Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 33

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.

I'm in a debate with another user. Isn't it the case that reviews for things like books, movies and bands in RSes tend to be good (perhaps ideal) for showing notability of said book, movie or band? I've always felt so and seen in applied in AFDs that way, but I wanted some other thoughts. (and arguments on either side) Thanks! Hobit (talk) 02:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

For books, yes, as long as they are from reliable sources and full reviews as opposed to short/brief ones (see

talk · contribs

) 03:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Hobit (talk) 11:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget that the reviews themselves have to be from notable (not just reliable) sources. Every book in existence has reviews by somebody somewhere. That alone doesn't cut it. DreamGuy (talk) 15:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The guidelines do not say that. They say reliable and independent. --

talk · contribs

) 15:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

i beg to differ. a local newspaper of mine features reviews of books by local authors. being self published is not a problem - they still get reviews. same thing for restaurant. some mom and pop restaurant opens up and it gets reviewed. even if the restaurant closes up shop a month after opening due to lack of interest there's likely still going to be a review about it. such stories might be called special interest stories and they have no place on wikipedia Misterdiscreet (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

One local review wouldn't cut it, but guess I should have also said for books that the same applies. Must be independent, including not just being local coverage giving props to local, otherwise unnotable people and things. --

talk · contribs

) 15:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

i agree with that criterion. Misterdiscreet (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

As do I. Most loval newspapers will give an interview to essentially anyone from the town who has published a book, or opened a restaurant. I tend to use not indiscriminate as the basis for excluding these. This is one area where I and AnmaFinotera tend to judge the same. DGG (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Arb. Break: "Local sources"

More a question, based on the above. I know it's generally accepted that we don't use local sources to establish notability (they're fine for sourcing) but look at

• WP:ORG is, AFAIK, the only place where local sources are excluded. I don't see a need to restrict local sources personally and I think it opens up a can of worms (is the NYT then not an acceptable source for notability if the band is in New York?) Hobit (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • "Local" would be local in printed distribution and with a primary focus on local events, which would have to be judged case-by-case. NYTimes would not qualify for being called "local" (you can pick this up pretty much any international news stand), but something that is only published in one town for the benefit of only that town would be. --MASEM (t) 17:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think it does need to be clarified, as I've seen far to many local articles kept as notable just because the local paper mentioned it a few times, despite no one outside of the city ever have (and I mean small cities of 60k people, not New York). --

talk · contribs

) 18:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It depends on the degree of notability and the quality of the source--essentially I agree with Masem. I do not think it will be easy to codify the sort of judgment involved.DGG (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Masem actually codified it nicely. Misterdiscreet (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, if a local band in the New York Times doesn't have coverage in other papers then I wouldn't count it as notable, no, so no can of worms here. DreamGuy (talk) 14:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• i think codifying it would be prudent. it's not immediately obvious to me what "independent" means and i suspect it's not immediately obvious to most people. i mean, when thinking about it, it's clear that local sources covering local events is not independent coverage, but on the surface, i don't think it is. that and i think a brief discussion would make it more clear Misterdiscreet (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

We absolutely do need to spell out that local news coverage doesn't count, otherwise local school lunch menus would all be notable for their own separate articles and so forth if someone really wanted to wikilawyer it, and when people are fighting tooth and nail for articles they'll try to make anything at all count. DreamGuy (talk) 14:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this is something that should be spelled out at

WP:RS more than anything. And it kind of is, with the "reputation". After all, a college paper might fact check, but they're filled with all kinds of local biases. Randomran (talk

) 04:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Local news coverage "doesn't count" for what? And I don't know anyone who has claimed that all school lunch menus are notable. --Pixelface (talk) 08:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Should these people be considered notable for Wikipedia purposes? Furthermore, does the fact that they're so unnotable they're listed in top 20 of unnotable celebrities add to their notability? Eesti Ekspress is a reputable daily newspaper, and although this list cites mostly yellow press, EE is not generally considered yellow. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 10:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we have to wait until everyone's forgotten about them again before they will again be notable for being un-notable …

hablo

. 11:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability is not temporary but at the same time, notability doesn't come from a short burst of news sources. If the people were clearly notable before and just haven't done anything to make news about them recently, they're still notable. On the other hand, those that were flash-in-the-pan and likely aren't going to be gaining notability from their past events are not notable and thus should not have articles (but non BLP-violating details can be summarized on appropriate pages). --MASEM (t

) 14:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Members of this list is are not flashes in the pan. To the contrary: they're people whose actions *should* intuitively be one-time affairs but who somehow have managed to retain media interest. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 15:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

There (personally, I think) must be some reason for them to continue to be covered in this manner (outside of South Park's explanation). Sure, the continuing coverage itself is not notable ("Paris went to the spa today!" type stuff), but actions the person did earlier must have merited something and thus there's likely a reason to consider the person notable. --MASEM (t) 15:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I interpret "notable" as doing (or being) something notable. I will not !vote to keep an article when it is about something that technically received press coverage but is not of any actual notability. For people, this is usually covered by BLP ONE EVENT, and for other things, by similar reasoning. If our rules force us into paradoxical positions we should either change the rules, or just ignore them according to IAR. DGG (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The criteria for inclusion in a

As we struggle for a replacement word for notability, The Federal Reserve Bank creatively came up with two words to describe their version of notable financial institutions: systemically important. patsw (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• I don't care what word we use. I'd be perfectly happy renaming this guideline "reliable third-party sources", because that's what it's about. It's not about subjective measures of importance, but whether a reliable, independent, secondary source has noted a phenomenon, allowing us to write an encyclopedic article on the topic. Can't build a proper encyclopedia on press releases and transcripts. (They fill in the gaps, but can't be the foundation.) Randomran (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources are a distinct guideline. The practice has been to consider secondary sources as a necessary but not a sufficient reason to consider a subject for inclusion as an article. The proposed subject has to be big enough, small enough, often enough, etc. according to some objective criteria for the category it is in. Creating the objective criteria category by category, and the application of criteria to specific proposed subjects is the work of the Wikipedia editors. This is the process we are discussing here. patsw (talk

) 17:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, that's why I don't think we want to change the word notability, but make sure to stress that we are dealing with the threshold of notability for inclusion as a full article in WP. --MASEM (t) 19:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think "threshold" is the wrong word to be using. --Pixelface (talk) 08:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to increase the archive time of this talkpage to more than 7 days. I think 7 days is too short. Several threads I would have liked to reply in were recently archived. Personally, I would prefer 14 days. --Pixelface (talk) 07:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

In general, we archive discussions when they stall. A lot of people just tune out of a discussion if it lingers too long, and it's probably better to start a new discussion, with a new proposal. I think we're doing fine with the time we have, and more time would just draw things out to no productive end. Randomran (talk) 04:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Several threads that had not "stalled" were archived recently, like this one for example. I'd like some input from more people about the archive time. --Pixelface (talk) 08:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

*Shrug* Still opposed. Seven days is time to get plenty of input. Safe to say that if a proposal doesn't get traction by then, it's probably best to let it go. Better to make a new proposal. We don't want this talk page to get crowded. Randomran (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm opposed to this one. Seven days is certainly plenty of time. If you had something to say, you had a week and were on-line. This is too active a page and 14 days would clutter it up. --

talk · contribs

) 15:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• I agree, 7 days is too short. If this page is too long, maybe we should move off-topic threads (threads not directed to changes to the project page), to an FAQ or WP:N-specific-discussions page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Lets just have everyone vote here, without any 5 page discussions, and see what the majority of people want.

Suggested Policy Change: Any television series that has at least a million viewers, may have an article for every single episode of it. Support or Deny? Dream Focus 06:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a democracy. See
  WP:NOT. Randomran (talk
  ) 06:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Its a straw poll, and its the most effective way to form a consensus, which will then be acted upon. Dream Focus 06:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Consensus is strength of arguments, not numbers. And you have very little in regards to the former. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Its the ability to convince others, which makes no sense in this case. People have already made up their mind whether they want something to exist or not. So it comes down to, the number of people that want it and are willing to post here, against those who are against it. When over 2000 people have contributed to the South Park episodes, and all policies seem decided by a far fewer number of people that just hang out here all the time and post the same thing, I think we have a chance of changing things this time around. Dream Focus 10:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"X number of people have edited this article so they must be in favor of <insert inclusionist philosophy here>" is a spectacularly poor argument because you're putting words in other peoples' mouths. You can't regard the mere fact that someone's edited an article as an endorsement of your opinions. I myself have edited articles that I think are irredeemable crap. And how many of those 2,000 editors are newbies who, if they hung out at Wikipedia longer and got to know how this place operates, would shift to the other side of the fence? Reyk _YO! 11:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

See the essay

WP:What is consensus. There's a lot of reasons to believe that a vote actually interferes with reaching an agreement, rather than encouraging one. Randomran (talk

