Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 48

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

→

Archive 55

Can something that doesn't yet exist/only just came into existence be notable?

My PROD of Catalysis Science & Technology was refused with the rationale that "All RSC journals are notable so much so that a new one is also". The journal has not yet published even a single article. I hesitate to make the effort to take it to AfD, however, because other journals have been kept in the past based on this argument. I think that violates WP:CRYSTAL, but perhaps people here have a different opinion? --Crusio (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I took a quick look at the page, and it says that it will be published online by the end of this month. Assuming that's true (I haven't checked, and I haven't considered otherwise whether it is or is not notable), then I guess I'd say that although in principle we shouldn't violate CRYSTAL, it's a matter of days in this case, and in practice probably not worth the argument. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• Let me clarify: I'm not saying it won't come into existence. I'm just saying that at this point, it is impossible to say whether it will become notable. Given that it is published by RSC, that is likely, but saying it will is WP:CRYSTAL. --Crusio (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• PS: Here is another one: ACS Catalysis. --Crusio (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Notability for something that yet exists is generally treated with caution; if reliable sources assure it's coming out "soon", we can have an article on it. So, for example, we can clearly talk about the 2012 Olympics in London even though the event hasn't happened, but it would be inappropriate to have articles for the 2052 Olympics. Also, see WP:HAMMER.

So it could be possible that a scientific journal that is about to come online is notable before its actually available. But we have to show it notable and that's more the problem here, the statement "all RSC journals are notable" is not a documented fact. Such journals can be reliable sources but not notable. I don't believe there is an SNG or anything at WP:OUTCOMES to affirm this, so it is completely fair to toss such articles to PROD or AFD. --MASEM (t) 00:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that very much. The issue really is less one of CRYSTAL than of that latter point. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Certainly it's possible: For example, many movies receive substantial media attention before they exist—some before they even start filming.

What you want to be asking is, If this is so obviously notable, then where's the proof in the form of WP:Independent sources? I suggest that you switch the tags to {{Third-party}}. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Yea, caution is best advices in case it doesn't come out because, with a few exceptional cases in their cancelation its usually forgotten and doesn't have an impact.陣内_Jinnai 01:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a decent rule but it has too many counter examples. Theoretical physics. Upcoming elections. Upcoming events on the magnitude of the Olympics. Products nearing release. Really, existence and non-existence shouldn't be an issue. It's really a question of whether there is reliable sources (not rumors or speculation) about it, even if it doesn't exist yet. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

For accuracy, it would be better to label articles like Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton to be Anticipated wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton, 2012 Olympics to Anticipated 2012 Olympics, 2012 Presidential Election to Anticipated 2012 Presidential Election and so on. Of course, we do it the way we do to pragmatically not have to change the article titles all over the place. The main thing is that these are not crystal ball events but future events for which there is already abundant current third party independent coverage in reliable sources. A lot of that article content becomes moot when the event happens, but that's a editing activity, not related to the criteria for a stand-alone article. 160.83.73.16 (talk) 13:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• I think I should clarify my original statement. I am talking about articles on journals that do not yet exist, but are fairly certain to come into existence soon. (So this is not really an issue). However, there are absolutely no sources, apart from the home page of the journal. PRODs are removed with the argument that "this journal is published by notable publisher XYZ and will therefore become notable". At AfDs I have been outvoted completely with the same argument (and I don't want to put in the effort any more, as it is useless anyway). Even though I agree that these journal will most likely become notable (perhaps even rather sooner than later), I think we still should wait with creating an article until this happens. After all, even experienced, reputed publishers sometimes start a journal that does not make it, even if that nowadays is rare. --Crusio (talk) 13:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • You have the right idea, but wrong way to approach; as others have noted , don't worry about it being a future event, that complicates matters. More simply, it is the fact there are no sources for notability at the moment, and there is no apparent sub-notablity guideline that seems to suggest that a journal published by a specific publisher is considered notable. We do have some unstated notabiliy allowances (eg, the allowance of any governmental-recognized incorporated place), but I don't think journal magazines have ever qualified. I see your PRODs were removed, but I think you are completely in the right to send these to AFD since only a few are arguing they are notable by, effectively, inheritance. --MASEM (t) 14:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Does being a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts meet notability criteria?

A person may become a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts by paying 225 pounds sterling and submitting the membership form downloaded from [1] This just buys annual membership, but that is enough to have web sites refer to the person as an FRSA indefinitely. The membership form requires sponsorship by an existing FRSA (there are about 27,000) or a professional reference. The list of members is not published, but the FRSA will state, on request, if a specific person is a current member. If this question is in the wrong place, could someone please tell me where it should go. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I would say no, that is not notable. Since the person can add themselves, the FRSA is not an "independent" source that is required for GNG. --MASEM (t) 18:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Michael P. Barnett (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

proposal to restore Wikilink for "content policies" in WP:NNC

This diff removed a wikilink for "content policies".  I can't find any discussion and I think this was an error.  I propose that the Wikilink be restored:

[[:Category:Wikipedia content policy|content policies]]

Also, note that this page is semi-protected, so I can't be WP:BOLD and make this change.  Thanks, RB  66.217.118.99 (talk) 07:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. I can't imagine anyone objecting so I re-added the link. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Questions re Relevancy

Do we have a policy, guideline or noticeboard to deal with issues of relevancy? I ask here because searching for "WP:Relevant" redirects to here (which may be a mis-direct, since the relevancy of information within an article has little to do with whether the topic is notable). Blueboar (talk) 14:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that relevancy should be one of the metrics for content for wp:npov. But right now it doesn't have anything on it. 19:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC) = wp:undueNorth8000 (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, in the case I am dealing with, I would not say there is a neutrality issue... the question is whether a specific bit of informtion is relevant to the article topic or not. In some ways its a WP:TRIVIA issue, but its not your typical fan cruft trivia. I can always ask about it at the related Wikiprojects, I just wanted to know if there was a policy/guideline/noticeboard that was considered the standard place go to to get outside opinions and input. Blueboar (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I dunno. As a side note, sometimes implied relevancy via its presence in an article or via its juxtaposition with other content can be a wp:nor issue. North8000 (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:UNDUE? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... I am beginning to see why we don't have a single place for this... relevancy can relate to several policies and guidelines, depending on the specifics. The tough part is figuring out which policy applies (or policies apply) to the specific situation. Thanks for the feedback. Blueboar (talk) 21:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This is the discussion page to help editors apply criteria to determine if a proposed or existing topic ought to have a standalone article in Wikipedia. Having said that, I think the place in Wiki-space with the most to say about relevance with respect to editing an article is WP:UNDUE. patsw (talk) 02:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

