic. The topic of an article should be "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity". Notability guidelines require verifiable evidence that topics are of sufficiently broad interest to justify inclusion. Substantial coverage in reliable sources also helps ensure that the content of the article will be verifiable and neutral, and that a high quality encyclopedic article can be written.

These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles. Relevant content policies include: Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons.

To Kevin. We wouldn't actually add a section, this would replace and only slightly expand the existing objective evidence section. Also, it is different from the Lead. The Lead focuses on what the notability guideline is, with only a little bit about why we need it. We could expand the lead to say more about why, but I think it's better and more clear in a separate section.

It seems that we could eliminate the objective evidence section and incorporate the better aspects of the rationalle into the lead. I think that with the best of intentions WP is a constant victim of bloating. --Kevin Murray 21:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ha - this is half of what I started with. I anticipated your comment and tried to keep it as succinct as possible :)--

talk

) 21:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

To Jossi - good tweaks!--

talk

) 21:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

01:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

True - I hadn't looked at that page for a while. We could link to

talk

) 02:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the link to Encyclopedia should be skipped. --Kevin Murray 15:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't like that proposed lede. It evades the issues of what is or is not an indiscriminate list or information, or a directory. The discussions at many afd come down to just that, and it practice amount to I do/do notthink the content is notable. given that content does not have to be notable, this is usually a red herring. Can someone perhaps explain exactly what is meant, with examples, that we could agree upon? DGG (talk)

Does linking to

indiscriminate collection of information help? --Kevin Murray

15:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with DGG. "Not a directory" applies to the content of articles; it doesn't really apply well across articles (imagine "Wikipedia is not a directory of prime ministers"). I think we're better off mentioning "is an encyclopedia" and dropping any mention to WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the links are helpful. I think WP:N (a guideline) needs to have some reference to some policies (otherwise we are much more likely to get the "WP:N is just a guideline, so we can ignore it" argument). I also disagree with the statement that

WP:NOT#DIR we are well down the road to getting articles to duplicate every entry in the Baseball Encyclopedia. UnitedStatesian

20:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in individual Pokemon or a biography of every professional baseball player, but it is dangerous to apply the philosophy of "not a directory" to sets of articles. The viability of each article should be judged invididually, and we should never delete an article on a notable topic just because someone feels that we shouldn't be a directory of articles of a certain type (I've seen this type of argument applied to articles about non-US and non-European subjects). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

My concern is the opposite: an article gets written on a non-notable topic where its only source is a directory or directories. Without referring to

WP:NOT#DIR, there is no way to delete the article because of its lack of notability. UnitedStatesian (talk

) 13:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it could be deleted per

WP:N, which requires "significant coverage", something that a simple directory listing does not provide. – Black Falcon ^(Talk

) 18:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

So WP:N stems from WP:NOT in that way. —Centrx→talk • 05:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#DIR applies to directories in articles and to articles that constitute a directory, but it is only tangentially related to coverage in sources. So, I think that WP:N stems from the general idea behind WP:NOT (i.e. Wikipedia is not the place for articles about topics that are not worthy of note), but not from any particular section of the policy. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) It still gets back to

08:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Question - What makes any list notable? Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia Userafw (talk) 08:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject:Martial arts has come up with these guidelines and I was looking for some more input, on if anything needs adding or changing. Thanks --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 15:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a forwarning, the Poker Project tried to do something similiar and our request for input was pulled into an overarching debate on the necessity of the additional criteria section---wherein we were basically slammed---Wikipedia talk:Notability (poker players). My first piece of advice is to state explicitly that you guys are writing an ESSAY on what the project perceives to be notability. As is, you are going to get ripped apart!

As for your guidelines, they are very subjective. What is a large number of students? What is success at inter-style tournaments? Who cares? So a school in the city of Dallas has a tournament and the local Judo club has success there, does that make the Dallas School of Judo notable? Is 30 schools really notable? IMHO no it's not. As a black belt myself, I don't consider a school large until it has over 100 schools! Thus, the comparison with 30 seems arbitrary. What are significant events? At poker we limited the significant events to the WSOP, WPT, and European Poker Tour events---but were challenged on them! And the WPT/WSOP are the premiere events in the US while the EPT is the premiere event in europe! Is a state tournament notable? Is a national tournament notable? How about San Marino national event?

When defining criteria, what you define needs to be intuitively defensible per BIO/ORG/N. You want to be able to say, "Anybody who fits these criteria is easily defensible as notable"---almost to the point that even asking the question may seem redundant. For example, an Olympic Medalist is (and I know people around here don't like this term) inherently notable. Anybody who would vote to delete an Olympic Medalist is simply wrong. You want your guidelines to be at that level---otherwise, they are meaningless. If I were looking at a school with 30 locations and 2,500 students, I would say that's not notable---regardless of what the project says!Balloonman (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The main reason that turned out the way it did is that the project proposed it as an independent guideline instead of being under

WP:BIO. People are really touchy about bio forks after the unification. Poker players will probably go through in some form as a bio-mod if you stop antagonizing other editors about it. Horrorshowj (talk

) 09:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hence the first line of the policy being that this is a specific extension, I came here to ask for in put i.e. this is good, that is, bad this needs to be more specific. It even says on the page that they are an early draft!.