) 14:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• We will NOT be able to see what the majority of people want in such a discussion as this as the majority of editors and readers do not comment in these kinds of threads. If went by an actual majority, i.e. based on edits to articles and page views, it would be resoundingly in favor of having articles for episodes even without a million viewers. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • There is no evidence to support such a statement. I work on episode articles. My edits appear in articles that fail notability, doing meaningless stuff like correcting grammar. I don't tag it because I don't have the time to deal with the extended discussion. Do my edits automatically mean that I support the article's existence? If I was shown multiple versions of how episodes could be covered, how can you tell exactly what I would prefer based solely on my edits? A lot of editors (IPs and Registered) do exactly what you said, they don't participate in these discussions. They don't participate because all they want to do is edit, and provide their contribution to Wikipedia. You cannot make accurate assumptions about what they believe, want, or would "vote for" based solely on the fact that they edit articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
    • It is obvious that in practice a majority of editors and readers come here for articles on episodes than the handful of the same accounts who voted below and in AfDs against them; most people approach Wikipedia for reading and/or article building and are not interested in these discussions for whatever reason, but is the obvious reality given that for any given noteworthy episode there are probably more who edited it and come here searching for information on it than will comment in this one snapshot in time discussion or any similar discussion past or present. I wish more of these editors would comment, but it really does feel like a vocal minority focused on these discussions trying to decide for everyone else and in opposition to what the majority actually thinks in practice, which I guess is why at lerast we can "ignore all rules" in such scenarios anyway. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Again, you cannot make assumptions on what other people want without empirical evidence to support that. You don't know what what people come here for, what they like, what they want, or anything other than where they have edited. Remember,
        WP:V is going to harm Wikipedia is not supported by any evidence whatsoever. If people are coming here to read a plot summary, then we don't need a separate page for that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)
        20:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
        • I can make common sense assumptions and looking at userboxes and page views as well as number of additions of content and references by accounts versus the deletes in AfDs or comments in these discussions overwhelmingly suggests that thousands of editors and millions of readers identify Wikipedia as a place to learn about television episodes and fictional characters whether some people like that or not. Anyway, there are different kinds of reasoning. Notability, which is subjectively interpreted, impedes Wikipedia. Verifiability, however, is something I absolutely adhere to and have and probably will in the future argued to delete based on verifiability concerns. So long as we are capable of verifying the episode's content and have some reviews floating around for a reception section and maybe an interview or DVD commentary for a development or production section, the episode artice should stay. I don't think articles should be all plot, but I think many more can and should be improved than it appears some others do. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right, you can make whatever assumptions you like, but without actual evidence they aren't worth a blade of grass. Notability impedes Wikipedia? Works, for me, I always thought I was important enough to have an article about myself. I'm a little confused right now. You just said, "So long as we are capable of verifying the episode's content and have some reviews floating around for a reception section and maybe an interview or DVD commentary for a development or production section, the episode article should stay." -- This leads me to believe that should these things not exist then you'd actually agree to merging an article to a broader topic, but that doesn't appear to be your arguments over at the South Park page or this page. You've been arguing here that we should keep the articles simply because "people" like them, but then you follow it up with "I'd argue to deleted based on verifiability concerns". This is one of those, "can't have your cake an eat it to" things. If an article had all of that, it probably wouldn't be challenged in the first place, but I know you've seen the South Park articles. I just spent several days going through every single one of them for that "List of episodes" page that I restructured in my sandbox, and you already can imagine how many just plot pages I went through (if you really can't, I'd suggest starting on the first episode and just cycling through them all). I have no doubt there are a lot of notable South Park articles, but I have every doubt that ALL of them are notable. When I can go half a season without hearing about something South Park did, I know there hasn't been a lot of stand out episodes. The Tom Cruise/Isaac Hayes stuff was in the news for weeks (the notability of that episode can never be questioned, nor should it).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Under the current rules, it doesn't matter how many millions of people watch a show, its episode articles can be deleted, like everything else, unless it has received mention in a newspaper or other major third party media source. So if a couple of writers like something enough to comment on it, its notable, no matter how few their audience are, which of course leads to elitism. I want to change this to a more fair system. If you get in the newspaper, sure, you keep your notable article. But you can also be declared notable without news coverage, if you have at least a million viewers. Dream Focus 03:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• Can we stop this nonsense already? It is clear that there is no plurality of support for this idea, let alone consensus. Bongomatic 04:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No. Most of the people that stated their opinions are just the regulars you see hanging out here all the time. We need time to build a proper consensus of the community. Dream Focus 04:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

How will they ever find out about this discussion? I checked your edit history and I don't see that you've notified people of this discussion at

canvassing people off-Wiki, it seems unlikely that anyone other than the regulars will show up here. Bongomatic

04:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah good point. Not really well thought out on my part. I thought people over there at the South Park episode discussion, instead of just arguing on how to save their episode list, would come on over and vote. That's the only place I mentioned it at. Dream Focus 04:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I have one big objection to this proposal, and that is that I find it amazing that those editors who support this proposal would hand over their right to create a standalone topic on Wikipedia to the

Nielsen Company. Quite frankly I find this propsal to be abdicating our intellectual rights and responsibilities.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs)

20:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• oppose the notion that we give any validity to this as a way to discover/come to consensus -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Notability is not popularity. Focus should be on coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the series. Bongomatic 06:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Per Bongomatic, notability does not equal popularity in any circumstance. Moreover, we
   are not an indiscriminate collection of information. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse
   ) 07:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Bongomatic and Sephiroth BCR. If something's verifiably popular, but has nothing else really written about it, all you're going to have for an episode article is a plot summary and
   Nielsen Ratings (or an equivalent). That's not much of an article. — TKD::{talk}
   07:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose as
   notability is not inherited. In terms of notability, every episode has to be the subject of reliable secondary sources, otherwise it will not contain any encyclopedic content. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs)
   08:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Oppose There is no point in allowing stand-alone articles for episodes without sufficient notability, i.e. that can't be improved beyond its plot (
   WP:TRIVIA), and information already present in an episode list (writer, director, air date,...). – sgeureka ^t•c
   09:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Oppose, it would simply allow for a slew of articles that exist only to supply a plot summary, these would otherwise be better catered for in an episode list.
   talk
   ) 10:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose- Wikipedia is not a popularity contest. Cruft is a big problem, and I don't like the idea of legitimising it with a number arbitrarily picked out of the air. The requirement is substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Reyk _YO! 11:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Oppose I'm do not see how the General Notability Criteria is failing for episodes. We also have to be aware of
   WP:NOT#PLOT since most episode articles will end up being mere plot summaries. Having the episodes fall under the GNC at least combats that problem. --Farix (Talk
   ) 11:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Oppose, no good reason for this proposal. The GNG is sufficient.
   Fram (talk
   ) 12:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Oppose - First read
    prove your point, are you going to concede over at Talk:List of South Park episodes#Merger proposal, or try something else?)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)
    12:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Oppose, even as a outright test, because 1 million viewers is not a consistent measurement for all possible televisions shows; in the US alone, the difference between over-the-air and cable is significant, and this doesn't account for international shows. If the show is watched by a non-trivial amount of people there will likely be one or more critics on the show that can be pulled from instead. --MASEM (t) 13:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
12. Oppose -- Completely unworkable and unnecessary. DreamGuy (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose - ridiculous substitute for notability.
    hablo
    . 14:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
14. Oppose: no articles without some kind of independent sourcing, so that we can avoid bias, undue weight, vanity, etc. Randomran (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
15. Oppose per Bongomatic, Bignole, and really everyone else. Wikipedia is not a popularity contest, # of viewers is meaningless without actual coverage in reliable, third-party sources, and goes against
    talk · contribs
    ) 15:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
16. Oppose Ridiculous. Eusebeus (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
17. Oppose. Firstly, you cannot just put an arbitrary figure on notability. And secondly, even if you could, 1 million viewers would mean something very different for an American show compared to the same number of viewers watching a Jamaican show. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 16:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
18. Oppose. Mmm, arbitrariness. —
    =/\=
    | 17:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
19. Oppose. Too arbitrary and again notability is not inherited. If a show is notable then it only means that some episodes are notable, not all. --Maitch (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
20. Oppose. Ludicrously arbitrary - the most famous show in a small country with <1m viewers may be far more notable than hundreds of shows in larger countries. Let's stick with the notability guidelines, shall we? Black Kite 20:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
21. Oppose Are we planning to make articles for every of the thousands of episodes a number of soap series have?--
    talk
    ) 04:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
22. Oppose — per above; silly poll. Jack Merridew 09:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
23. Oppose - it is long-established WP practice not to cite specific numeric thresholds for notability. There are good reasons for this in general, and specific reasons for this issue have been cited above. Rd232 ^talk 13:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
24. Oppose Notability is based on which reliable sources have noted you and in which fashion, not staying power.
    Chillum
    13:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
25. Oppose Notability should be based on the GNG, which is based on sources, and says nothing about "automatic" notability. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
26. Oppose inasmuch as it is a moronic bright line test that sets an arbitrary threshold up as law, and is contrary to good sense as a result.
    talk
    ) 21:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
27. Oppose and by all means not voting. We would not automatically write separate articles for each chapter of a book, though there are a few that might meet GNG (e.g.
    talk
    ) 03:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I think this is a poor analogy - the issues of serialization at play in most novels - or more to the point not in play - do not make for a good analogy to serialized works of fiction. A TV series is meant to be taken episode by episode, with each episode serving as a distinct object. Book chapters, by and large, are not.
      talk
      ) 03:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