OK... we seem to have some consensus here... any objections if I move the redirect of WP:Relevant away from pointing to this page, and point it to WP:UNDUE? Blueboar (talk) 04:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason to not make this change. The only possible thing to add is a hatnote on the UNDUE page to explain about relevancy of stand-alone topics or something like that. --MASEM (t) 04:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

OK... I have changed the redirect. I will let others deal with any hat notes that might be desired. Blueboar (talk) 13:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Good move. North8000 (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's good too. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it should land on Wikipedia:Editorial discretion, if you don't mind sending it to an essay. Gigs (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that there should be a relevancy criteria. To avoid creating a monster of unleashing hordes of deletionists, something which would kick in only when there is an additional question such as wp:nopv (where it is MOST needed). North8000 (talk) 12:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

There's a significant history there. Extensive attempts in the past to draft a relevancy guideline have failed. It's the sort of thing that varies so much from article to article that we really can't easily draft any universal guideline on it. Gigs (talk) 14:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Notability (philosophy)

The Notability (philosophy) article contains a section about WP:NOTE. PPdd (talk) 07:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You might be interested in reading the article Notability on Wikipedia, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I will read it. PPdd (talk) 14:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

So Wikipedians decided 'Notability on Wikipedia' is a notable topic for Wikipedia! How wonderful! Qwfp (talk) 08:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Notability for video games

Input is needed for WP:Notability (video games) as the WikiProject Video games is trying to streamline their guideline and items off of it that really wouldn't be appropriate for a MOS-style guideline (its not one atm, but its been proposed to be moved to one by others). The notability of video games has been contentious and the GNG doesn't really give enough advice when dealing with some specific circumstances surrounding video games.陣内_Jinnai 20:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

There may already be stuff developed that can be used for the videogames talk, in the notability discussions re music bands. PPdd (talk) 07:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Posting here as there it seems we have a final draft before this gets promoted. This is based on the GNG, WP:VG/GL and common practices, If anyone has any comments please feel free to discuss them there.陣内_Jinnai 22:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Subject specific guidelines

I've recently sent a couple articles to AfD. One concerns a businessman who may lack notability under the ordinary criteria. The other concerns a public rally that occurred on the same day the article was created. I can't find any subject-specific guidelines that would cover these and am wondering if others think there should be. LordVetinari (talk) 09:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Not everything has (or needs) a subject-specific guideline. However, there probably are a few other guidelines and polices you should look at... For the businessman, I would start by looking at WP:Notability (people) (That may lead you to other SNGs that could apply). For the rally... if it is a recent event, I would look to WP:NOTNEWS. Blueboar (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, for events there's WP:NEVENT. --MASEM (t) 13:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Confused explanation on notability

The current version of the document 'Notability' in Wikipedia has two concepts: (1) notability (2) verifiability. It means A = A + B. It is a logical error. In addition, The first statement of the document, "On Wikipedia, notability determines whether a topic merits its own article." is not true because whether a topic owns its article on Wikipedia is based on both (1) and (2), not only on (1). Therefore, the documents has to be clarified with more clear sentences. cooldenny (talk) 08:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The concepts of Notability and Verifiability are directly related... but, they each focus on different things. Notability is the primary threshold for including articles in Wikipedia. Verifiability is the primary threshold for including information within an article. Notability focuses on entire topics, while Verifiability focuses on specific statements.

Where they overlap is that both require citation to reliable sources to substantiate. N = RS(discussing broad topic), V = RS(discussing specific info). Blueboar (talk) 15:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Try thinking of it this way:

• Notability = eligibility for a separate article.
  • This means: If the subject is notable, it is eligible for a separate article. If it is eligible for a separate article, then it is notable. When someone says, "I think that's notable", they mean, "I think that Wikipedia can have an entire, separate, stand-alone article dedicated to that subject."
    The converse is also true: If the subject is not notable, it is not eligible for a separate article. If the subject is not eligible for a separate article, then it is not notable. When someone says, "I think that's non-notable", they mean, "I think that Wikipedia should not have an entire, separate, stand-alone article dedicated to that subject."
    The direct meaning of that sentence is: "Notability is our secret code word for 'eligibility for a separate article on Wikipedia'. Please disregard any dictionary definitions you might have learned for this word. We're not talking about whatever your dictionary says: On this page, we're solely and exclusively talking about which subjects get their own articles in Wikipedia. Rather than having to keep typing out 'eligibility for a separate, stand-alone article dedicated to that subject', we will type notability."
• Eligibility = Verifiability through WP:Independent sources × Compliance with WP:NOT × Editors' discretion
  • This means: There are multiple factors that determine whether an subject is notable (=eligible for a separate article on Wikipedia). The three major factors are:
    1. Verifiability of material about the subject in independent sources: If zero or very little information can be verified through independent sources, then it is not notable ("then it is not eligible for a separate article"). The amount of material, the number of sources, and the quality of the sources are all relevant factors. If there are zero independent sources, then there is zero notability and will (in theory) be zero Wikipedia articles dedicated to this subject.
    2. Compliance with NOT: If the subject does not comply with NOT, then it is not notable ("then it is not eligible for a separate article"). If there is zero compliance with NOT, then there is zero notability and will (in theory) be zero Wikipedia articles dedicated to this subject.
    3. Editors' discretion: Sometimes, a subject that is otherwise acceptable is better handled in a different fashion. For example, there is plenty of material on Use of antibiotics in European chicken farming that can be supported by independent sources. The subject complies with NOT: It's not an exercise in social networking, it's not indiscriminate, it's not a directory listing, etc. But editors prefer to merge that information into the larger subject of Poultry farming.

Determining notability is more of an art than a science, but these are the major factors involved. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, that's a great explanation, almost worth an essay page of its own! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad that you like it.

Rather than another essay, I wonder what you would think of adding a pair of short sections this page, to parallel ==NRVE==: 'Notability requires compliance with NOT' and 'Notability requires editors to use their best judgment'. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I like your talk page essay. :) I would support another section that says Notability is just the first hurdle for inclusion. "Notability is necessary, but not always sufficient for inclusion". Something to that effect. Mention COPYVIOs, WP:NOT, and a lot of common sense. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I think you've missed my point. Notability is the whole ball of wax. Sources are just the first hurdle.