• • • • What is success at inter-style tournaments? Winning (or podium place) in a tournament that was not just
        Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu
        practitioners to take part, if a style can compete or contribute to the training of an individual who dose well here then that seems notable (it also helps that this would be an relatively easy thing to source).
      • So a school in the city of Dallas has a tournament and the local Judo club has success there, does that make the Dallas School of Judo notable? Probably not. While Judo will pass any notability criteria you care to bring up, unless the school has turned out multiple Olympic medalists or similar it would not be individually notable.
      • Is 30 schools really notable? Good question, any answers?

These are not a finished thing, hence me coming here, they are meant to help people decide weather to write an article or weather to nominate it for deletion by providing specific examples, then the general notability criteria take precedence. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 10:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that you took my advice in making it an essay. I gave some examples of the problems, but you don't seem convinced by the first concern. Success at inter-style tournaments is still too vague. Even if the tournament had 15 styles competing at it, the question becomes is the tournament itself notable? I don't do tournaments, but I know that there are some tournaments that are more notable than others. This would be stronger if you identified which tournaments added to the credibility and which do not. Which are local phenomenon and which attract the best of the best? A tournament that attracts pros/semi-pros is going to be better than the interstyle tournament that is held for my 7-10 year old child. That is what I mean by "who cares." The criteria needs to be strengthened so as to avoid dispute.Balloonman (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There are approximately 300,000 species of plant and an estimated over 1,000,000 species of animal. It seems that some people want to have an article on every one of them. There are multiple bots whose job is to create these articles from other websites. All of these bot-generated articles are very short stubs at first, and very few make it anywhere beyond that. Take for example genus Aloeides. Of its eleven species articles, not a single one has any edits but its bot creation way back in July. I have seen countless others of these useless stubs while random paging and new article patrolling. I call them useless because they are; not a single word of unique information is in any one of them.

Another example from a main culprit, User:Polbot, is Keizaburō Saeki, one of many so-called renowned Japanese photographers, all generated from a single website list of 328 of them. I find it hard to believe that a one-sentence article is useful. A single list should be made with all of them.

My proposition is simple: An article about something should be created only if it has enough unique material to warrant its own page. If not, then a list is perfectly acceptable. If a stub could easily be merged into a parent article, then it should. In fact, this theory of individual notability could also be attributed to people, places and other topics.

Following the plants/animals example, all species should be included in the genus article until sufficient unique information is found. People and places can have fine lists until more things pertinent to that person/place is found.

Obviously, perhaps the best, most common, and strongest rebuttal is eventualism, that every one of these articles could, as legitimate topics, eventually be a featured article or whatnot. I fully agree with this. A species of butterfly is vital to the ecosystem and a Japanese photographer is important and notable in his own right. But until a topic has eventually been taken one step further and a second sentence has been written, I insist that the individual articles remain merged as one. While these topics may be notable, they rarely have good sources and are much too short for use.

As a model, the German Wikipedia, even if it were about the President, would not allow such a short article. I will admit, however, that we are not the German Wikipedia, and that some of their merging, such as for fictional characters, is a bit too intense.

The first step toward merging these unneeded articles is stopping the bots which automatically write them. Proponents of these bots claim that these immediate stubs are starting points for other users to add to them. However, I see absolutely no reason that, as the articles contain only a few lines anyway, a list is not a perfectly acceptable starting point. Besides, as I said before, this point is nullified as the butterfly species pages above haven't been touched since July, and I could find many even older than that if I tried. Eventually? Maybe. Having no unique, useful content for the last six months? Definitely not. And no, I did not scour the site for the very shortest pages; there are many more rediculously short articles.

I do hope that you can see the unnecessarities of many redundant stubs. I'm sure that many will oppose this, but hope I have made my points clear and that many will agree that redundant one-liners are not wanted here. Thank you, Reywas92^Talk 00:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Please make any responses at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Too many redundant stubs. Reywas92^Talk 00:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the nutshell, which read as follows:

This page in a nutshell: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

My reason for removing it is that it is properly phrased only if the topic is a specific person, book, movie, band, or the like. It becomes nonsensical if the topic is a concept, idea, hobby, or pursuit. For example, imagine someone thought the amateur radio hobby was non-notable, and Wikipedia shouldn't have an article on it. The fact that the magazine QST exists would not make the topic notable, because although QST is a secondary source, it isn't independent of the subject of amateur radio. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 17:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

And I reverted this change (and the other one GA made). The nutshell went through a lot of discussion, and I think the logic of GA's argument is flawed: his interpretation of "independent" is much broader that the interpretation that has reached consensus here. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with GA as being technically correct, for practical puposes a nutshell can not address every point to perfection. We can live with the flaw, when the benefits outweighs the risk. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This guideline, as it existed before my edits, is fatally flawed. The subject, or topic, of an article, might be a person or organization. These entities can write sources. Such sources ought not to be used to establish notability. Fine, that makes sense. But what of the topic of an article is not a person or organization; suppose it is a concept, or an object that isn't owned by anyone. Such a thing cannot write sources, but it can have organizations that depend on it, that are not independent of it. For example, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers depends on the existence of electricity. If electricity didn't exist, neither would the IEEE. Does this mean that no publication of the IEEE may be used to establish the notability of electricity? That's ridiculous, but that's what the guideline says. Therefore, I ridicule the guideline in its present form, and refuse to take it into account when making edits.

