User talk:Masem/Stand Alone Articles

A few comments

Overall I like this but A few questions and comments.

These requirements do not apply to other namespaces, though policies like WP:NOT are still applicable to content within these other namespaces. - Not so much against the wording, but about the emphasis on it - or maybe finding a way to define it more. I have always questioned the idea of, for example, an article that has either been deleted and userfied, moved to a users subpage to be worked on, or something just in userspace that is meant to be a mainspace article in terms of the context of use. I 100% agree that there are no notability requirements for a user page, talk pages, templates and so on. But it is hard to ignore notability requirements when there is something that is meant to be in mainspace. Yes WP:NOT can kick in but how many deletion discussions are there where it is base on NOT and arguments to "keep" come back as an article is not "indefinitely" or "long term" (etc) hosted so "Not" is not relative, to be met with "The subject is not notable" which is met with "it is just a work in progress and notability does not apply to such things"? For me that is where the context should come into play - has the article sat untouched for months/years? Has the article been worked on but yet has a long talk page with editors saying it would never work in mainspace? In those cases various policies and guidelines such as the GNG should be considered in the right context. Maybe a footnote?

This may either be through the general notability guideline, or through field-specific subject notability guidelines. - I think part of the overall issue has always been the "or" part, which if used here implies what I perceive as an issue with some of the SNG's that do say the "or" part. The GNG sets the tone, it explicitly defines the terms. Is that really an option? That is what I have always felt part of the issue with the SNG for music is - it presents the GNG as an option, as opposed to a requirement. Plus the wording here would appear to contradict what you have for number 4 : Topics must provide verifiable third-party sources. If there are no third-party sources about a topic, Wikipedia should not have a stand-alone article for it. The idea, to me anyway, is that the GNG explicitly lays that out with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and than defines "sources" as secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability and "Independent of the subject" as excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject

That's all - other than the above I think it reads well. Soundvisions1 (talk)

On the issue of user space articles: I've seen people try to apply notability there to delete it, but really the arching policy is WP:NOT#WEBHOST. That is, we do allow users to use userspace to create new articles or improve articles otherwise headed for deletion, but we don't allow them to keep them in userspace indefinitely. If I see an article in userspace that lacks notability, there's little I can do about that, but I see an article in userspace that hasn't been edited in two years, that's clearly MFD time.

On the GNG vs SNG I am working off the presumption that the SNGs are either stricter than the GNG or that each of them note that the SNG is a temporarily allowance for the GNG to be met. In other words, a topic that meets an SNG must also meet the GNG, but because it meets the GNG, we relax the immediacy of showing how it is met.

On WP:V and GNG - V only requires third party sources; GNG requires secondary sources. These are two different classes of sourcing and chosen for the specific purposes of the respectively policy/guideline pages. (eg: I can likely meet WP:V for a TV episode by sourcing sites that simply recap the work, but do not give any further analysis, failing the secodnary source nature of GNG). When it comes to the SNGs, we still need sourced evidence that the topic meets the SNG criteria even if it presently fails the GNG. A person winning a notable award, for example, needs a third-party source that says that award was given (WP:V is met, WP:SNG is met, WP:GNG expected to be met in time). --MASEM (t) 16:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I am probably one of those people you mention - but I only use it in the context of how long and for what reason. Most often because someone has said some variation of "doing no harm", "no time limit" etc.

By way of an example - somebody says: "The person was part of this project" (pretend the "project" is notable already). Step one is policy - I think we agree on that. So it needs to be able to be verified, but logically it should be outside of the actual source saying it. That is what I am saying. Once it is verified it becomes a GNG issue, so to speak, in that an assumption of, if they were part of that project, there would be "verifiable third-party sources" or "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" that they were part of that. If there are "tons" of verification about the project itself, that should not mean that subject that was part of involvement is automatically notable. Yes there are exception but the GNG, to me, relates to the policy in that "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is still a qualifier. The "temporary" bypass, if I am reading you correct, is not somehting I have ever really considered unless it is a current event - i.e - they won an award over the last 24 hours so their may not be a lot of sources *about* them, verses about the "verification" of who won the award. I remember one deletion discussion in particular where it was argued the subject did not meet the GNG and the arguments for a "keep" were based on the fact the SNG for music has no such requirement and only need meet one requirement. Despite the lack of any "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" on the subject that the actual article is about it could be verified the subject had been part of an overall project that had been in a film and gone gold (or maybe platinum) simply by looking at some credits. That, to me, is why the "or" part is misleading. If that is not ever clarified, and more than that - doesn't remain consistent, the (valid, based on some SNG's wording) argument that would allow the studio intern who got coffee one day to have an article because they were thanked on an album that went platinum, or the roadie who worked on an artists tour that was the highest grossing tour of the summer, or a high school student who earned some sort of music scholarship with 200 other high school students, are not easily put off. And the other side of the same coin is "They may not be notable *now*, but someday they might be - so move it to userspace where the article can sit until they do" (which, of course, would bring me back to my other point).