      Going back to literary analogies, many television shows are analogous to a collection of short stories. Are all of the works published in a magazine such as

      talk

      ) 03:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

28. Oppose The notion of inherited notability is quintessentially indiscriminate. A guideline making no reference to the nature of available information would mean including articles (subject to
    NOR) consisting entirely of superficial observations. Increased superficial coverage of the parts does not equate to in-depth coverage of the whole. ~ Ningauble (talk
    ) 15:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
29. Oppose at this point. I'm all in favor of more inclusion, but I'm afraid that establishing a guideline such as "1 Million viewers" would simply create more problems than it solves. The point would be argued
    (yes?)/_©
    05:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
30. Oppose - Notability should be determined on a case-by-case basis. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 05:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
31. Oppose. The notability guidelines are already over-complex and unwieldy, and this proposal adds yet more complexity. Unfortunately, thois item of instruction creep adds that complexity not to clarify anything, but as an attempt to circumvent the basic principle of notability, which is based on wikipedia's core policies of verifiability, neutrality and no original research. If there has been no substantive coverage of something in reliable sources, then wikipedia should not have an article on it, regardless of whether it was watched by one person or ten million; but if it does have that substantial coverage, then this proposal would be irrelevant.
    In any case, the idea of a numeric threshold is daft. 1 million viewers for a program broadcast on the TV network of a small country may be hugely significant, but 1 million viewers in the United States or China may be relatively trivial. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
32. Oppose as a weakening of our standards for inclusion. The rigor of our content policies and guidelines is what will make Wikipedia a legitimate source of knowledge. Blanket policies for inclusion only serve to erode what little legitimacy we have. ThemFromSpace 08:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
33. Oppose - Coverage in secondary sources is a sufficient criteria. There's always Wikia if you need more.
    talk
    ) 09:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
34. Oppose - The idea isn't to find criteria we can apply mindlessly; the idea is to mindfully consider each case on merits. Oh, and what's with this "voting" language? We don't settle things by "votes" here, and encouraging the idea that we do is harmful. -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
35. Oppose - coverage in independent sources, not popularity, determines if we have an article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
36. Oppose there are plenty of TV shows with over a million viewers whose individual episodes are not notable. The shows themselves are notable, but this does not confer notability to the individual episodes. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
37. Strong Oppose. Nowadays, if a television series has a million viewers, that means nothing. Only 1 million viewers is grounds for immediate cancellation. Additionally,
    Talk
    15:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Dream Focus 06:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Support The entire "notability" argument for television episodes is ridiculous. When any person can simply watch with their own eyes, and see that these episodes meet verifiability and are not original research. Many of these articles bring in thousands of page views and new editors to wikipedia. For example, the first season of one series has 2030 IP and user addresses, probably around 1000 editors who have edit them. Dream Focus, this is the worst place to post a straw poll. The above editors are the whose who of merging and deleting articles. Notability tends to attrack these kind of editors.
   talk
   )

   Ikip is back and dives straight in with a comment on editors who he disagrees with... Anyway, let's see who are in this "who's who of merging and deleting"; Bongomatic has more than 10 DYK's in February and March 2009: TKD has helped promoto two articles to FA; Sgeureka did the same for three articles; Bignole for a whole bunch; Masem likewise; Randomran at least one (perhaps more, I haven't checked that thoroughly), ... Most of these editors are active members of one or more fiction related projects as well. Could you please stop attacking everyone who disagrees with you or at least use attacks which are a bit closer to the truth? It is your choice to prefer many editors making one or two edits to less editors making thousands of edits, but that does not mean that you have to dismiss "these kind of editors".

   Fram (talk

   ) 14:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

3. I think having a million viewers is evidence of notability. People say "notability is not popularity." All that means is that something does not have to be popular. One of the synonyms of "notable" is "well-known." "Well-known" is also one of the synonyms of "popular." How can you say that one person watching an episode and writing a newspaper article about it is evidence that the episode is worthy of notice, yet a million people taking the time to notice an episode and watch it is not evidence that the episode is worthy of notice? People who think that are putting way too much importance on the written word. Nielsen Ratings are an indicator of notability, indeed, the reason they exist is so advertisers can determine which shows people are noticing more than others. The phrase "notability is not inherited" is also misleading. Notability is frequently "inherited." Is Barack Obama a US President? Then Barack Obama is notable. Is Barack Obama notable for being written about? No, he's notable for being the current President of the United States.
   
   How can you say that a television show is notable, yet the episodes that make up the show are not notable? You cannot begin with the idea that the episodes are not notable, and then come to the conclusion that the show is notable. There is no policy against "cruft" and the word is virtually meaningless.
   WP:NOT, and many of the editors who have re-added it to that policy have commented above. The oppose section is a cavalcade of anti-episode article editors, who are very vocal on policy and guideline talkpages. And I'm sure that all of the editors who have created and edited Wikipedia's 8,000+ episodes articles don't even know this discussion is happening. They're probably busy editing articles, like they should be, instead of inventing new rules for other people to follow.
   
   The number of viewers is not meaningless. Why do a few newspaper articles about an episode mean everything, yet a million viewers mean nothing? DVD sales are also indicators of notability. I'm willing to bet that many television series with over a million viewers already have articles for every episode. A particular television episodes may be written about, but that is not what the episode is notable for. Pick a random episode article. Now pick a random BLP. I'm willing to bet that more people are familiar with the episode in question than are familiar with the person in question. Wikipedia has over 37 times more BLPs than episode articles. Anti-episode editors would be better served by focusing their efforts there, where serious damage can be done to a real person's reputation, as well as Wikipedia's, instead of trying to carve into Wikipedia's coverage of notable television shows. --Pixelface (talk
   ) 15:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
   • How can you say that a television show is notable, yet the episodes that make up the show are not notable? You already know the answer, which is that they are elements or segments in a continous series, like chapters in a book. In order to provide the commentary, context, criticism and analyis need to write an encyclopedic article, you have to look at the series as a whole. Sure, some episodes are notable on their own (e.g.
     objective evidence that they are notable. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs)
     16:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
     • You can liken television episodes to chapters in a book all you want, but television episodes are ultimately not chapters in a book, they are television episodes. Often produced by hundreds. Often involving notable directors or producers or writers or actors or voice actors, which often change from episode to episode. Often bringing in millions of dollars to the city of production. Released one at a time. Purchased by independent television networks. Sometimes bought by other independent television networks. Utilized by advertisers. Often watched by millions. Often syndicated for years and years and years. Often aired in scores of countries. Your analogy to chapters breaks down under examination. And yet in your opinion, such a cultural artifact is "not notable"? Perhaps I could understand you better Gavin if you could tell me what you think the word "notable" means. We may be using different definitions of the word.
       
       If a television show was produced by one person and released all at once on DVD and the episodes were never aired separately, your comparison to chapters in a book may be appropriate. To then have articles about episodes would be splitting up a whole entity into parts in a way the creator did not intend. But that's not how episodes are released, and the analogy to chapters is not appropriate. Many television episodes are not parts of a continuous series — and by that I mean that many episodes are able to be viewed as standalone items. In the UK, people use the word "series." In the US, people use the word "season." I think those different terms may be related somewhat to our differing viewpoints. I won't begrudge your view of seeing a television series as a whole, but I hope you will not begrudge my view of of seeing a series as individual parts.
       
       Maybe the "Who shot J.R.?" episode of Dallas is the only notable episode of Dallas in the UK. That does not therefore mean that that episode is the only notable episode of Dallas everywhere, ever. Dallas was on the air in the US for 14 seasons, and according to the article, every season averaged over 3 million viewers. According to the article, Dallas was dubbed into 67 languages in over 90 countries. Presumably people in those countries watched the show. "Who Shot J.R.?" is probably the most famous episode of Dallas, with over 90 million viewers in the US. But something does not have to be famous in order to be notable. Now, Dallas was a soap opera, and like most every other article related to soap operas on Wikipedia, editors typically make character articles and storyline articles rather than episode articles.
       
       Where does it say that encyclopedia articles need "commentary, context, criticism and analysis"? And I'm not talking about any Wikipedia policy or guideline, I'm talking about encyclopedias in general. Just like any person can scribble in any Wikipedia article, they too can scribble in any policy or guideline. When someone scribbles in an article, what they add needs to be verifiable. But when someone scribbles in a policy or guideline, it seems to me that all they need is a few people to team up in order to keep the text in place. And being the first to get there doesn't seem to hurt either. I think including "commentary, context, criticism and analysis" in an article is certainly more informative for the reader, but if that material is not present, and the reader would like the article to have it, they can always click "edit this page."
       
       How do six newspaper articles about an episode constitute objective evidence of notability, yet one million people watching an episode, tracked and reported by audience measurement systems, do not constitute objective evidence of notability? --Pixelface (talk) 05:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
       • Here's the thing about television viewership compared to, say, a record going gold or platinum. Television viewership is pretty much passive - that it, it only requires a viewer's time to turn on the TV and watch. Compared to sales and the like, where money has to be specifically spent on the product, and that's an active participation. The action of a million people turning on the TV at a certain time is far far less significant than a million people buying a CD or a book. That said, there are significant viewership numbers that can occur but these are usually given from a secondary standpoint; if a show had, say, 50 million viewers in the US market, the largest recorded viewership, it's not the fact that it's 50 million that is truly notable, but that it is the largest viewership ever seen that makes it such (the 50 mill being a good fact for that). And while the active participation measurement would be DVD sales or sales through iTunes of TV shows or the like, individual episodes are averaged out in these, so they can't be used. Of course, as noted by others, "one million" is very arbitrary and is US-centric (and even in the US, it's over-the-air centric), and while one could define it instead as a %-age of total citizens in that country, there's a heck of a lot of gaming to be played with those numbers.
       • But to turn this back around, if a show has a large number of viewers, there is bound to be some type of critical coverage of it somewhere in some RS to back that up. It's going to be larger than 1 million (assuming a US market), and probably closer to 10 or so. With some work, it is probably likely possible to figure a correlation between the viewership size of episodes and when the episode is critically approached across a range of region and broadcast markets. That could then possibly be used to set the equivalent for tv episodes as there is for albums and books in the SNGs. But we'd need some decent study to make that presumption. --MASEM (t) 05:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
         • I appreciate your reply Masem, but I would still like Gavin to answer my last question above. I didn't compare television viewership to a record going gold or platinum above, but we could make an analogy to that too. Say a
           television license, or by subscribing to a premium television channel like HBO. "The action of a million people turning on the TV at a certain time is far far less significant than a million people buying a CD or a book." I totally disagree. Either way, there are a million people familiar with the material. If someone is familiar with a book, I don't care if they bought it or read it in school or borrowed it from a library. In many countries, advertisers, third-parties, buy airtime during television shows. They're spending money in order to reach a large audience or target demographic.
           