Copyright violations are outside of this guideline's bailiwick: Subjects (lion, tree, car) cannot be copyrighted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree to your opinion that "sources" are just the first hurdle. However, many users do not have clear understanding about "notability' you have as did in this talk page. Thus, I think the guideline has to be updated by your point or other's. That's my point. cooldenny (talk) 11:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The first bullet refers to an identity relationship. Another way I have of expressing it is saying that word notability as we use it here is merely a term of art, or shorthand, for the merit of a topic to have a standalone article. The second bullet is a restatement of the introductory paragraph of WP:N and good summary of the process. It is not an independent policy but a guideline for the WP:NOT policy, and not as sometimes misunderstood, a replacement for it. Now, where is User:cooldenny to comment on these responses? patsw (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the phrase term of the art could be worked into the first sentence (currently "On Wikipedia, notability determines whether a topic merits its own article").

I'll go start the two brief sections I proposed above. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree it could be explained better, but please don't use the phrase 'term of art' as it's not common in the UK. I think 'shorthand' would be better, e.g. "In Wikipedia, 'notability' is shorthand for whether a topic merits its own article". --Qwfp (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps "'Notability' in Wikipedia parlance refers only to whether a specific topic merits its own article in the encyclopedia. It makes no judgement otherwise as to whether a person would reasonably have heard of the topic." Collect (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that both Qwfp's and Collect's suggestions are accurate, but I think I like Qwfp's slightly better. It would be easy to substitute it for the existing first sentence. (Collect's suggestion seems to fit better with the end of that paragraph.) Which do other people prefer? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Problem with recent addition

I'm not 100% against this, but I think what I've quoted below from WhatamIdoing's addition isn't right in language and confuses the issue more.

Notability requires compliance with NOT - In addition to inclusion guidelines, Wikipedia has an exclusion policy at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. This policy excludes unencyclopedic subjects, such as indiscriminate collections of information, web and telephone directories, or speculation. Subjects that do not comply with that policy are not notable (do not qualify for inclusion as a separate article).

The problem that I have is that NOT has nothing to do with notability. NOT has to do primarily with information that is indiscriminate. It is quite possible the information could be notable from sources that talk about it (eg the contents of a phone book, a retail's catalog, etc). There could also be non-notable cases.

Presently we have four logical statements: A - A topic has significant coverage in secondary sources or meets an SNG. B - A topic is notable C - A topic is not indiscriminate Z - A topic has its own page.

How we work this is:

• We demonstrate A (sources) that B is true (notable), as it is otherwise impossible to define the negative, which is where the word "presume" comes into play.
• Meeting B (notable) and C (not indiscriminate) is a necessary requirement for Z (having an article). See the sentence in the first section: A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia., that is, B and C are two of the criteria for a standalone article. There are likely others - eg WP:V (which should be meet with notability), WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and so forth, but 99% of the time, WP:N and WP:NOT work together to determine the appropriateness of an article.

So my objection is primarily with the last line of the included text: Subjects that do not comply with that policy are not notable (do not qualify for inclusion as a separate article). because it is missing the definition of notability. Maybe if it was "Subjects that do not comply with that policy, even if they are notable, do not qualify for inclusion as a separate article." but I'm not 100% sure that's the final answer. --MASEM (t) 20:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

IMHO those other requirements (e.g. NOT) are separate from wp:notability and so IMHO it is erroneous to describe "NOT" as a part of the notability definition. North8000 (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You seem to think that notability means something other than "qualifies for a separate article on Wikipedia", which contradicts the long-standing definition of the term notability in the first sentence of this guideline.

It is actually impossible for a subject to "be notable" and "not qualify for its own article". Consequently, Masem's proposed change reads as, "Subjects that do not comply with NOT, even if they qualify for an article, do not qualify for an article," which is confusing and illogical.

NOT is separate from this guideline, but its requirements are not separate from the determination of whether a subject qualifies for its own article. And, as the first sentence says, determining whether a subject qualifies for its own article is the definition of notability on Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I hope that I didn't create a problem when I complemented the description above. I do like what that said, as an answer to another editor's question, but I didn't intend to push for a change in this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we can add something that stems from the above confusion, but what was added makes its own mistake. We can find something that works. --MASEM (t) 21:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

A longstanding problem is that people want the WP definition of notability and the dictionary definition to be different and this makes WP:N very difficult to understand. It is describing the same concept - a topic that has been noted by mankind. "Having it's own article" is a possible result of a topic being notable. Practically: yes, people go "WP:N is about stand-alone articles", but there's a lot more nuance that filters down to the SNGs and up to NOT and AFDs that simplifying in that direction is just wrong.

And I'm not saying my language is perfect, but we need to get across that WP:N is but one barrier to be met to have a topic merit an article. The addition says something completely differently. --MASEM (t) 21:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with you. It should be noted that you and I are saying that "On Wikipedia, notability determines whether a topic merits its own article." is not precisely/literally 100% true. North8000 (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Masem, "notability on Wikipedia" is different from notability in the dictionary, just like "neutrality on Wikipedia" is different from neutrality in the dictionary, and "verifiability on Wikipedia" is different from verifiability in the dictionary. They're related concepts, but they are importantly different.

I agree that the fact that none of these are the plain English words makes Wikipedia confusing, but the fact is that wikinotability and real-world notability are different. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, they fundamentally mean the same thing, but WPians tend to treat them different because it is easier to think of notability of WP being "can have an article" then the extra logic steps behind it. But many notability issues come down to the gross oversimplification of WP notability as "can have an article" that would be clear when each step in the logic chain is apparent. I have no problem saying that, practically, the state of the art of using notability is to determine article guidelines, but at the end of the day, we are starting from the English definition of the world. I also strongly disagree that your other examples too - we are not rewriting the english language here and when we act like we are, that's what causes problems. --MASEM (t) 21:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have a couple of problems with the wording, but not necessarily the intent. First, the word "unencyclopedic" cannot be used to define what is or is not acceptable as a WP article topic. Wikipedic ≠ encyclopedic, and using the word in an attempt to define itself is not helpful. Second, the policies are WP:V and WP:NOT. Policy > Guideline > Essay (and I have never figured out where exactly the MOS fits in there). The way it was written made the notability guideline sound equal to WP:NOT, which it is not. V + NOT = Notability. WP:GNG = best practices/common outcomes of consensus of notability. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 21:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