The biggest issue for me has always been the "or" - which isn't your fault, just that including the wider GNG "or" SNG makes it seem an endorsement for bypassing the all of the GNG if/when a SNG is not stricter, but looser. Which I don't think you are in favor of because we still need sourced evidence that the topic meets the SNG criteria - but maybe you only mean that in relation the the information being verifiable and not that that there has been any real coverage on the subject of the article, which is what the GNG requires. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, it is important to recognize what most of our SNGs do: they take past editors' experience to established criteria (criteria that must be verified) that a topic is likely going to receive significant coverage in the near future because of that criteria, or that existing coverage already exists but in difficult-to-access locations. The end result is that, given a reasonable amount of time, an topic that only met the SNG to start will come to meet the GNG. This use needs to be spelled out in WP:N or the SNGs directly. (I assume that SNGs that are stricter than the GNG are not at issue). As long as that facet is understood (and that means it needs to be added to the various SNGs if not there), saying "GNG or SNG" is acceptable.

And that comes to understanding the user page workups and comparing that to topics that pass an SNG but are never improved on. We assume no deadline, but we're also not tolerant of such pages remaining stagnant with no attempt to show their notability. The only reason we treat the userpage different is because we are not a webhost - even if the editor's original goal was to improve the article but never could get around to it or find anything to support it, persistent retention in userspace is just not allowed. In mainspace, on the other hand, editors could persistently point out that a topic meets the SNG and never improve it, and that's why understanding the SNG is only a temporarily allowance, as we expect that the SNG criteria will transfer to the GNG. --MASEM (t) 17:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I do understand what a SNG does. I don't think I have ever questioned the need for them. But comment, for example, on the scenarios I mentioned above. The entire reason they happened is because a SNG said "or" - as in: here is the basis from GNG - *or* just ignore that because... In those cases I have never felt the SNG was as strong as the GNG because it asks editors to "skip" the GNG. When editors use the GNG in discussions they are often met with "There is no such requirement in the SNG" - rarely have I seen a follow up comment that says "The criteria it met was only temporary, now after x amount of time it *is* a requirement to meet the GNG." That is why I agree with the idea that some sort of message should be added across all SNGs, and related guidelines, that states the SNG is supposed to actually be stricter than the GNG, not looser and, if SNGs are meant to be a temporary path to notability, clearly saying that.

I guess maybe in the bigger picture is how everything relates to each other. If an SNG is only meant to be "temporary" than perhaps that needs to be explicit with some sort of set time limit. Which, based on being involved in several time limit related discussions, I don't ever see happening to "everyone's" happiness. If the boy who was one of 200 (or was it 500?) scholarship winners gets an article and it survives a deletion discussion because the related SNG states "meets one of the following" and the "consensus" is that the scholarship qualified as a "major award" how long do we let that sit there? If the concept is just "Well, someday..." than don't we run the risk (real risk) of being in a violation of "not a crystal ball"? When does a SNG run afoul of a policy such as NOT? At what point does a spin off get so far from the "notable" source it simply becomes a violation of policy - yet, at the same time - fall under an acceptable guideline?

Not that I expect this "how to" as a "tell all", but some of this is more points to ponder because the bigger Wikipedia grows the more sub guidlines pop up, the more special interest groups (Wikiprojects) create their own guidlines, the more editors (new and otherwise) get directed to a fourth generation (or greater) guideline that may be a bit far removed from the "source" - well, unless there is consistency it can't be a good thing. Soundvisions1 (talk)

You are never going to gain consensus on what "temporary" is. On the other hand, there is likely a period between a first AFD that ends in "keep" and a second AFD after which no obvious work has been done in the period since the first that you won't be able to claim the same "oh, this SNG said it was ok". It's likely something like a year or two or more, but certainly not as little as 6 months. But again, we dare not set an exact number here.

What has to be kept in mind is that notability is a highly subjective term that we're trying to make objectify. Any any attempt will never be perfect and we can't worry about the fringe cases being a problem. Understanding that the SNG are wide-consensus-agreed points of a topic being notable is why we have the "GNG or SNG" is the acceptable passage for notability. --MASEM (t) 03:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)