           If an episode has 50 million viewers in the US, the episode is definitely notable. Period. But an episode does not have to set a viewership record in order to be well-known. I don't know how iTunes measures downloads, but if they have statistics for individual episodes, I think those can also be cited as evidence of notability.
           
           1,000,000 is an arbitrary number. But I don't think it's US-centric. I consider one million viewers evidence of notability — that does not therefore mean that every episode with less than one million viewers is not notable. To say that, this proposal would have to be "Every episode with less than one million viewers is not notable", but that's not what was proposed, and I wouldn't support that at all. In addition to the number of viewers, I would also consider arguments about the percentage of households tuned in at the time ("rating") and the percentage of all televisions in use tuned in at the time ("share"). If a show has a large number of viewers, it does not follow that there is "bound to be some type of critical coverage" of each and every episode. Episode reviews don't sell newspapers or magazines. And many newspapers are going out of business. Lack of reviews doesn't stop people from going to see movies not screened in advance for critics.
           
           I think there's a very high probability that more people are familiar with an episode itself rather than some newspaper article about the episode. Again, how can you say that five or six people writing a newspaper article about an episode is evidence of notability, yet a million people watching an episode and writing nothing is not evidence of notability? A newspaper article about an episode is evidence that one person took notice. That is why coverage is considered evidence of notability. An audience measurement system saying that a million people took notice is evidence that a million people took notice. That is evidence that an episode is notable. And that's 999,999 more people. --Pixelface (talk
           ) 16:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
           • Well, the US-centric can hurt shows to. Canada roughly has about 1/5th the US population. Now while most Canada gets US television and adds to those numbers, unique Canadan programming (say, The Red Green Show (which I do realize had a US outlet too, but just as an example of a show originating in Canada) will not get that. Thus, we'd be expecting a Canada-only show to have to have 5 times our "boundary" for viewership to meet notability as an equivalent US show. That's bias we can't introduce.
           • Another factor to consider is that to some extent, first-time viewership falls under
             WP:NOT#NEWS
             - it is a temporary burst of importance, but does not necessarily have lasting effects. Again, if there are records broke or secondary analysis of the viewership numbers, that's one thing, but the straight up first-run viewership is a point in time, and doesn't consider reruns, rentals, and the like. I'm all over a standard based on the follow-up sales of TV shows by any means (iTunes per episode, or DVD sales per season), because that's a permanent effect (money has changed hands).
           • The "five or six person in newspapers" being more important than viewers is because they are reliable sources - their profession is to either accurately collect and analyze information on these shows, or to critique them as part of their job. On the other hand, anyone can write their own review in their blog, but they are not reliable, simply because there's no expertise or professional confirmation behind that blog (some may be experts/professionals writing on their own, but per
             WP:RS
             we're also looking for editorial oversight too).
           • I'm not ruling out popularity via viewership numbers, but for a US TV show, "1 million" is way too low, and the US-centricness of that number needs to be worked out. --MASEM (t) 03:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
             • There is nothing US-centric about the number 1,000,000. And nobody said that all episodes with less than 1,000,000 viewers are not notable. The number is not a hurdle to be passed. It's evidence that something is notable. 1,000,000 people have noticed the episode. WP:N does not set any thresholds, below which, a topic is not notable. This proposal does not introduce the bias you think it does. And Nielsen Ratings are given in rating/share. Share is a percentages. Personally I think that share also an indicator of notability.
               
               The Red Green Show aired on the CBC in Canada. It was shown on PBS stations in the US. Member stations (third-parties) paid fees in order to show episodes. But viewership on public television stations is not as important as donations and pledge drives. The Red Green Show is a notable show. 300 episodes aired. I think every episode is notable. Although personally I think the information about each episode in
               WP:GHITS.
               
               If a television show in the US only has one million viewers, it will probably be cancelled. But it depends. It depends on production costs, which network it airs on, timeslot, demographic, the number of advertisers, cost of ads, etc. In 2009, the soap opera Guiding Light averaged 2.1 million viewers an episode. Those numbers are grim if you're a US broadcast TV network, or a producer, or an advertiser. But Wikipedia is none of those things. Guiding Light has been cancelled after being on CBS since 1952 (and on NBC radio since 1937). The show was on television for 57 years and holds the record for the longest running drama in television history. As of March 27, 2009, 15,638 episodes have aired. Shows get cancelled when executives deem them no longer profitable. But the Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization. If only one million people see an episode of a show, a network may pull the plug. But that's still one million people who are familiar with the episode. Wikipedia (supposedly) has no profit motive. There is no reason why Wikipedia could not have articles about every single episode of Guiding Light. But since each episode has multiple overlapping storylines, it makes more sense to have articles about the characters and storylines within the show instead, and that's what Wikipedia volunteers have done with most soap operas. --Pixelface (talk
               ) 22:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
               • Getting to the point, you're looking for a quick-pass criteria for television episodes, in itself a fine objective and cannot hurt. However, I point to all the other SNGs which provide similar quick-pass criteria, and the reason those criteria exist is that by a topic meeting them, the topic will likely have many additional sources about it to expand upon it - maybe not at the point of creation but down the road because of the strength of the criteria. Something for TV episodes is going to need the same strength that meeting the criteria will lead to sourcing as to make an article that has a good chance of meeting all the principles of WP and reaching the goal of Featured status. Viewership is not that, at least at the level of one million viewers, because that's about the average minimum that every prime time first-aired showing on the major networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX) get, and I have a hard time accepting that every episode of every major network prime time show (pretty much since they started tracking numbers) is ultimately going to have the ability to become a Featured Article. A higher threshold may be more appropriate (at least 10 million), as something that watched is likely going to have critical reception, a DVD release with commentary, and more, but it is unfortunately that there's nothing akin to "Platinum record"-type sales figures that RIAA uses. Even if we accept a lower number for episode viewership to consider as a threshold to notability, many older shows, before the era of DVD sales, are going to lack both reception and development information, and all that will ultimately be in the article is a plot summary and a line about viewership. That's not enough information to justify an article.
               • I will still argue 1 million is also too US centric. Canada may share a lot of TV with the US, so does the UK, but there's a good handful of countries in the world with both fewer and more people in the US that produce their own television programming that never gets to the states. Sure, we don't include things in en.wiki if they don't have good english-based sourcing, but there are plenty of foreign language shows that still do make it (Mexican tele-novelas, Japanese and other Asian anime and live action, to name a few).
               • I don't have a problem with a good viewership-based quick-pass criteria for TV episodes, but it has to be good and lead to the possibility of more sourcing. It should be non-US centric, or at least admit it is such (for example "an episode is considered notable if it has a viewership of more than X million ,including US viewers").
               • As for why 6 or 7 critics are more heavily weighted than a million viewers, the goal of an encyclopedia (particularly one aimed at educational means) is to summarize a topic for the reader. This is more than just reiterating the plot, this should include analysis of the topic provided through other sources so that the topic's relative importance or meaning is established for the reader. Critics provide that analysis, and because of our sourcing policy, we only deal with professional critics, not a thousand bloggers typing about that episode. Viewership tells us how many people turned in but it doesn't provide analysis, as we have no knowledge of how all those people felt about the show after it was over or even if they stayed with the show throughout. It is a datum point that's good to have, but alone does nothing to establish context for the show otherwise. --MASEM (t) 23:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Support as we are a paperless encyclopedia with broad appeal to our readers. Not having articles on episodes with a million plus viewers makes no logical sense. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

   Good luck with writing articles about every episode of most TV programmes in China, then :) Black Kite 20:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

   Why do you say that? If you're talking about the

   WP:PNT where the editors who speak Chinese (or some other language of China) could help out. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. --Pixelface (talk

   ) 17:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

2. Support I'd prefer a higher bound (say 5 million) but the idea is sound. Hobit (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Support An audience of a million is a good commonsense threshold for determining that, ipso facto, a topic has been noticed. We already record this rule-of-thumb in
   WP:MUSIC and, as a matter of practise, it seems appropriate for TV too. Colonel Warden (talk
   ) 10:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

   There's a difference between spending time to watch a show, and spending money to purchase music, the latter being more representative of popularity (art people willing to spend money for something they enjoy). (mind you, I'm aware of cable rates, tv taxes, etc. but those aren't aimed at specific programs). The correct comparison is # of DVD sales, though as I'm aware, there's no "platinum"-labeling like with music, and while I'm sure there's sales figures out there, this doesn't seem a regular aspect. --MASEM (t) 12:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

   Oh, and what about people spending money to watch a show, say, The Sopranos? --Pixelface (talk) 01:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

   Cable/satelite feeds are show-neutral, the money being used to watch the Sopranos may actually be being used to watch reruns of Wings on USA. However, with cable networks with on-demand, and with tracking of cable subscriptions with upcoming episodes (say (I don't know if it's true) Comcast saw a 20% increase to premium channel subscriptions prior to the last episode of the Sopranoes, as long as someone else noted this "coincidence" that makes the cable subscriptions notable), we potentially have more sources to say who paid money for specific episodes. --MASEM (t) 03:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

   There are Nielsen Ratings available for The Sopranos. If someone watched The Sopranos on HBO, chances are they paid money to do so. --Pixelface (talk) 09:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

4. Support inasmuch as it seems to me a statement of probable fact - such a show can, via a determined search for sources, probably sustain individual episode articles.
   talk
   ) 21:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

   Just checking, Phil, was it your intention is to both support and oppose? Interesting. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 18:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

   That was my intention, yes.