As for "his interpretation of 'independent' is much broader that the interpretation that has reached consensus here." Interpretations reached on talk pages don't count. Editors using a guideline have a right to have everything important included in the guideline. I don't give a damn what discussions might have happened on the talk page, if it isn't in the guideline, it does not exist.--Gerry Ashton (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I could agree to a nutshell that only covers notability of people and organizations, and leaves the rest to the guideline. But the guideline is flawed, not just the nutshell.--Gerry Ashton (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Gerry, You don't need to expand the discussion further. I think that your point is well understood, without further examples -- we just disagree. You are free to disregard the guideline where it doesn't apply. No one will challenge the noability of the examples which you give. The guidelines are here to help us to keep out the obvious issues. It is unfortunate when people become over zealous and start wiki-lawyering to eliminate reasonable articles using this guideline. Have you hada bad experience? If we try to become too precise, we will rival the US Tax Code and that degree of precision brings its own risks. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

If anyone wants to remove a crackpot article that isn't about a person or organization (or maybe a commercial product, since it isn't much of a stretch to apply this guideline to the manufacturer) he/she better find some grounds other than notability, because this guideline, as it exists, does not really apply to anything but persons or organizations. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

"Independent" should not be interpreted as meaning "completely unrelated in any way, shape, or form". The requirement of independence does not apply to the topic covered by a source, but rather to conflicts of interests arising from the identity of the author. As for the assertion that "interpretations reached on talk pages don't count" ... this same interpretation is applied hundreds of times every day. Moreover, the definition of the phrase "independent of the subject" is clearly stated on the guideline page. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "independent of the subject" is indeed defined as "those affiliated with the subject". So [[Science (journal}|Science]] is affiliated with science, IEEE Spectrum is affiliated with electricity, etc. Which is the problem.--Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

You are ridiculing a ridiculously strong and literal interpretation. No one expects sources to be completely independent to any degree. No relevant source is going to be completely unaffiliated with the subject. “Independent” might have been written “not directly connected” but there is no need because “completely independent” is not a reasonable interpretation because that interpretation would be absurd. The general caveat “should be treated with common sense” applies well to the question of interpretation of “independent” of the subject”. If this guideline annoys you, then by all means ignore it. It’s only meant to apply to entire articles, and the independent sources is meant to ensure that there exists at least one independent source, and so the guideline is usually irrelevant to edits as opposed to new article creations. It may be interesting to note that at Wikipedia:Notability (people), it was thought to be useful to additionally specify “intellectual independence”. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Kevin, I don't agree with you where you say that GA's assesment is "technically correct":

• For
  WP:V
  .
• "Electricity" is not an entity that produces sources. IEEE and other bodies occupied with electricity would produce as well primary, secondary as tertiary sources on the topic of electricity. I would, for example, be surprised if the IEEE hadn't produced a "glossary" or something in that vein regarding electric terminology... Primary, secondary and tertiary sources are usable as sources in the article on electricity (who said they weren't?) - and there are enough secondary sources and tertiary sources (which pre-suppose secondary sources) on the topic of electricity (who said they all had to be produced by "insiders"?) to justify an article.
• I'll give a more remote example from the field of "ideas", religious ideas as it happens. I've forgotten where, but I remember Jimbo Wales stating at a certain moment we probably wouldn't have a separate article on a religion with only a single adherent. Well we have - although this "
  Argumenta ad Jimbonem with a different outcome. --Francis Schonken (talk
  ) 19:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Francis' reply seems to amount to a complain that I can't think of an example that is only covered by publications that would not exist if the topic didn't exist. I apoligize for not being able to think of such an example. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the proposal for a new guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (media) has not gained much support from the community and has fizzled out. My feeling is that the exigencies of several AfD debates drove the proposal, but that in the end no suitable guideline could be produced. I think that the community should evaluate the progress and decide whether this is now a failed project and should be marked as rejected. Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia talk:No original research there is no current consensus on the definition of primary and secondary sources in Wikipedia. This lack of agreement has, in effect, broken this guideline since it relies on that definition as one of its primary criteria. I do not wish to discuss what these definitions might be, in fact I can say that I an whole-heartedly sick of the subject! However, since this does not seem to be a temporary state of affairs, would it be possible to modify this guideline to include more examples and thereby reduce its reliance on a contentious definition? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Who asked about Wikipedia talk:No original research?

Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources still contains definitions. They are policy.