No, V + NOT do not equal notability. It's important to understand that notability is the same word as it is in the English language. We build on that with the GNG to show how we expect that to be defined for a topic. By happenstance, meeting the GNG also allows a topic to meet V and NOR at the same time, but they are still very different goals. --MASEM (t) 21:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the longstanding problem is that the process acquired the descriptive term notability very early in the history of Wikipedia and newbies want their own subjective definition of notability to supersede the process here. If we want to go back to another discussion of renaming this guideline from notability to something like determining if a topic should have a standalone article in the Wikipedia, then so be it. I am not married to the word. A distinction I make that perhaps people would dispute with me: A topic may meet the criteria here in the abstract, but a concrete article on that topic could be deleted for reasons applying WP:N. A really bizarre case of this shows up when persuasive arguments and references appear in the AFD citing WP:N which the editor defending the article, on some sort of perverse principle refuses to improve the article itself showing it meets WP:GNG or some other WP:N criterion. Regarding the addition, I think it is redundant but not confusing. I think an effort to parse various dictionaries to extract some deeper meaning from the notability entries and nuance this guideline to converge on a consensus of them is misguided. patsw (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, really, the problem is that this page even says that it is not the only criteria for article inclusion, but if that is the case, where is the guideline on article inclusion? Eg, where is our WP:SAA (stand alone articles) to match with WP:SAL? If we had a SAA (a guideline absolutely), it would say something like "For a topic to have an article, it should meet the following considerations: Meets WP:N, passes WP:NOT, passes WP:V, passes WP:NOR, passes WP:NPOV, not a content fork,..." etc. This is unwritten advice, clear to experience editors, vague to newbies, and hence the whole confusion over WP:N. Adding WP:SAA would alleviate much of the issues here. --MASEM (t) 22:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that we shouldn't try to mix/summarize/include other guidelines and policies into notability. It's implicit that something must comply with all in-force policies/guidelines. You don't say "sobriety determines whether or not you can drive a car legally" That's a false statement, because you have to comply with 100 laws/conditions in order to drive. Also, you don't try to list the 100 laws in the sobriety law in order to create a "here's what you need to do to drive legally" statement. It's just a given that you have to comply with all applicable laws. North8000 (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Having thought about it, I agree with North8000. It's dangerous trying to mix guidelines together. Better leave the mix implied. Let people remember that all guidelines and policies are valid. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Leaving it all "implied" is a disaster. It creates confusion and makes people unhappy when their good-faith efforts are deleted because they didn't comply with the "secret" or "unwritten" rules.

Additionally, we already summarize and include other guidelines and policies in this page, and always have. For example: The nutshell has a summary of the policy NOT. The SPIP section summarizes the policy COI. I think that NOT is linked five or six times in this guideline. This guideline does not exist in a vacuum.

I like North's analogy, though: What we're doing right now is telling people that sobriety is required. We need to more clearly tell them that, yes, sobriety is required, but not sufficient. Multiple independent sources are required, but not sufficient: subjects must also comply with NOT and editorial discretion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that WP:N has to put its focus only on the concept of notability, not others. Specifically, the document addresses as follows:(1) WP:N is one of criteria when users determine for a topic to have a standalone article on Wikipedia; (2) other criteria e.g., sufficient, reliable source, require for the selection of standalone article; and then (3) other criteria has to be explained. cooldenny (talk) 15:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I am beginning to see what the underlying problem here is... we have several policy/guideline pages that discuss different aspects of what makes an article acceptable or unacceptable. What we don't have is a single policy/guideline page that sums all these aspects up and explains how they interact. I can see the argument that a page focused purely on the concept of notability is helpful, but that means we need to create the summary page. Suggest: WP:Article viability as a working title. Blueboar (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be a guideline. I think an essay would suffice, but we might want to more prominently display it than other essays.陣内_Jinnai 17:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we should have such a page. Specifically, this page is supposed to be the page that tells you (as it already does, five or six times) that you don't get an article if you contravene NOT, that WP:Independent sources must exist, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

This is just one example of where an overview page for new WP editors covering the most confusing things would be useful. It would probably have to be written by someone what was a new editor not that long ago. People that have been here a long time take it or granted and no longer question that the WP world for an editor is an alternate universe very different than the real world. Words here have different and opposite meanings than in the real world (e.g. unreliable sources are wp:RS's, and reliable sources aren't) where things that are commonplace and accepted elsewhere (multiple incognito accounts) merit one the death penalty here, where even the firm rules (policies) are written too imprecisely to be precisely learned and followed and which much of Wikipedia must violate the letter of in order to exist, where there are hundreds of pages of NON-rules (guidelines) which anybody can invoke to give your material the death penalty, where half of the experienced editors claim that accuracy is not an objective of a (this) encyclopedia. What a rabbit hole we have jumped down and grown accustomed to! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I know that we have hopped around here to many interesting topics, but I feel that there is a fundamental structural issue at the core here, and I believe that there is a structural problem with your approach. The logical core is as follows. WP:N in essence says here is ONE of the requirements that must be met to have an article.

It is a fundamental reality, that if there are multiple requirements for an article to exist, then such requires meeting all of them.

Now, unless I misunderstand, you basically saying/proposing one or both of these:

1. That all of the those other requirements are a part of / a subset of the notability requirement
2. proposing to add, to the wp:n article about that ONE requirement, a summary or statement about ALL of the other requirements that must be met in order to have an article.

The question is whether #1 is correct, and whether #2 is a good idea. My humble opinion is no on both. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

No, WP:N does not say that notability is one of the requirements for articles; it has never said that. (wiki)Notability is the requirement: subjects we accept are notable, and subjects we reject are not notable. The "one requirement" that people (mis)label as "notability" is merely one part of it, as described at GNG (the requirements for sources).