   talk

   ) 21:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

5. Support, in a limited way--usually it would be much better to compromise on combination articles, if the material is written fully enough and not a mere list. But in general, popularity is one form of notability. Time we said so. We should cover everything popular that we can write a verifiable article on. The level of popularity will depend on the type of article. many other things, though not yet popular will be notable also, but to say that popularity alone is not enough reason to cover in an encyclopedia is a misunderstanding of what a comprehensive encyclopedia should be trying to do. We use various surrogates for it, such as discussions in particular types of sources, but what we are really trying to measure is popularity. (Importance within a field is one main other type of notability. Again, we need a standard of how important in the various fields, but we should be measuring it directly. Historical importance, actual or presumed, is the third.)DGG (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I added some clarification in italics above. The principle of popularity = notability is important. The level of establishing it for a particular topic is subject to discussion. I agree that in most cases we wouldn't want to do a full article on all episodes of all but the most popular and important series. DGG (talk) 04:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

What happens when the only thing you can show verifiably is the amount of viewers a show has, and nothing else? You're saying that a page with a plot summary and a single line of "This episode had 2 million viewers" (depending the station will depend on whether that's actually a lot or not) is the type of article that Wikipedia needs? To make sure this doesn't string out into something else, I'm saying "that's all there is, nothing else". Explain, as succinctly as possible, why that needs more than a place in a table with a column for the amount of viewers that watched it?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

NOT DIRECTORY. It can be a part of a combination article, but we need to give information about what takes place in the episode. DGG (talk) 04:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure where

WP:DIRECTORY plays in, as "Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted." - When you say, "Give information about what takes place" are you saying the page needs plot summaries of the episode that reside on that page? Regardless, supporting this above statement means you are saying that if an article has 1 million viewers (not a lot by any standard, and likely to a show canceled real quick depending on the channel) then it doesn't matter if there is any other information, because that single criteria means it warrants a whole page to itself. That makes absolutely no sense, given that we require every other article (fiction or non-fiction) to provide "significant coverage", and a source announcing the Nielsen ratings for the week is hardly significant coverage.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

06:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not require every article to provide "significant coverage" Bignole. You're incorrect — yet again, unfortunately. --Pixelface (talk) 00:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Bignole is right. According to the

notability guideline, articles are expected to have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Reyk _YO!

01:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no, he's not.

WP:N, topics should be notable. Significant coverage is not a requirement for something to be considered notable. --Pixelface (talk

) 01:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am certainly saying that a sufficiently detailed but concise plot summary of every individual episode is necessary, whether in combination or individual articles . That;'s what fiction is about. The rule for this is NOT PLOT, that the coverage of fiction includes but is not limited to plot summaries. I repeat that my support for the statement is limited, and I do not think the 1 million criterion sufficiently high. I remind you that the source for the plot can be and usually ought to be the episode itself. DGG (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I've never argued that plots (of aired programs) needed sourcing beyond the episode itself (but that does not establish notability). Even if a show had 10 million viewers, IF there is nothing else to say then there is no reason to have an independent article on the episode. This rule is not saying, "One criteria that could assist is..." - it's saying, "The only criteria necessary is if the episode has 1 million viewers".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

If that many people watch it, then some of them will come and edit and add more. Have you seen a popular television show article, ever, that didn't have a large amount of information on it? Not really a problem we are ever likely to have to deal with. Dream Focus 21:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You clearly ignored what I said. I say, "that's all there is". You cannot make assumptions that "it's not likely to happen". That was not my question. My question was, "what if there was nothing else". Without side-stepping the question, someone explain why having an article with just a plot and single line identifying the number of viewers is supposedly better than that same plot appearing in a table with a column designated for viewership numbers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

If popularity is one form of notability, why do we need specific thresholds (long discouraged for good reasons, not least because to be at all valid they need to be very context-specific)? At the very least, the proposal should be framed as, say, "all series considered notable enough for inclusion may have an article per episode if there is content to justify it", which would at least be honestly (if extremely) inclusionist without obfuscation with arbitrary numbers. (Coming next week: all newspapers with more than 769,217 readers may have an article for each edition...) Rd232 ^talk 23:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it virtually says that already, because "content to justify it" would have to be sourced by reliable sources, and would essentially mean that the article meets the GNG.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I wasn't clear. I meant "each day's edition". eg The Guardian 20 March 2009, The Guardian 21 March 2009, etc. ... basically a conversion of WP into Wikinews, same as the blanket inclusion of TV episodes regardless of encyclopedic value of the article content amounts to a conversion of WP into TV Guide. Rd232 ^talk 05:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I understood the news analogy, I was merely referring to the episode "content to justify it" comment.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Something can be notable but not popular. But can something be popular but not notable? I don't think there is any reason why Wikipedia could not have an article for every episode of every notable television show. That wouldn't "convert" Wikipedia into TV Guide any more than having articles about Charlemagne and World War II "converts" Wikipedia into Encyclopedia Brittanica. And I would never support articles for every daily edition of a newspaper. --Pixelface (talk) 01:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see [#Suggested_recommendation_for_adjusting_the_philosophical_approach_of_notability this section above] that I've suggested rewriting. Your point is completely valid; there are a heck of a lot of things that are notable to at least one person; we need to be identifying the level of threshold for notability that is needed to be included to avoid indiscriminate topics per our

pillars. Now, that's not immediately going to change how WP:N is used but this lends possible credence to measures based on popularity. (But see my comments above) --MASEM (t

) 03:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll look at it. But I think the word "indiscriminate" is thrown around way too much. And the five pillars don't even mention notability. --Pixelface (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the

first pillar mentions notability half a dozen times. Reyk _YO!

21:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT. --Pixelface (talk

) 21:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere in this entire article does it say anything about simple facts being put in pertinent articles. All it talks about is whether or not something deserves an entire article by itself. Can I get any information on the policy on that?Wikieditor1988 (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you seek Wikipedia:Verifiability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT. Randomran (talk

) 22:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

So, absolutely anything I can verify can go in a pre-existing article?Wikieditor1988 (talk) 23:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You can try, but that doesn't mean it will remain in the article. Regarding the title of this section, text within articles does not have to be notable. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Five pillars, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and the other content policies. --Pixelface (talk) 06:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The notability policy guideline does not directly affect article content. Material which is trivial or of only indirect relevance to the subject can and will still be removed in the interests of article quality. The point of

WP:N is that some topics simply aren't of enough general interest to be improved to the required level by the usual copyediting process. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk

07:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:BIO. There is also no policy about trivia or relevance. And the reason N came about is because people would vote delete, saying "non-notable" in VFDs and since some editors had created inclusion guidelines for specific topics. N has nothing to do with text within articles. That is covered by Wikipedia's content policies. --Pixelface (talk

) 08:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

D'oh. Innocent mistake. The point remains that the reason notability doesn't cover articles is not because article content is immune to our inclusion standards; it's simply that the basic standards we hold articles to naturally lead to the ejection of trivia, cruft and personal opinion as a matter of article quality. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

A topic is said to be "notable" if there is sufficient verifiable and reliable coverage of it to make a stand-alone article tenable. There are lots of guidelines and policies regulating what sort of content should and should not be included in articles, but this is not one of them. Skomorokh 11:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

In the sameway that

Whilst

I thought we had this spelled out pretty clearly in here somewhere at some point... Did someone remove it? It absolutely needs to be there if it isn't. DreamGuy (talk) 15:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was spelled out. It's called

WP:CRYSTAL after the crystal ball. patsw (talk

) 18:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL addresses a different issue than "notability is not inherited", which is invoked mostly to justify having separate articles about people who have no notability independent of their relationship with a notable person (e.g. the child of a notable person). –Black Falcon ^(Talk

) 19:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

"Notability is not inherited" is essentially a subset of the principle that "notability requires objective evidence", so it could be mentioned briefly in that section. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with this too. It should be clarified anyway. The opening statement says "The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence." We might as well be consistent with what we say throughout the guideline and add, "to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Randomran (talk) 04:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Like I said above, I don't think that is actually a common theme in the subject-specific notability guidelines. If it is, it should be easy for you (or anyone else) to provide citations to those guidelines. --Pixelface (talk) 08:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

If I showed there was a consensus that this was the case, would you actually acknowledge it? Randomran (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "notability is not inherited" is false. Is Middlesex notable? Yes. Why is it notable? Because it's a county in England. All counties in England are notable. And so on. And the phrase "notability requires objective evidence" is not grammatically correct and makes no sense.

And your claim that "we cannot presume a topic is notable unless it satisfies WP:GNG" is already invalidated by WP:N itself: "A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines."