At Wikipedia talk:No original research there is no consensus to change that section. So it remains in effect until such consensus can be found. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I know the definitions are in the policy, however if you read the talk page you will see that there is currently no agreement on what the definitions mean. That is a serious problem. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

At Wikipedia talk:No original research the definitions aren't so much the problem, as what to do with them. So cut the (wiki)drama. Wikidrama equals spreading drama to every corner of wikipedia without any apparent need, or: the only need being: I can't press my POV. If you think there's a problem to solve at Wikipedia talk:No original research solve it there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

in the case of a AfD, we will have to rely on the participants' interpretation of the definitions. I don't see this as a problem, since most people generally use there own perceptions when following guidelines. WP is always in flux, so we just have to do what we can, but addinga nother layer of definition here solves no problems. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a perfectly adequate definition of secondary source at secondary source. Note that th definition is not precise, that is a fact of the matter. I see that at WT:NOR you are aware of a multitude of verifiable definitions, and I am yet to see anyone contrast different definitions to highlight a contradiction. I am also yet to see a dispute at AfD of the defintion of a "secondary source". Given a defined subject (typically lacking in the rambling debate), it is really an easy common sense decision as to whether a particular source is secondary or primary. So the issue of a precise definition is not really an issue here, is it? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It is true that there has been a rambling unfocused, even acrimonious debate over PSTS, but Tim’s summary is off the mark. A much better summary, attributed to User:Fullstop can be found at Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Summary_of_PSTS_issues

The debate in no way breaks WP:N. Indeed, the appropriateness if the use of secondary sources to demonstrate notability received explicit attention at WT:NOR (in different threads, in the last month) and was without opposition. If Tim contends now that the “availability of secondary sources covering the subject are a good test for notability” is not true, then he ought to make a fresh case. I believe that the statement remains true, and that the reliability of available sources is not particularly useful in judging the notability of the subject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I think some variations of the term secondary source that pop up in NOR could be a temporary problem. A publisher close to an issue is often considered a primary source. So governments are generally primary sources with respect to laws and regulations. This means that government publications are insufficient to establish notability of any topic over which the government exerts control.

Eventually, any such topic is likely to be commented on by a non-goverment source, but there are two problems:

1. Wikipedia must wait for the non-government publication before creating an article (some people will think this is fine; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news organization).
2. The editor who creates an article may have to go to extra effort to find a secondary source, even though it is blatently obvious the topic is notable (or the editor could just go ahead and create the article, and hope either no one will notice it's a primary source, or someone else will find the secondary source). --Gerry Ashton (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This is as it should be. Editors should not be creating wikipedia content based solely on government publications. Not all governments are ture and pure and free from ulterior purposes (propaganda). If notability is blatantly obvious, secondary sources will exist. If you have to wait, remember that wikipediat is not NEWS. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The argument "not all governments are [true] and pure and free from ulterior purposes (propaganda)" is not persuasive, because the statement is true of any category of sources. Also, for purposes of notability, it really isn't important if the mention of a topic is true or not, just so long as the publication noticed the topic. The only problem would be if a publication is trying to deceive by creating buzz for an unimportant topic. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Smokey's argument stands without that sentence: "This is as it should be. Editors should not be creating wikipedia content based solely on government publications. [...] If notability is blatantly obvious, secondary sources will exist. [...]".

In other words, Gerry, what you tried to purport as a problem, isn't any, nor according to

WP:NOT#DIRECTORY of laws and regulations. --Francis Schonken (talk

) 22:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Governments do more than publish laws and regulations. They issue reports, publish summaries of positions, reproduce judicial documents, and so forth. The reliability of these will depend on the circumstances, but they can certainly be usable and even authoritative secondary sources. Its a matter of common sense: an intelligence estimate is not proof of what the a state of affairs is, just of what it is reported as being, while a CDC report of the spread of disease is authoritative. There are political and non-political documents. DGG (talk) 09:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I want to propose splitting up

)

Changing the phrase "significant coverage" in the nutshell

In keeping with the above, propose changing the word "significant" in the nutshell to another word like "substantial", to avoid confusion with

) 23:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

this sounds like a good idea, but its a change in very important wording. in a central policy. Could you give a few examples to facilitate discussion? We need to thing about the possible implications.DGG (talk) 06:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

As discussed above, I am proposing to split

WP:SIGNIF

.