Something worth doing is actually looking at the guideline. GNG is only one portion of the page. GNG (sources) is not the whole of (wiki)Notability. It's only one part of notability. It's time to make that clearer, by giving the other major factors some clear, obvious space on the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the proposition I'm seeing here is to write a separate guide, outside of here, that addresses all the things that are required for an article in one overarching document. It could address the speedy deletion criteria (must not be an ad or attack piece, must assert significance of the subject, etc.), as what an article must meet from its very first edit, as well as what it must meet to be viable long term (passing notability sourcing requirements, not being a news story (as we define it), matter of solely local interest, etc.). I think it's a pretty good idea. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that would be a really useful essay. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I don't see how you can say that. Requirements for article existence exist outside of wp:notability. For example, an attack page can't be an article. That rule is certainly not a notability rule, and not a part of wp:notability, it is rule that exists outside of and independently of wp:notability. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The exclusion of attack pages is a NOT rule, and this guideline has always told people that notability requires compliance with NOT. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Understanding why criteria for a topic to be a standalone article (a/k/a notability) is different from other guidelines

The other guidelines offer some way to remedy the problem: Improve the the sources, remove the non-neutral point of view, omit information which violates privacy, etc. In other words, the editing process is adding new content, removing old content, or copy-editing existing content. However, when the topic itself fails, the quality of the content is a secondary consideration. If there's some encyclopedic value to the content, then there might be a place for it as another article. There is no grading on the curve for an affirmative outcome to a disputed WP:N, it's about as binary as it gets in the Wikipedia. For a topic that is truly non-notable, nothing can be done in the writing of an article on it to make it otherwise. patsw (talk) 04:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

There are other "standalone article inclusion" guidelines too, but they aren't usually tagged as such:

• WP:NOT describes things we aren't. Take, for example, WP:NOT#PLOT. I can write an article for most TV episodes today that are sourced to secondary materials that simply recaps the episode, nothing else. Passes WP:N, fails WP:NOT.
• WP:NPOV says we take a balanced approached to articles. A movie may have a reputation of being critically panned by a number of reviewers, so it would completely possible via WP:N to create a "Negative criticism of movie X" article, but clearly this is a violation of NPOV (and others most likely).
• WP:SS/WP:SPINOUT says we only break out topics when they are truly notable and try to group smaller topics into larger ones. A one-shot character played by a famous actor on an episode may receive a deal of attention but if all that can be said is a few paragraphs from secondary sources, it's notable but too brief; a summary within the episode article itself would be better.

There are likely several others. The point is that WP:N is the first and foremost measure and if WP:N fails, no other meeting of other criteria matters. That is, WP:N is a necessary but not sufficient requirement to include a topic. (How we determine notability, that's something different, and that's why WP:N remains a guideline). --MASEM (t) 06:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

You are arguing against a point I did not make. However, to mention that WP:N is not the only topic inclusion/exclusion guideline is helpful. patsw (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Basically, I agree to North8000's and Masem's. WP:Notability has to put its focus only on the concept of notability itself, not on others. The document has to address NOTABILITY is ONE of the criteria when users determine for a topic to have a standalone article on Wikipedia. Other criteria such as sufficient and reliable sources do not need to be included in the document. If most people want to include the explanation on other criteria as the current version of document contains, the statements about other criteria have to be written like this: the paragraph is saying about other criteria. This makes, I think, users, especially new comers understand the guideline clearer. Therefore, the current version needs to be updated for the statement not to give users confusion. cooldenny (talk) 09:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Wandered over from the pump, not really sure where to put this. I like Masem's formulation above regarding "standalone article inclusion". To me, notability is a way of answering the question "If I wanted to write a verifiable article about this topic, would I be able to?" If something has never been written about, then it's not notable, in the English sense and the Wikipedia sense. But if all coverage of a topic is trivial, then it is also not notable. It is notable in the sense that it has been noted, but since one can't write a Wikipedia article about it it's not notable. It's critical to separate the Wikipedia sense from the English language sense, because the English sense connotes worth (a synonym of "important") . It's vaguely insulting to tell a new editor that they/their company just isn't important, but not so much to say that they haven't been written about enough for us to write an article. In a sense, notability is verifiability applied to whole topics rather than individual statements. --Danger (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

To that point... I still see people ignore the sources (or lack thereof) and toss around "how can you say this is not notable?" or "it's notable because numerous readers know what this is and love it!" I'm going to propose something radical. I know this guideline has been around a long time. But maybe it would be better if we renamed it to something that emphasizes sources. (For example, I often link to this guideline as WP:verify notability instead of just notability.) It would help if the title were more self-explanatory, like "no original research". Shooterwalker (talk) 15:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

A very very subtle thing about this guideline is that notability is a metric to be met. It is, 99.99+% of the time met by showing GNG or SNG compliance (those are about the sources). But this guideline (and why it's a guideline) is written that a wide (multiproject) consensus of editors may agree a topic is notable but cannot be shown notable by the GNG or SNGs. I can't point you to any example case, but that's the exceptional rule to otherwise showing GNG or SNG. That's why WP:N is doubly problematic is that it is actually two guidelines in on: 1) WP:N: a notable but not sufficient requirement for an article topic, and, 2) WP:GNG: one means of showing notability is via secondary sources. If one strips the stuff about GNG and leaves only the facet of WP:N, it mimics WP:V in title and approach. (eg a topic's verifability and its notability). --MASEM (t) 16:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

If this case of a topic without sources–a topic about which nothing can be written on Wikipedia, per WP:V–is so rare, why bother delineating it? It seems like it's better to be very clear on that 99.99% of the time (and I can't say that I understand what an exception would be, even in theory) and leave the other .01% to IAR. Because ultimately, if a wide consensus of editors decides that a topic that fails the GNG is notable they're going to be resorting to IAR a whole lot in developing such an article. Danger (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say it lacked sources, only that it may lack secondary sources that the GNG requires. There's a difference here. --MASEM (t) 16:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Gimme Danger. If 99% of the time Notability == GNG then it would be much more clear to emphasize the sourcing aspect more than the "notability" aspect. IAR is still useful when you need to say "no secondary sources but it's probably notable, give it some time". Shooterwalker (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

No, WP:N is not just the GNG, it also includes the SNG. And no, putting the GNG before notability is the wrong approach, as it is the notability concept that is akin to verifiability and the other policies, with GNG being a mechanical implementation of that. --MASEM (t) 17:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The reply to the IAR argument "no secondary sources but it's probably notable, give it some time" is... "In which case, Wikipedia should not have an article on it yet... if, in time, secondary source are written, then we can have an article. Until then, no." Blueboar (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

That reinforces my main point though. Most people don't think we make subjective assessments of notability. Most people think it's about the sources. Masem disagrees... it's possible I'm wrong and more people are with Masem. I'm just saying that if it's about the sources then the guideline should be named more clearly. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not about sources, it is about a topic's notability. The problem is that notability can be subjective, which is why we've developed two ways that use sources to assure notability is shown: the GNG that requires secondary sources, and the SNGs that require any source (not necessarily secondary) to show a topic is notable. These two approaches account for nearly every article, and while they uses sources, the emphasis is not on the sourcing but on demonstrating a topic as notable, just as WP:V is making that the verifications of a topic can be had, and not that facts can be immediately verified.