And you don't seem to understand how evidence works. If a man is the wealthiest person on the planet, he's probably notable. That does not therefore mean that a person must be the wealthiest person on the planet in order to be considered notable. --Pixelface (talk) 08:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose as notability often times is inherited. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: The fact is that notability sometimes IS inherited. The most obvious example is the
  British Royal Family: Starting with the Queen's husband, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, and including all of the Queen's children and grandchildren, their notability has clearly been inherited. Some editors argue that because "notability is not inherited", then a notable person who is related to a more notable person should not be the subject of the article beacuse "notability is not inherited". I have seen it argued in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorothy Howell Rodham and also in Liberty Phoenix AfD. In the Rodham example, the logically ridiculous "notability is not inherited" was the reason for the unsuccessful AfD, and in the Liberty Phoenix debate, the argument was successful used resulting in the article's deletion. By allowing the false mantra of "notability is not inherited" to continue, discussions get off track by editors misusing the logic. The only guideline that needs to be followed is the general notability guideline "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." If that means that Paris Hilton or Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy have articles, then so be it. If the subject is famous for being famous, then they are still famous; the reason why they are should not be an issue in support of, or against, notability. The only issue should be the verifiability of "significant coverage in reliable sources". Esasus (talk
  ) 13:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree that the mantra "notability is not inherited" is false. Notability frequently is inherited. Royalty is one area where that is common. The proposal
    WP:N and tagged WP:N a guideline. I disagree with your last sentence though. Significant coverage is a indicator of notability, not the (only) indicator. --Pixelface (talk
    ) 23:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Exactly, and I think that's the point. Wikipedia doesn't rely upon any editor's opinion about what is or isn't important. It relies upon what reliable sources say. And in the case of measuring importance, only someone independent of you can reliably say whether you're important or not. (Arguably the standard should be higher, since merely being
  reliable doesn't give mean that every subject you independently comment upon is important. But the point only shows that notability is a low threshold: has somebody somewhere made some kind of comment on you that can let us explain why you're important? It's not a lot to ask.) Randomran (talk
  ) 20:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I think it is the general consensus that notability is never inherited, as there is no objective way of proving that it does. Can anyone suggest a suitable wording for a new section based on the existing text of
    WP:NOTINHERITED? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs)
    08:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • But AFD debates do rely upon editor opinion. And many AFD debates do not rely upon what reliable sources say — in AFD debates, people often consider multiple reliable sources as evidence of notability even though the sources do not say the topic is notable. Many people suppose a topic is noteworthy since it has been noted. And topics on Wikipedia are not required to be "important." They're not required to be "notable" either. --Pixelface (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The rare examples where notability can be interpreted as being inhereted shouldn't make any difference in this discussion. In the relatively rare case where the community decides an entire class of things should have articles in the absence of sources, these can be (and are) written into the notability sub-guidelines. This is the same as with exceptions to all other guidelines and policies. For example, even though some blogs are actually reliable sources, we haven't gotten rid of the need for

I support this, and believe the specific wording should be “Notability is not inherited”. In most of the cases where it may seem that notability has been inherited, one will find upon close inspection that notability is satisfactorily established by the widely excepted means of reliable third party sources commenting in a non-trivial manner. G'day, Jack Merridew 10:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

But that flies in the face of reality. Can anyone here honestly say that Dannielynn Birkhead has done anything to be notable for? I mean aside from being born? So, her notability is, by definition, inherited from her mother and father. Or maybe you can provide instances of John Q. Public causing international interest in their paternity case? Notability should be established regardless of reason. If a thing is notable, then it is. Whether by station, situation, or happenstance, it exists. This should not be seen as an argument against separate character articles for long running series. They should be split off from the series article for different reasons. Padillah (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me from skimming that article that its evidence of notability is inherited from the thirty-two cited sources found at the foot of the article. The subject may be popular due to its parentage, but Wikipedia-flavoured

=/\=

| 18:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no "Wikipedia-flavoured Notability." Wikipedia:Notability is not a legal document. Significant coverage is a indicator of notability, not the only indicator of notability. If something is popular, it's well-known — which is one of the synonyms of notable. --Pixelface (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

But you do need to be able to prove it if challenged. Reyk _YO! 23:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

An editor might give evidence of popularity. But there's nothing to "prove." You cannot prove something is popular and you cannot prove something is notable. They are both relative and subjective concepts. --Pixelface (talk) 06:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Something to consider here that came to me yesterday. Basically, there are cases of inherited notability, but these are spelled out by our SNGs. For example, first criteria at

That is a misconception shared by many editors. If a film wins an Oscar, it is not notable by consensus, but by virtue of the coverage of the award which provides evidence of notability. If Masem were to win "Employee of the Month" at his local branch of Wallmart, he would not be notable, even if an SNG said he was :p --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Films that win Oscars are not notable for coverage of the Oscar. A film that wins an Oscar is notable for winning an Oscar, a notable award. Oscar.com provides verification that the film won the award. The site is a reliable source and would probably not be considered a third-party source. The website is not "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" yet the award is evidence of notability.

And if thousands of editors considered an employee-of-the-month award evidence of notability and WP:BIO said such an award was considered evidence of notability, an article about a person who won such an award would likely not be deleted at AFD. But most people don't consider it evidence of notability, and WP:BIO doesn't say so, and the article would probably be deleted. --Pixelface (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Pixelface, you are too clever to know that claims of notability must adhere to Wikipedia's policy on

reliable sources. Even award winners are not exempt from this requirement, otherwise the number of articles about people who had won "Employee of the Month" would be much more frequent than it is now. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs)

07:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

As you can see here half of Wikipedia editors feel that Notability can be inherited. Therefore I feel you should abandon this guideline immediately. Debresser (talk) 10:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• Where does the RfC say that? Reyk _YO! 11:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps something like this would help clarify things... "Notability is not inherited, but Inheritance may be notable." Blueboar (talk) 13:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The subject matter of

I think that

WP:SBST is quite vague and needs clarification of the 'scope', 'size', or whatever of that burst threshold. 212.200.243.13 (talk

) 21:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I see them as opposites. Notability is not temporary means it does not go away. DGG (talk) 03:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• They are certainly connected by virtue of news coverage. As
  WP:NTEMP
  points out, notability does not have to be renewed with news stories. My view is that these sections compliment each other, and for that reason, should be brought together. Perhaps if I put them side by side, this might help to illustrate this point:

1. Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. The Wikimedia project Wikinews
   covers topics of present news coverage.
2. If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic, though subjects that do not meet the guideline at one point in time may do so as time passes and more sources come into existence. However, articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future.

Perhaps they can be merged together to along these lines:

Notability is not temporary: it takes more than just a short burst of

news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability. For example, routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for a topic to have its own standalone article. If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage from news sources. Although subjects that do not meet the guideline at one point in time may do so as time passes, articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive substantial coverage in the future. The Wikimedia project Wikinews

covers topics of present news coverage.

I also note that

WP:NOTINHERITED ("Notability is not inherited") have more commonality. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs)

09:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

No, we are or at least have parts that contain almanac-type material (

2007 Super Bowl - not just the data or box scores, but also all the reception and analysis of it as a result. --MASEM (t

) 04:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, well, change "almanac" to "directory" and you get

WP:NOTDIR. - Biruitorul ^Talk

05:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

But that's not what it is. There is nothing inherently wrong with the presentation of sporting results as long as it is simply not just that; what do those results mean, how they affects the players/team/fans/whatever, etc. All three articles fail the last part - however, at the same time I expect there's more that can be written about them if someone took effort to expand past the results. --MASEM (t) 13:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at the AfD talk page about a possible notability guideline for bilateral relations articles it can be found at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Bilateral Relation AfDs/ Rough Guideline Proposal. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Note: A Centralized Discussion of this topic has been created at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations TonyBallioni (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This is my first stab using text cribbed from

Gavin, do you think that all counties in England are notable? --Pixelface (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Since I was educated in Ireland, I could not provide an expert opinion. But since most of them represent the boundries of former kingdoms or other administrative areas of some antiquity (e.g. Middlesex -> Middle Saxons), I would guess most of them would have passed

WP:N sometime before 1400. I feel a trick question coming on so I will say yes if there is evidence to support my point of view, but no if there is not, as it is always possible that some new administrative area was created recently, and has not been the subject of non-trivial coverage from reliable secondary sources. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs)

22:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not a trick question. It's about "members" of a category, class, or group all being notable. Every county in England may have significant coverage, but that is not why they are notable. They are not notable for coverage. They're notable for being counties of a country. --Pixelface (talk) 23:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

And they have significant coverage because they are notable. The significant coverage is our objective test for notability, one that doesn't depend on personal opinions like "all X are inherently notable". It's like a litmus test; if you stick some litmus paper into an acidic solution, the paper turns red. The litmus turning red isn't what makes the solution acidic, but it's our way of knowing if it actually is. And it doesn't allow for personal opinions like "but.. but.. Fanta is acidic so this unknown orange liquid must also be". Reyk _YO! 23:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

If a topic has significant coverage, it's probably notable. But the converse is not true. If a topic is notable, it does not necessarily have significant coverage. Coverage is evidence of notability, an indicator of notability. Notability is completely subjective. "Significant coverage" is not a "test" and there's nothing "objective" about what is "significant" anyway.

Whether coverage is significant is an opinion. Whether a source is "reliable" is an opinion. Whether a source is independent is an opinion. Whether Wikipedia should have an article about a particular topic depends entirely on the personal opinions of the editors who show up. If an editor thinks all oceans or continents or countries or counties or letters of the Latin alphabet or bones in the human body are notable, they are entitled to their opinion.

And litmus paper is actually a good analogy.

Litmus paper is but one way of determining the pH of a solution. But it is not the only way. It is one of several pH indicators

. If you like using litmus paper, fine, use it. But don't say that different indicators do not exist.

Does notability have significant coverage? --Pixelface (talk) 06:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:DEADHORSE-- The Red Pen of Doom

01:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

yup ;) G'day, Jack Merridew 05:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Is

pens notable? Yes, yes, yes, and yes. "Significant coverage" not required. Is notability notable? Think hard. --Pixelface (talk

) 05:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

currently, notability is not notable, as there has not been significant third party coverage for an article on that topic. however, content policies apply to "article space" content, not "policy space" articles, if that is the angle you are aiming for. So the fact that there does not appear to be significant third party coverage to create an article notability is completely irrel. to this policy space discussion.-- The Red Pen of Doom 12:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

plus: They are notable because they have significant coverage. See: WP:CHICKENANDEGG. G'day, Jack Merridew 05:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support this wording. G'day, Jack Merridew 05:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• I am begining to understand how
  WP:NOBJ
  , and I wonder if anyone else is reaching the same conclusion. Perhaps the two can be paired down and merged as follows:

Following on from a

WP:NRVE

("Notability requires verifiable evidence"):

I think this version is simpler and I have amended the guideline accordingly. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I oppose this addition - there are multiple cases where notability is inherited.