Although all

notable. I am proposing that we give editors some sort of guidance on how to tell which viewpoints are significant. If we accept that "significance" represents a different concept and requires a different level of sourcing than "notability", than we shouldn't use the word "significant" to describe the amount of coverage needed to be "notable." Our current policy wording tends to encourage claims that if a person gets an article, what that person has to say must be significant. PSTS is one way to skin this cat, but we can also at least partially address it under existing policy concepts, Significance is a policy concept that has been with Wikipedia a long time yet has been fleshed out and explained very little. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk

) 17:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I see this as a proposal what what I would call proportional treatment. I agree with the idea, but i think the application is not primarily to fringe science, but to such things as semi-vanity articles where the fact that a book has been reviewed and is therefore N enough for an article is used for the exposition of the books contents in detail, or a biography of someone notable is used to take extensively about one or two incidents, or about an organisation is used to talk about one of the events it produces. Similarly, there are articles about barely notable things where all the possible details are given extending to many sections and paragraphs, and articles about things of major notability dismissed in a few sentences. I think we need a statement that the amount of coverage in toto depends upon the notability, and what is said is in proportion to the importance within the subject. But I am concerned that this proposal not be used to reduce the necessary space given to the explanation of fringe theories and splinter views in order to make clear what is being talked about. DGG (talk) 20:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

One example is broad-brush articles like

WP:SIGNIF could help provide guidance on how to identify which viewpoints on a subject are significant and how to resolve disputes about whether a viewpoint is significant. A second possibility is that significance provides another way of getting at the thorny issue of how to avoid orignal research. By existing policy we should generally allow sources that can be shown to represent significant points of view. Sources showing a viewpoint is significant will often coincide with the PSTS definition of "secondary", but not always. I believe significance will often be easier to demonstrate (and moreover, the relevance will be easier to demonstrate) than primary/secondary/tertiary status. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk

) 04:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:SIGNIF add which isnt already covered elsewhere? AndrewRT(Talk

) 01:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to add, I dont think this should be "split". I think it should be put forward as a new proposed guideline and only put live if it gains community consensus. AndrewRT(Talk) 01:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I've asked a couple of individual editors, but thought I'd ask this here as well. I wanted to get clarity on how or if WP:N applies to article contents when the content is alumni of a school, when that school is the subject of the article. How do we gauge whether or not an alumnus of a school is notable enough to be listed. {there are a couple of discussions, for example: here and here.

Basically, I'm looking for clarity on how a school's alumni listing would work in conjunction with WP:N's statement that "These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles."

Would it depend on the school? For instance, in a situation where MIT might have a lot more potential notable personages than, say, Podunk U. There may have been a hundred scientists from MIT working on a project, but just one scientist from Podunk..would that one scientist have a certain notability that the hundred MIT scientists don't have just based on the rarity of such success from Podunk.

A school might even have its own list of notable alumni, a list that may not agree with Wikipedia’s guidelines or policies on every individual the school or alumni association lists. Or does notability apply equally across the board, no matter the status of the background and average success rate, or the school and school’s alumni association's lists?

03:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that listing the people specifically as notable alumni makes a claim to their being notable. The propensity of these articles to spam makes it reasonable to be somewhat restrictive here--to those with WP articles or those clearly capable of having one--e.g. a member of congress or a major league baseball player for whom the article has not yet been written. If we need a specific guideline for the purpose we should establish it. DGG (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please explain and add to the guideline article the purpose of the Notability guideline? Thanks. Xammer (talk) 12:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The concept here is (IMHO) a cotradiction of another policy. "Notability" is clearly a point of view! --Jason Palpatine (talk) 10:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines which is the policy page governing policies and guidelines is becoming unstable due to the constant tinkering by several editors. I think that if there are to be changes, there should be a broader discussion and consensus demonstrated. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I notice this policy has changed to state that secondary sources are required to establish notability. That doesn't match practice very well; we have many BLP articles that are sourced entirely from newspaper articles reporting on some current event. For example, articles on disappearances or murders are often sourced entirely from newspaper and magazine articles (ignoring the references to TV commentary...). Although there are many definitions of secondary source, none of the definitions includes news reporting. — Carl (

) 16:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Primary sources

and for current events, third exception at

WP:ATT#Using questionable or self-published sources

For notability (in Wikipedia-speak that means "being entitled to have a separate article"), secondary sources are always required --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Magazine and Newspapers are secondary sources.Balloonman (talk) 18:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The guideline does not "secondary sources are required to establish notability" nor does it say secondary sources are always required. It says "A subject is presumed to be sufficiently notable if it meets the general notability guideline below...." This leaves open the possibility that the editors interested in an article might reach a consensus that the topic of an article is notable even though it is based only on reliable primary sources.

I can think of one situation where this might be appropriate. One critical property of Wikipedia is that is free (except for the cost of Internet service). If a useful, reliable, primary source is expensive, it might be good for Wikipedia to have an article that paraphrases it, so that our readers can obtain the most commonly used information from the source for free.

I predict that Francis Schonken will claim that any such source worthy of inclusion will be mentioned in some secondary source, and the vast majority of the time, he will be right. But I'm not confident that is the case for some technical information that comes from standards. Standard-setting bodies can't seem to conceive of the idea of selling anything for less than $50. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