In practice, yes, most AFDs go the way "I see no sources for this, and thus the article is not notable". That's simply a shortcut method of saying "There is no demonstration that this topic is notable". But I don't think it's appropriate to try to simplify WP:N down to its practical use, given its troubled history as a guideline. It is a philosophical approach to how WP is built, and thus the subtlies of it need to be explained. --MASEM (t) 17:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Subtlety is all well and good in some contexts, but when notability is used as a brightline in deletion it is necessary to be clear and definitive. A new editor trying to find out why "their" article about their favorite television character is being deleted does not particularly care about the philosophical underpinnings of this project. Philosophizing on guideline pages is a barrier to new editors and results in unnecessary conflict over how to apply them. Essays, on the other hand, are wonderful places for exposition of wiki-philosophy. I love a good meander on that. :) Danger (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Fair enough. Still, when defining inclusion criteria we should construct the rules based on what we'd like the outcome to be. If a topic fails the GNG because only primary sources are available, then an article about that topic will necessarily be in violation of NPOV or trivial. (If we're basing, say, an article about a company solely on its press releases, either we have written a hopelessly biased article or we've merely reported that the company has said nice things about itself in press releases, hence trivial.) By setting out the GNG as the basis of notability, we bar two types of articles that are undesirable: things that no one has written about at all and things that are only of interest to the people immediately involved with them. Danger (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Once this basis is set, the SNG are derived as proxies for determining whether a topic passes the GNG in specific cases. They allow us to have articles which may be expanded later, but do not necessarily prove that they meet the GNG as written. Notice that the SNG are phrased "If a subject meets criterion X, it is probably notable." Danger (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the current 18K characters of text in the guideline already makes it a brightline. As I mentioned before, WP:N is a binary decision. If there is an SNG that refers to a probability of a topic meriting a standalone article in Wikipedia, that guideline should be improved for clarity.patsw (talk) 02:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• WP:NBOOK: "A book is generally notable if..."
• WP:EVENT: "Events are probably notable if..", "Events are also very likely to be notable if..."
• WP:BIO: "People are generally notable if..."

And so forth. The SNG as written are not determiners of notability, but rather statements on the probability that a subject is notable, ie meets the GNG. When applying a SNG, one is saying that a topic can be presumed to have significant secondary coverage without that coverage actually being produced. (WP:BASIC: "A person is presumed to be notable if...") Perhaps probability is the wrong term here. I agree with North8000 below; the relationship between GNG and SNG should be explicitly defined. A secondary point: extra words are a problem, not an advantage. This is usually the first thing a new editor is linked to, without much explanation, when their contributions are being deleted. It needs to be as simple and short as is possible to combat tl;dr issues and confusion. --Danger (talk) 02:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, be aware that the GNG itself goes "A topic is presumed notable...". The relationship between the GNG and the SNGs are well-defined: you meet the GNG or one of the sidebar-listed SNGs. The problem again steps that WP:N is two guidelines in one page, WP:N and WP:GNG and hense the confusion that WP:N == WP:GNG. --MASEM (t) 03:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not known very well, I've even seen an article deleted because a closing admin said the opposite. Conversely, some of the SNG's are more strict and they say that they must be met for articles in that category, i.e. meeting GNG is not considered sufficient. North8000 (talk) 03:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The phase, second para of the lead A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below and is not excluded by WP:NOT. A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right. is pretty clear it's "either ...or..." Now I agree, there's cases of SNGs that are more specific than the GNG and there probably needs to be language to indicate this. Ideally, the way to approach this is "If the topic falls into the field covered by the SNGs, the notability is determined from there. Otherwise, the GNG should be used". This would allow both alternatives to the GNG, and those criteria that are more restrictive than the GNG, to be addressed in the SNG first. The only issue here is that the SNGs need to be clear that, if they propose an alterntive to the GNG, that the GNG is an ultimate goal these articles need to meet for notability in time. --MASEM (t) 03:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Really needs to be clarified that if an SNG sets a stricter criteria, the SNG needs to be met. Otherwise they become useless. WP:NSONGS comes to mind immediately as one that simply has no effect if you use either/or logic.—Kww(talk) 03:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

This makes a lot of sense. (I'm thinking about this in terms of axioms of Euclidean geometry. You start with what you want—in this case, articles that meet the basic content standards, in the geometric case, shapes and lines that act how "real" shapes act—and determine the rules that you need to get that. Stricter SNGs are like the Parallel postulate, they prevent undesirable cases.) Danger (talk) 05:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As North8000 notes, the practice is quite different than the then theory. And guidelines are supposed to outline the best practices of the community. In practice, the existence of sources is notability. No one would say How to change a tyre is not notable, even though by the description in the lede it isn't. They would point out that it fails WP:HOWTO. Defining a notable topic to be anything but "that which has been noted" is, in my opinion, an unnecessary logical leap. Plus, defining the SNG to be anything but the presumption of the existence of sources leads to the creation of articles that can never, even in theory, be written in a way that complies with the core content policies, like the archetypical example of a athlete who plays for a minute in a single professional level game. Meets WP:ATH, but what could be written about such a subject? The description of notability in the lede is at odds with the rest of the policy, which deals with what types sourcing defines notability. Danger (talk) 03:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

This has been addressed before. SNGs are meant as temporarily means of demonstrating notability in lieu of secondary sources when that person is found to be notable. It allows for articles to be developed on topics that are likely to be GNG-notable as the criteria selected by SNGs nearly always give topics, in time, that are GNG-notable. That doesn't mean the SNGs are free tickets to avoid the GNG indefinitely. You may get away with one AFD a year or two after creation of an article by claiming it meets the SNG but sources haven't be found, but not likely long after that or further AFDs. --MASEM (t) 03:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's a problem that I'd like to see resolved. Out of one side of our mouth (in the lead of this guideline), we tell people that notability == qualifies for a standalone article, and out of the other side (assertions from a minority in the community) that WP:N == WP:GNG (just the sourcing aspects of inclusion, not the rest of the page, and not the inclusion criteria that are currently poorly explained). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