Could you state those cases and why you think notability is inherited? A bald assertion that notability can be inherited would be hard to accept.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to oppose this addition too, if only as a matter of it not reflecting consensus. The RFC on notability from September reveals three things: (1) there's a consensus that it's not always inherited, (2) there's no consensus that it's never inherited, (3) there's some support that it's sometimes inherited, but it's not enough to say "whenever a group of editors gets together and agrees that it is". I think we need to have a good faith discussion about the circumstances where notability can thought to be inherited. I think to some extent, it can be partially inherited -- being a certain kind of spinout gets you halfway there, but not all the way. Randomran (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I think

WP:NOTINHERITED has been consensus for a long time now, and I have never seen it questioned on these talk pages until now. It went unchallenged during the recent RFC - if you look through my contribuitons, I must have cited WP:NOTINHERITED many times, but never was it once questioned. Could you state those articles where you think notability has been inherited and why? I am not sure what you objections are based upon. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs)

20:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It's easy to find a lot of articles that are missing third-party sources that will never be deleted. You can't tell me that they don't exist. Randomran (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, you are not providing examples. Could you state those cases and why you think notability is inherited? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to the phrasing at

talk

) 21:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Frankly I don't know why. I'm actually more sympathetic to what our guidelines say now. But just because I don't know why, it doesn't mean that we don't do it.

Vic Viper all lack significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Phil Sandifer pointed to a few guidelines that specifically say notability can be inherited in a few specific cases. Mind you, I don't think this is strict inheritance or a "free pass," but more like a "discount pass". Randomran (talk

) 22:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what these examples are supposed to demonstrate in terms of inherited notability. All of them are fictional elements for which notability has not demonstrated as yet (at least in English), but that does not mean they are not notable per se. However, there is very little to suggest that they could inherit notability at all, because the relationship with their creators is not mentioned - the articles do not say who or why these fictional elements were created. It seems to me that if you are trying to establish some sort of parent-child relationship, you have to identify the parent at the very least if you are arguing that notability is inherited. For this reason, I see no evidence that notability can be inherited from these examples.
I think a better example is the central character, Jamie Graham, from the book

P-51 Mustang waves to Jamie Graham. If no one has written about the character from a such memorable film which portrays dramatic historical events, directed by a notable director, acted by a notable actor and written by notable authors, why has Jamie Graham not inherited any notabilty? To be honest, I can't think of an example which demonstrates this issue more clearly: if there is no coverage of a topic in reliable secondary sources, then how can notability be proven in a way that is verifiable? I don't see that it can, but this is just one specific instance where it is the work itself, not a character or a specific scene, that is notable. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs)

07:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Moving the debate away from fiction,

talk

) 15:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You will have to back that statement up with something more than a bald assertion. You can see how the draft has evolved - it is transpartent as crystal - that the wording has been been cribbed from WP:NOTINHERITED. Can you provide a specific instance of where this is "hard-line"? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I already did. Compare your proposed wording: "Notability applies to individual topics, not a topic's overarching classification or type. For instance, the notability of a parent topic (of a parent-child "tree") is not inherited by subordinate topics, nor is notability inherited "upwards", from a notable subordinate to its parent. If a topic is notable, there must be verifiable evidence that it independently satisfies the general notability guideline." with

talk

) 16:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

They are different, sure, but the wording is complimentary. Where verifiable evidence of notability is required, it is clear that "published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines" will suffice. As far as I can see, all the points covered in

WP:MUSIC don't provide an exemption from the need for verifiable evidence; some form of peer recognition must be provided if a claim of notability is to be substantiated. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs)

17:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a fundamental difference between "notability is not inherited" and "notability is not necessarily inherited."

talk

) 18:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. The current text of
  WP:NOT, I oppose. A note to the proposers: when you make a proposal include some specific Wikipedia main space articles which demonstrate the necessity and the usefulness of the policy, and a walk-through of how it should be used in a manner that doesn't require category specific knowledge. patsw (talk
  ) 02:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with Untick that "not inherited" isn't particularly informative. It adds a technical concept that only Wikipedians understand to what's already a technical concept that only Wikipedians understand (and many still don't). We're probably better off just saying that every article is judged independently, and that the notability of one article does not guarantee the notability of another article. Not only is this important for 'inherited' notability, but the whole 'other crap exists' argument. Each article is its own thing. Randomran (talk) 02:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Its clearly used in deletion debates. It seems to me that if it is not spelt out here, then this guideline has omitted to provide guidance on a key characteristic: any claim of notability by assoication must be verified. If you can express this is a better way, I am open to suggestion. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It's worth a shot, in the wording you've provided. But we may have to revisit the issue if it proves contentious. Like I said, there's a consensus against notability being inherited in general, but there's not a consensus that it's never inherited. Randomran (talk) 03:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, a bald assertion that this section may prove to be contentious is not backed up by any evidence, so I am not sure what you mean by this. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 06:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, the only language that provides any precedent here says that notability sometimes is inherited. The burden is on you to show why you're departing radically from existing language on the issue.

talk

) 14:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• I can't think of any instance of where notability is inherited. Some of the SNG's suggest that awards provide evidence of notability, but in the absence of reliable secondary sources, its would be hard to provide evidence of this. Some form of verifiable evidence has to be provided that a topic is notable in my experience. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Notability is sometimes inherited

• We're going around in circles. It would help to ground the discussion in some actual examples. Take
  WP:MUSIC
  , which has had consensus for a long long time. It shows that "notability is not inherited" is not strictly true.
  • For example, a
    WP:COMPOSER
    who "has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition." You could interpret this as the composer inheriting notability from their notable work. Or could interpret this as a statement that we accept a songwriting credit as objective evidence of notability.
  • Another example, take the notability of
    WP:NALBUMS
    . "If the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." We could interpret this as an inheritance of partial notability. Or we could interpret this as an inheritance of a presumption of notability.
• We could look at other specific notability guidelines too. The point is that there it's not always true that notability is not inherited. That reflects the consensus at Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise.
  • There's a consensus against treating all spinouts as notable. (130 editors are opposed to that idea.)
  • There's support, but not consensus, for the idea that every spinout must independently assert notability. (Which is what Gavin is pushing.)
  • There's opposition, but not consensus, for the idea that SNGs can just pick an entire class of spinout articles and designate them as inherently notable.
• What we have, then, is probably what we have at
  WP:MUSIC
  . That notability can sometimes be inherited, but it's not just whenever a group of editors gets together and agrees that it is. It has to have some kind of basis in fact. Of course, I doubt we'll ever be able to find a consensus on that much without getting wider feedback, because last time we tried to interpret the compromise everyone seemed to see exactly what they wanted to see. And unfortunately, the people I contacted about independently analyzing it have flaked.
• I really wish that notability was never inherited. It would certainly be simple. But I also know it's not true. Randomran (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. The proper section title is probably "Notability is rarely inherited, but sometimes it is, and when it is, hoo-boy are you going to have a messy debate on the subject."

talk

) 19:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• In answer to Randomran, I think you know what I think of
  WP:NOT#NEWS in the absence of coverage, but most other SNGs don't accept such directory entries as sources, so its hard to argue in a logical fashion that notability is inherited without invoking "expert" opinion (i.e. personal opinion dressed up as expertise or consensus). Overall, I don't think SNG suggest really suggest that notability is inherited, but even if they do, they can't back up such assertion with any hard evidence. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs)
  18:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sympathetic to your concerns that you can't write that much of an article without reliable third-party sources. But you're now running against a windstorm uphill. If you're not willing to accept actual SNGs, actual practices that reflect those SNGs, or actual RFC opinion (let alone a watchlisted RFC), then I'm not sure how we're ever going to build a consensus. You appear to be working from only a subset of facts, which makes it impossible for us to share any common ground. Randomran (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• I am not sure what you mean by "sympathetic" in this context. Perhaps you are not "sympathetic" that the world is round? Or "sympathetic" to the idea that gravity holds us to the ground? We both know you can't write an article without coverage of the topic, nor can you verify a claim of notability without those sources being reliable secondary sources. I can't think of any example articles where notability has been inherited, other than those SNGs that claim that it can. I think the example of Jaime Graham from Empire of the Sun is a pretty exhuastive example of notability not being inherited by association. Why accept hearsay? We both know that verifiable evidence is better than none. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Are you trying to say that a few policies written by users on an internet website created by a guy named Jimbo are somehow equivalent to timeless and indisputable truths like gravity? This discussion has hit a new low. Randomran (talk) 20:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Of course not. But if you accept the premise that a topic has to be the subject of third-party sources in order to meet the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia on the grounds that they meet the three core content policies (
  J.G. Ballard. However, even if there is, I think that would be the final nail in the coffin of the arguement that notability is inherited, as it would show for once and for all that every topic has to stand on its own feet rather than benefit from inheriting notability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs)
  21:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Users write policies and guidelines. If the users don't like a policy or a guideline, they can
  ignore it. Again, you're entitled to your opinion, and we should try to find a synthesis of most reasonable opinions to come up with a guideline that most people can live with. But if you're going to selectively say we have to listen to one set of policies and guidelines, and ignore actual SNGs, ignore actual practice, and ignore what an RFC of users actually said they believed in... then I'm not sure how you're going to build consensus. So far, you've shown absolutely no willingness to shift from your position. Why are you here? Why are you even discussing this? Why don't you go ahead and write in whatever result you think that we arrive at by "taking the policies together"? I'm not being sarcastic or facetious. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve by opening up a discussion where you're unwilling to find any common ground. Randomran (talk
  ) 00:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• They can IGNORE them, IF ignoring them helps "improve the encyclopedia." -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• We're talking about writing guidelines here. Randomran (talk) 11:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"we accept a songwriting credit as objective evidence of notability," but Notability is NOT intrinsic. This long excessive talk is such a mess even i get confuse.WhatisFeelings? (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• In answer to Randomran, editors do write policies and guidelines, but that does not mean they always turn out as intended. In my view, the idea that notability can be inherited in the absence of reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject matter lacks a certain "internal logic". If notability is confered upon a topic by providing verfiable evidence on the one hand, then the concept that it can be inherited/presumed/acknowledged without evidence on the other hand seems to indicate conflict between these two approaches. I am not trying to trample opposition to the idea that notability is not inherited, I just can't see how the intellectual arguments that support that it can actually work. For this reason, all the arguments that notability can be inherited seem be easily refuted, but I acknowledge that it is possible I could be mistaken.
  In answer to
  WP:BLP, which is very strict about sourcing. Not every song writer gets credit for his or her work in the associated coverage about their work, alas, and this is why we can't assume there is sufficient coverage to write an article just because the song was a hit or has had lasting influence. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs)
  07:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• I understand what you believe. The question is if you're willing to look passed it to build consensus. That's the only logic on Wikipedia: do reasonable people basically agree that this is what we should do? If not, no "internal logic" matters. Randomran (talk) 11:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• I am open to any proposal as I hope you are to mine, but note that the existing wording in no way conflicts with existing SNGs: other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines provide guidance as to when notability is deemed to have been confered. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• There's a lot of ways in which your proposal is out of step with reality. How would you explain
  WP:MUSIC if notability is not inherited? Referring to the examples I mentioned at the start of this sub-thread. Randomran (talk
  ) 19:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that