CBM · talk

) 18:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

There is not now and has never been and I hope will never be any requirement that sources be free on the internet, or available on the internet at all. Sources have to be available to the public, but presence in libraries counts as available. Standards are available in appropriate libraries. The best source should be used; it is always good to cite an easily available source and free source in addition. What has to be free is external links. DGG (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I was bold and removed the mention of secondary sources from the nutshell, since the guideline itself does not cover this aspect. Essentially, people have been using "secondary" as a stand-in for third-party/independent. Rather than muddling the issue, let's leave the nutshell harmonious with the guideline itself and leave out contentious/confusing language. That turns this concern into a moot point. Vassyana (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that's correct. Secondary sources are always independent; but the reverse isn't true, an independent source can be a primary source (such as a episode guide book for a TV series). The wording of the nutshell was a big issue about May 2007, and consensus agreed that "secondary" is a critical part of this guideline. --MASEM 05:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Secondary sources may be dependent. A book about “the history of [a school]”, written by the current staff, funded and published by the school, is definitely secondary, and definitely not independent. The summary document on the investigations into your past activities is secondary, but is not independent if you paid its author. An autobiography may be secondary, but will never be independent. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I stand corrected. My point still stands: "indepenent" and "secondary" are two very separate concepts and that both words are required in guideline. --MASEM 02:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree that a consensus determined secondary sources are important. In fact, I support the requirement for secondary sourcing (and provided a comment during that May discussion). However, secondary sources are indeed little more than a variation on third-party/independent as used in this guideline. As the guideline is written (and generally interpreted) the episode guide book you mention would be treated as a secondary source (and the series itself as the primary source). As an example, many newspaper accounts would often be considered primary sources (as pointed out by Carl/CBM), but those independent sources are sufficient to establish notability (and even defined as secondary sources for the purposes of this guideline in a footnote). (It's worth noting that scientific journal articles are also usually considered primary sources, but are counted as secondary sources here.) While I certainly support secondary sourcing, I think that it's muddling the page as written. What is obviously intended as independent and reputable sourcing is being called secondary sourcing. For the record, I self-reverted the change due to the disagreement (and probably for the better anyways, since my change was a bandaid on a gushing wound). Vassyana (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"Independence" is one axis to qualify sources (addressing whom is writing the work), "primary"/"secondary"/"tertiary" is a second and distinct axis (addressing the approach on how the topic is approached) - that's the way I look at this, and why its important to address how both need to be considered. Notability obviously should be demonstrated by sources that are independent and secondary to the work. I realize that

WP:PSTS, last I checked, was being reworked to make the definitions closer to library science/academic meanings, but in general, this still means that independent works that are reiterating from non-independent primary sources without additional analysis or considerations are still primary works of themselves, and do not demonstrate notability of the topic in question - which is why both terms need to be used (in my opinion). --MASEM

06:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The distinction between independent and secondary needs to be clarified, as they are just muddled together in the current version. I have no solid ideas currently of how to achieve that goal. A reprinting would not be "independent" even if released by an "independent" publishing house. Random House printing a version of the Bible does not mean the work is independent in any way. If it's not simply a reprinting, then it almost assuredly includes commentary, analysis, etc making it a secondary (and likely an independent) source. Vassyana (talk) 06:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

A pure reprinting solely for the purpose of making money by selling copies is not an independent source. However, an endorsement, even a very short endorsement, by an independent source makes it notable. For example, if an organization publishes a building code, B, that could be considered a primary source. If a city with a population of 2,000,000 passes an ordinance saying that all buildings shall conform to the B building code after January 1, 2009, the buiding code is notable. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Gerry, I don't agree. Until a third party writes about either the building code or the City's adoption of the code, the code is not notable. It is almost like saying that a City of 2 million could make an office product notable if it is available in the City's supply rooms. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The city council (or equivalent) is an independent third party, and the minutes of its meetings are a published public record. Furthermore, if an office product is available in the supply room of a city, there are maybe 500 office workers who might like to read an article about the product. If it is a building code, there are maybe 100,000 builders, architects, engineers, and homeowners who might like to read an article about the building code. One hundered thousand potential readers is enough to make a topic notable. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 20:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't see anywhere in any of the notability guidelines where the number of potential readers is a determinant of notability - can you point me to it? And the minutes of the meeting are another primary source: a secondary source requires some value-added analysis. I have to agree with KM. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The number of potential readers is not explicitly mentioned, but is obviously related to notability. The first sentence now says "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" so it suffices for a source to be indepenent, not necessarily secondary. Furthermore, since the decision of the city council is about a written document, it satisfies some definitions of secondary. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Gerry is presenting an example loaded with unstated assumptions. How do you demonstrate the number of readers? It is easy to demonstrate the publication of a secondary source, a publication that discusses the subject and makes comment, analysis, criticism, satire, ridicule, provides alternative perspective, or somehow contains sufficient transformation that it is not merely a derivative of the subject. And if 100 000 had good reason to find it notable, what is the probability that no one wrote about this thing? Very small, I think, unless you are responding so quickly that you are first violating

WP:NOT#NEWS. For these reasons, the existence of secondary sources is a good way to demonstrate notability. True, there may remains other ways to demonstrate notability, and so secondary sources are not (here) insisted upon. --SmokeyJoe (talk