WP:MUSIC or any of the other SNG's actually say that notability is inherited per se, nor that inherited notability is reality. What makes this guideline different but better is that it does make the limits of notabality explicit, i.e. notability requires verifiable evidence. Its hard to say what the SNGs are or are not saying if they don't make their underlying assumptions explicit, so this guideline is neither invalidated or out of step with an SNGs that do not overtly say whether notability is inherited or not. Perhaps they are not based on such an assumption at all. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs)

21:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we're making some progress here. Assuming that you'd have no luck demolishing, deleting, or detagging

WP:COMPOSER -- which I think is a pretty safe assumption -- you think it's acceptable on some basis? Maybe you could offer your analysis of just what you think WP:MUSIC does, in a way that's compatible with the idea of notability not being inherited. Because on the surface, it looks like it's more compatible with the idea that notability is sometimes inherited. Randomran (talk

) 23:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:COMPOSER) is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or assert a band's importance on a talk page or AfD page – the article itself must document notability."
I am not sure where you are coming from, but I see no assertion, explicit or implicit, that notability is sometimes inherited; it is clear that verifiable evidence is still needed. Nowhere does it say in WP:MUSIC that notability is sometimes inherited, nor does that guideline infer that it is either. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs)

07:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Obviously no specific guideline is going to say "notability is sometimes inherited". It's just going to point to a few things that are inherently notable. That said, I think you've offered a reasonable interpretation about

WP:NALBUMS? It pretty much says that we presume that albums from notable musicians are also notable. How would you reconcile that with the idea of notability is not inherited? It strikes me as easier to reconcile with it sometimes being inherited. Randomran (talk

) 17:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I doubt that any SNG will ever say "notability is sometimes inherited", if only because this is hard to substantiate (or at least, such arguements are easy to refute). As regards

WP:COMPOSER, namely that he article in question must actually provide verifiable evidence that a topic is notable. Since it is very hard to talk about a recording artist without refering to their work, I imagine that a reliable secondary source would probably provide significant coverage about both the artist and the album simultaneously, but this is a generalisation. Some famous artists have a large back catalogue of work, or may have performed in a support of another artist, and sales of these works may benefit from being "rediscovered", but I think we are talking about fame or marketability, rather than notability, in which case I don't think this justifies the argument notability can be inherited sometimes. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs)

08:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

And you have just identified yourself why notability will be sometimes inherited: I imagine that a reliable secondary source would probably provide significant coverage about both the artist and the album simultaneously, but this is a generalisation. - the presumption of notability inherited from a notable topic is the fact that there's an assumption that secondary sources will be available. That's why the SNGs are highly selective cases that define points where notability is inherited. Outside the SNGs there's no notability inheritance - or if new cases are found they are added to SNGs. --MASEM (t) 12:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Masem is onto something. When we look at NALBUMS, we see a situation where it's highly likely that sufficient sources exist in order to write an encyclopedic article about the topic. And when we look at COMPOSER, we see a situation where we have verifiable evidence of notability, even if it's just an award, or a gold record. Would you agree with that much? Randomran (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I might have confused you regarding the importance of significant coverage in this context, by not saying that I imagine that a reliable secondary source would probably confer notability on both the artist and the album provided both topics were the subject of significant coverage. To be clear, if a topic is only mentioned in passing, or original research is required to infer that it is, then my earlier generalisation does not hold up, because notability can be confered by trivial coverage, which is a sepeate issue from notability being inherited. For instance, a major award is ususally accompanied by significant coverage in reliable sources, but not all awards work are the subject of such coverage. If Masem wins employee of the month at his local Walmart, I doubt his notability could be enhanced :p --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. Obviously a local award would confer as much notability as being reported in a local newspaper (e.g.: not much). But I think you were saying that there was a way to explain how WP:NALBUMS and WP:COMPOSER confer notability without explicitly requiring third-party sourcing. That's what I'm focusing on. Randomran (talk) 16:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is; in the case of

WP:NOBJ.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs)

16:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. And in the case of NALBUMS and COMPOSER, that evidence would not come from reliable third-party sources? Randomran (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, MUSIC requires verifiable evidence that the criteria is met. But one piece of evidence is not the same as "significant coverage in secondary sources", and in the absence of the presumption of notability by the SNG, that article would likely end up tagged for deletion if nothing else could be added. The point of the SNGs is that given a verifiable fact (not opinion, etc.) and nothing else the topic should be presumed notable, with the expectation that ultimately more sources can be added. That verifiable fact is what asserts the inherited notability. --MASEM (t) 17:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Randomran, my view is that it comes back to reliable secondary sources in the end. If a composer or an album wins an award, it has to be reported somewhere, which brings us back to reliable secondary source. Likewise, if Masem wins "Employee of the Month" at his local Walmart, I would expect to see a report of this in a reliable secondary source before I would recognise his notability. In answer to Masem, I agree that one piece of evidence is not the same as "significant coverage in secondary sources", but at the end of the day, and article must satisfy

WP:V: if no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. The SNG's don't exisist in a vacuum - every topic must meet this requirement. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs)

08:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think everything you said there makes sense. I think that if we move away from the language "not inherited" or "sometimes inherited", we'd be improving clarity, because the average person doesn't know what "inherited" means. Let's be explicit about what we mean. Every article needs third-party sources to verify that it's important, and the requirement of third-party sources is a policy. But some specific notability guidelines suggest circumstances where we presume that such sources exist -- for example, if something has won an award, or is closely tied up with a topic that does have reliable third-party sources. But that needs to be a reasonable belief, and it needs to be something agreed upon by a consensus of editors at an SNG. Randomran (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem with "sometimes" is that it begs the question, when is notibility proven to be inherited. So far, I have not come accros an example that can't be easily refuted (as most claims are based on personal opinion), so this is an area which I think we should steer clear of on the grounds that "sometimes" is an ambivalent term and in no way impoves clarity. On the one hand

WP:MUSIC does say that an award supports the presumption of notability, but it also says that the article in question must actually document that this criterion is true. I would really need to see some real examples of where notability is inherited before we make this change, so we can apply some sort of stress test to this assumption. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs)

16:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I definitely agree with you that "sometimes" is vague. But then, I think "never inherited" is not only inaccurate, but unclear. Most people don't know what notability is, and most people don't even grasp the concept of "inherited notability". Where are they inheriting it from? Do articles have rich grandfathers? I think we should just summarize a lot of the things you and I said in the past two replies in a matter of fact way. "Every article needs verifiable evidence of importance", but also that "SNGs may illuminate other forms of evidence that demonstrate importance, so long as they are highly correlated with the likelihood of finding third-party sources as required by Wikipedia's policy on

verifiability". At least, that's sort of a starting point, as we begin to massage the wording. Randomran (talk

) 20:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the current wording is bang on the money as it explains itself quite clearly. Terms like "highly correlated" sound like the type of obstification or statistical jargon that sound like they are trying to hide something. If there is a specific example of where notability can be imparted without the need to for verifiable evidence, bring it forward now and lets discuss how the wording should be adopted. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It was just a starting point. I think the guideline ought to mention the specific notability guidelines may outline other kinds of evidence of notability. The fact that it can't just be any old evidence is part of it too, and that's what we've been discussing. Randomran (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That is what the current wording of

WP:NOBJ says, so we covered this point. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs)

10:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe there's a way to make it more explicit. Randomran (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) Support original essay I came here to actually bring up integrating WP:NOTINHERITED into here, since it seems that some people are confused by the fact that is is now only considered an essay, when in reality, loads of AfDs are relying on it now, and it does enjoy wide support. I oppose the wording proposed at the top of this as way too technical. I think the current version in the essay is better, and I support integration of the entire essay, as it currently stands today (sans examples). [2] Gigs (talk) 23:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the wording above has been amended substantially and integrated with the section

WP:INHERITED to this section would get consensus support as the essay has enjoyed widespread support for a long a time, but I will amend it to show that it is supported by this guideline.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs)

08:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)