) 02:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

A city adopting a building code perhaps was not the best example of what I was getting at. My real point is that we tend to think of secondary sources as having an extended analysis of a topic (such as a book review). I suggest that this is not necessary to establish notability; it suffices that secondary or independent sources take note of the topic, and say that it is important, even if the secondary or independent source only contains a single sentence about the topic. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 03:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this example would fit better: A Canadian nationwide cable channel was nominated for AfD. One of the arguments for keeping it was the fact that its schedule was listed in several national magazines and newspapers. Even if those listings don't include any critical analysis, and the content is largely provided by the channel itself, the fact that media outlets publish this information with the clear understanding that readers want to have it is evidence of notability. (The article was kept; I can't say for sure whether that argument was the reason, but there really wasn't much else said in the AfD.) Torc2 (talk) 03:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Going back to Carl’s original point: Yes, there are an awful lot of shoddy articles published by wikipedia. Is the issue the oft stated point that guidelines and policies should do no more than reflect current practice? I consider that to be a nonsense point if taken at the literal extreme. Guidelines such as this should be aimed at improving current practice. “Improve” means that the bar should be set somewhere beyond the standard of current practice.

The sourcing of BLP articles entirely from a burst of newspaper reports is definitely not reflective of ideal editing practice. What should be done? Delete such articles? Ban responsible contributors? Improve the article yourself? Support guidelines that encourage better practice? Lower standards to reflect the articles of lowest quality?

I agree with Carl in that having a standard that requires secondary sources is a good idea. I even think that there is consensus for it. The problem is that there is not consensus for what to do about substandard articles. There is also a danger that simply writing the policy too simply in black and white will lead to swathes of material being deleted. Wikipedia:Notability [(subguideline)] is dangerous because it is used as feeder for AfD. This would be counter-productive for the growth of wikipedia as well as being an diametric violation of Wikipedia:Editing policy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to strongly disagree with a requirement for secondary sources. While there is a problem with "fancruft" acticles being created as essentially plot summaries backed up by the plot as primary source, geography-related articles tend to do well with official primary sources. While secondary sources are nice, and it's a safe bet that a town, navigable river, subway system, railroad, etc, was probably mentioned many times over the years in secondary sources, they shouldn't be mandatory for the article to exist. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Table of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles character appearances. This is not inteded to be a canvass of this group for input on the deletion, but an example for our own discussion. What we have here is a table of which characters appear in which incarnations of TMNT ( i.e. the comic book, the cartoon show, etc. ) I'm asserting it should remain because it was obviously a split for size reasons, and because of that notability should not be in question. I also assert that the table is really a graphic of sorts, and we don't delete photographs from articles just because they reside in separate files. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you. The table is a graphical summary of a list, and both the table and the list sit on the same claims of notability. I disagree with the characterisation of a “split”, in that the information in the table remains in the list. It is an alternative presentation of the same material. Splits that are contentious with respect to WP:N are where material is removed from a large article as unnecessary to the large article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me for not scouring the entire archive, but I'm trying and failing to find policy, guideline, or discussion of the questions of notability in regards to splits as defined in

) 07:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It's about time someone brought this issue up. I've seen many AFD's where a section of the article was split off, which nobody would have questioned, now up for deletion on the grounds that "notability is not inherited". Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is not well covered. I've seen several situations where topics are broken off from long articles and then become victims of AfD. Maybe we need a safe harbor that if the topic is not deemed notable for a separate article, then we relax the long-article standard for reinclusion back to the parent article. --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather have the separate article but with "parent article is too long" as an acceptable defense in AFDs. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This was my first thought, but then I have a concern that by giving a safe-harbor based on a subjective determination of (a) whether an article is too long, and (b) what branches off, we allow for consecrating a lot of non-notable articles e.g., fiction characters, comics, cults. I would rather guarantee a place within the parent than guarantee a transfer of notability. Since we do not require content to be of itself notable, protecting a non-notable topic is dangerous. --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is it dangerous? The only difference would be we'd allow the information to exist as a stand-alone page rather than forcing it all under one exceedingly long article? All the rules that do apply to content - particularly

WP:IINFO- would still apply. Torc2 (talk

) 19:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't make it an automatic "safe harbor", just a defense in deletion reviews. I'm also concerned about conferring transitive notability onto umpteen "In Popular Culture" article. But I want to avoid AFD's like WP:Articles_for_deletion/Rudy_Giuliani_during_the_September_11,_2001_attacks which IMO is easily notable. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the example surviving the AfD. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this section needs to be reworded:

Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles

The combination of

) 18:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this here. I brought it up at

) 19:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I modified the template {{

SubArticle}} to automatically provide such a standard hatnote. Comments/changes/usage welcome. UnitedStatesian (talk

) 20:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Torc that this is necessary. the division to divide an article depends upon the size of the article as well as the notability of the topics. NOT PAPER has a secondary meaning--we are limited by the requirements of the format--this is not paper, and not read as paper, and communicated on lines of variable quality, and the articles cannot be too long without hampering many of the readers. This still means the content has to be worthy of inclusion, and that articles should not be subdivided without reason. DGG (talk) 20:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No

10:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

However, what if the parent article is properly sourced and is long? The logical content split can be a section that is not yet properly sourced as to establish notability. Trim then merge conflicts with the point that if the content is merged back, it no longer needs to be trimmed, because of

WP:N seems like a reasonable solution at first, the potential for content rot (for lack of a better term) because needlessly strong. If not bound by Mediawiki issues and WP design principles, I think I'd like to see unquestionable subarticles (only relevant within the relm of the parent article, like list of characters of popularFictionFoo) as subdirectory articles, such as "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PopularFictionFoo/List_of_characters", otherwise, I'm still quite undecided on what I think is the best way to go. -Verdatum (talk

) 21:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

This issue is still very much a problem. Torc2 (talk) 07:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I know I can't be alone in feeling that this heading means the exact opposite of the section content. To me, the idiomatic meaning of Notability is not temporary is that notability is permanent. What the section seems to be saying is that temporary appearances in media are not notability, which isn't the same thing at all. When I say "notability is not temporary", this is not what I mean, and when I read someone else saying it, I expect they mean what I understand. It almost sounds like it comes out of a non-native speaker of English, in fact. Reactions? --Dhartung | Talk 01:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, to me the heading means that if a topic ever met the notability criteria, it is permanently notable. The actual text under the heading, on the other hand, makes several different points, and the only one that more or less agrees with the heading is "if long-term coverage has been sufficiently demonstrated, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest." --Gerry Ashton (talk) 01:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I fault the content, not the headline. The purpose of the headline is clear: just because something falls out of fashion doesn't mean it has lost its notability. At least that's the way I see it, as an argument against the idea that a changing consensus can make a once-notable topic non-notable. I think the first line is just a knee-jerk reaction to somebody Wikilawyering the headline to defend any and every topic ever mentioned on any media. Maybe it should just be moved to later in the paragraph, or qualified. Torc2 (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The first line (“A short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability.”) was added by

WP:NOT#NEWS. The contributors creating these articles may have been adding the multiple references in an attempt to satisfy WP:N requirement for multiple references if the coverage in each is not significant/substantial/non-trivial (whatever WP:N said at the time). The addition of the above line seemed highly appropriate at the time, and seemed to my sporadic perusals of AfD to result in a decrease of occurrences of articles sourced to a short burst of news reports. I believe the line should stay, somewhere, and agree that it doesn’t logically follow the title. --SmokeyJoe (talk

) 06:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe I did start that section to capture two existing concepts regarding the non-temporary nature of notability. I agree that the result was a bit confusing, so I took a stab at more clearly separating the two concepts. Feel free to tweak further.--

talk

) 14:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Defining notability

A notable flaw in this guideline (no pun) is the lack of any clear definition of notability. It tells us what it means in a vague way ("worthy of note") and gives us direction on the minimum standard for a presumption of notability. However, it fails to say what notability is in a meaningful and practical way. Getting back to the roots of this guideline originating in

WP:NOT

, I would suggest the following addition:

"Notable" means a topic has enough reliable independent sources to support a complete and encyclopedic article.

I believe this simple addition (probably in the first few sentences of the lede) would provide a lot of clarity regarding the purpose, context and essential meaning of the guideline. Thoughts? Vassyana (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You're confusing "definition" with "guidance":

Definition(s)

In the context of notability guidelines "notable" is defined as "merits a separate article in Wikipedia" (without being a

content fork

of course).

By extention the notability concept is also used to indicate topics that can be included in the Wikipedia encyclopedia (whether in a separate article or included in another article).

Guidance

A topic is deemed to be notable enough for a separate article in Wikipedia if that topic is covered by sources that are:

• "multiple" and/or "significant"
• "reliable" per the thresholds set in
  WP:V
• "independent" and/or "secondary" (compare
  WP:NOR
  )
• "non-trivial" per
  WP:NOT
• "not leading to libel" per
  WP:BLP
• "not the reflection of extreme minority viewpoints" per
  WP:NPOV
  )
• "published" and/or "available" and/or "accessible" (also a
  WP:NOR
  requirement)

Inclusion of topics in articles ("extended" definition of notability) is governed by Wikipedia content policies (

WP:RS. WP:NOTE, and related notability guidelines, generally don't have additional guidance on this point (exceptions to this should be clearly indicated in notability guidelines - for example Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Lists of people

currently contains such exception to the general rule regarding article content in notability guidelines).

--Francis Schonken (talk) 11:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC); updated 11:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Folding the "notability" definition in the notability guidance (for the purposes of WP:NOTE and related guidelines), one would get something like:

A topic or subject merits a separate Wikipedia article when that topic or subject has received significant coverage in non-trivial, non-libelous, independent, accessible and reliable sources that are also more than the expression of an extreme minority, and when such separate article would not constitute a

content fork.

Notability guidelines give precisions about the terms used in this general notability principle. That is: as well a general explanation of the concepts used in that formulation of the principle, as the way these terms are applied in certain contexts. An example of the latter: Wikipedia:Notability (web) gives precisions on how to interpret (for instance) the "non-trivial" requirement for sources applied to web content. --Francis Schonken (talk