With regards to the relationship between the GNG and the SNGs, Masem, I think we're in violent agreement. My point, probably inelegantly expressed, is precisely that the SNG allow us to keep articles that have not sufficiently demonstrated coverage per the GNG, but where it's very likely that such coverage does exist. Is this what you're saying, or am I completely off? --Danger (talk) 05:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I am pretty sure I'm saying the same thing: SNGs (those that are set to be alternatives) are temporarily allowances for articles for topics, that under similar conditions in the past, have been shown to meet the GNG in a reasonable amount of time. --MASEM (t) 05:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

A couple of sidebar structural notes:

• The relationship between SNG's and GNG is not defined, which is amazing considering what a huge and important question that is. Does meeting just one of them meet notability? Each time the question is asked the answer is different.
• Second, the particular special source requirements in wp:n are essentially a "test" set up for notability which is in turn a requirement for existence of the article. That is structurally different than wp:ver which is a different sourcing requirement, and which sets that up as a requirement for the presence of material in WP.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

On the first point, the subject must meet whichever notability guideline (GNG or SNG) the editors at AFD decide is most appropriate or relevant. So if your subject meets GNG, but fails the SNG and editors at AFD decide that the SNG is the most appropriate standard against which to judge the article, then it will be deleted. By contrast, if your subject meets the SNG but fails GNG, and editors at AFD decide that GNG is the most appropriate standard, then the article will be deleted (or merged away). (The converse is also true.)

Which guideline will be chosen is reasonably predictable (e.g., most editors choose the primary criteria of CORP over GNG for small businesses), but there are no guarantees.

Two important points: First, it's the editors at AFD who ultimately make the call, not just the author of the article. Second, this really is a corner case, rather than the normal situation. In practice, nearly everything that passes the GNG also passes the relevant SNGs, and vice versa.

If this page is supposed to explain Wikipedia's inclusion criteria (all of it, not just GNG), then this fact should be explained on this page. If you want this page to be limited to the role of sources in determining whether a subject qualifies for an article, which I believe is your position above, then that information would be irrelevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

With regards to the criteria for determining whether a subject qualifies for an article, I think some sort of checklist as suggested by Blueboar and Seraphimblade above is a great idea. Combining NOT, FORK, N, etc. together could help a lot in dealing with heat at AfD and would be a good thing to have readily available on the Article Wizard (maybe prevent some of the more unpleasant newbie biting venues). Danger (talk) 05:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, that wasn't quite my position, mine is even simpler...notability being just about notability. And rather than being advocacy for anything, I was just saying that such is just a reality when you have several different policies/guidelines which an article must meet in order to exist. North8000 (talk) 11:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

the subject must meet whichever notability guideline (GNG or SNG) the editors at AFD decide is most appropriate or relevant. is horribly wrong with this page's present language if that's what is happening at AFD. I know some people have this idea: I've seen articles on at least two amateur sportplayers, signed up for a major team but not yet played professionally, but have gained notability within the GNG, but have been argued for deletion because they didn't meet ATH. (ATH is not a stricter GNG). It has always been the GNG or SNG (this even goes back to the old 2008 bigass RFC on the issue). Ignoring the need to clarify when the SNG is purposely stricter, that shows again that people are possibly misunderstanding the language here. --MASEM (t) 13:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it has always been GNG or SNG, but it has never been the SNG exists, and therefore editors may not form a consensus to apply the GNG. If your proposal below passes, then those two notable, GNG-meeting athletes would have been deleted as failing ATH. As it stands, someone can say, "Sure, he fails ATH, but that doesn't mean that he isn't notable under the GNG for his charity work/criminal record/political campaign/etc" WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Clarifying the relation between WP:N, GNG, and SNG

From above, there is a suggestion that the relationship between WP:N, WP:GNG, and the various SNGs is not exactly accurate due to the fact that some SNGs are more restrictive than the GNG while some are temporary alternatives. Along with the issue of WP:N being necessary but not sufficient for meriting an article, there's a small change to adjust here.

I recommend changing this by taking the second paragraph in the lead: A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below and is not excluded by WP:NOT. A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right. to the following:

A topic is presumed to be notable if:

1) A topic falls into the field-specific guideline listed in the box on the right, and meets the notability criteria outlined there.

2) Otherwise, for topics not covered by these field-specific guidelines, the topic meets the general notable guideline described below.

Notability is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for meriting an article; other policies and guidelines, such as WP:NOT, may further restrict a topic from meriting a stand-alone article.

I'm not married to this wording, but the order and language is important. Also, we need to make sure all the accepted SNGs have a certain boilerplate on them that the goal is ultimately to be GNG notable, and some other facets described above. --MASEM (t) 05:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I like this, minor quibbles about wording aside. I think it reflects how notability actually works on Wikipedia and will help a lot with new editor's confusion about notability. Perhaps the next step is hashing this out here for a while and then creating an RFC? --Danger (talk) 05:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

There are examples where a topic is in the domain of a SNG, fails the SNG criteria, and meets the GNG criteria, and either becomes an article without controversy, or passes an AFD because it has obvious significance and just demonstrates the SNG just wasn't applicable in this case. While exceptions like this are common, they tend not to be something that requires the SNG to be updated to accommodate them. I think Masem's summary implies more authority to SNG's than they really possess in practice. patsw (talk) 05:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, if every SNG that is proposing alternative criteria for notability starts with criteria #1 being the GNG itself (eg as done at WP:BAND), and directs that the GNG is expected to be met in time, we're ok. Unless we want to split the SNGs into two classes , those that are more restrictive, and those that are alternates, but I think there's a few that fit into both, and make it more complicated. This is not to give the SNGs any more authority than they have (I know it looks that way when they are listed first). --MASEM (t) 05:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I think your text is reasonable, although there is a fairly sizable contingent of editors that feels that meeting WP:N is a sufficient condition for an article, and that only WP:NOT can override it. I'm not sure that you can really find consensus for this change.—Kww(talk) 06:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It's possible to do this two steps at a time. One is to explain the relationship; that (to me) seems simply a matter of language as I'm reading general agreement with the basic idea but clarity needed on specifics. The other aspect, of saying that WP:N is but one barrier, is where we need a separate guideline to outline this factor and get that to consensus. I suspect that once you move that off WP:N and explain it out instead of leaving it unwritten, editors will appreciate the point more. -MASEM (t) 06:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree that standardizing most of the SNGs to include the GNG would be helpful, even if only because often they're only thing linked to in a deletion debate and we shouldn't make it harder for new editors to figure out why we're axing their stuff. Would deleting the clause "for topics not covered by..." in the second point and instead including in the a clause indicating that there are exceptions and linking to a section of this page clarifying that in some cases the SNG are stricter than the GNG address the issue that patsw raises? So:

2) Or the topic meets the general notability guidelines described below and does not fall into a category for which notability is stricter. Danger (talk) 06:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Given the general attitude of notability, I have a feeling a lot of people would take issue with that change, because they will see it as a means for deletion-inclined editors to claim articles that would normally not be considered in the stricter SNG as qualifying to meet them. --MASEM (t) 13:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• As Kww says, I think that if we meet the GNG and NOT we get an article. The SNGs give us guidance about when we are likely to meet WP:N and very occasionally, provide an alternative means to inclusion (best example is WP:ACADEMIC). Sometimes the SNG can outline sources that aren't generally acceptable. But per WP:PAPER and the original intent of our notability guidelines, we can in general have articles on anything we can write NPOV, well-sourced articles. Hobit (talk) 09:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• I only said that other people believe that. I wholly disagree: I view WP:N as a necessary threshold, but we are not at the mercy of our sources. There is no reason to create articles about everything that multiple sources can be found for, and the SNGs need to provide reasonable exclusion criteria so that the encyclopedia does not suffer unchecked growth.—Kww(talk) 14:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I was aware it wasn't your opinion, sorry I was unclear. Hobit (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Any answer that you come up with will have significant issues. I know that this is too huge to contemplate, but IMHO the ideal answer would be to enhance wp:n and then eliminate the SNG's A less earthshaking step in that direction would be to enhance wp:n to reduce it's shortcomings that trigger the need for SNG's. I'm going to guess that two of the shortcomings that the SNG's address are:

• where qualifying coverage in RS's is not an accurate gauge of real-world notability. I.e. where the proportion of wp:n coverage to RW notability is very different than the norm. (publishing-heavy vs. publishing-light fields) At one end of the spectrum in the RS publishing heavy world of academia, an obscure professor could easily meet the wp:n criteria. At the other end of the spectrum, a band that has sold 5,000,000 copies of songs might not.
• Leeway is generally allowed for the general WP process to work. E.g. consensus, which is weighted by the interest level of the individuals, via the amount of time they are willing to dedicate to the article issues. When there are subjects where somebody has a lot of money or fame to gain from prominence, this system breaks down, and COI guideline (rightly so) does not deal with article existence. And so a stricter standard is needed on these.

In both cases, a wp:n enhancement which acknowledges those two variables and compensates for them would help.

Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 12:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

If the system was somewhat normalized that specific field guidelines would not outline criteria but instead would clarify what are RS sources for demonstrating notability in that field, there may be a way to do that. However, I am convinced that at the present we will get away from these SNG criteria by the consensus at large (given what I've seen at ATH, at minimum). And that approach would still miss out on some of the subtle means of how SNG criteria are meant to work (again, someone who's suddenly come into notability is not going to have readily-available sources before about themselves) --MASEM (t) 13:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that if you look at the SNG, they are doing more than clarifying GNG, they are making up different rules for special cases where GNG is too ham-handed. So in principle, your proposal is a really good one. And, as per usual, you do brilliant analysis & work. But in practice, SNG's don't have the level of scrutiny, refinement, extreme carefulness in writing, wiki-wide consensus, and scope of editors that GNG has, and so I would be hesitant to give absolute power to a SNG (or to a wiki-lawyer's use of a SNG) that your proposal would give. North8000 (talk) 15:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually the SNGs do have thorough review by the global consensus; while they can be drafted by a few people, they cannot be accepted without a wide review for exactly the problems given. That doesn't mean they're perfect (see WP:ATH), but they aren't accepted in a vacuum. We can still work with that as long as each SNG is prefaced by saying that the ultimate goal for any article is to show GNG-notability, which means that even if some group manages to introduce a poor criteria into the SNG, articles that claim notability but never can show GNG will ultimately be deleted, and if many articles arise by that criteria, then the criteria will be reviewed and modified or deleted. --MASEM (t) 15:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this works. This says, a (vaguely relevant) SNG exists, and therefore editors should always completely ignore the GNG. In practice, editors aren't willing to do this. You could add the GNG into every single one of the SNGs, but that seems redundant, and (of more immediate importance) it hasn't been done.

This brings us back to the second half of what Masem deleted from this guideline the other day (but never explained why he dislikes it): Editors must use their best judgment. We can't really get away from this fact of life. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

If its the idea of having SNG's have priority over the GNG that's a problem, the other way to state this:

In general, a topic is presumed to be notable if it meets the general notable guideline (GNG), described below. Field-specific notability guidelines, listed in the box to the right, provide alternative means of demonstrating notability in certain situations, and present special cases where further criteria beyond the GNG must be also be satisfied to demonstrate that a topic is notable.

This captures: the GNG is first and foremost; the SNGs are special situations; and some SNGs are more strict than the GNG. That keeps this relationships between N, GNG, and the SNGs in play. --MASEM (t) 16:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. North8000 (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Broadly, I like this second version more than the one near the top of this talk thread. I think it's important to set GNG "above" the SNGs. If there were a way that would have community consensus to say even more strongly that the SNGs are merely conveniences and not ends in themselves, I'd prefer that even more, but I don't expect that to happen. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I see no problem adding a section to WP:N later to talk/remind people about the SNGs (and thus finally a place where we can define the term as I think WP:SNG goes nowhere), and explain they are meant as temporarily allowances in lieu of immediately available secondary sources, and that such SNGs should be only elevated to a guideline after being vetted at the global consensus scale. --MASEM (t) 20:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe we had an RfC on this exact relationship a year ago or so. I _think_ folks generally believed that if the GNG was met, we should in general allow an article subject to a reasonable bit of common sense. I really don't see the need to narrow our scope to raise the bar above the GNG. I'd actually like to see it lower in some cases (academics and fiction being two places where I think there are plenty of RSes that might not meet the independent, third-party qualifications) and acknowledge it may need to be higher in others (we don't need coverage of every basketball game ever played). Hobit (talk) 14:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The idea of adding the GNG to most of the SNGs was floated somewhere above. I think this would make explicit that the SNGs should not be interpreted too strictly. (Is that what you are concerned about? Want to be sure that the coffee has kicked in and I can actually read.) Danger (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

When the new ATH was being developed, the creators there had problems that WP:N did not disaude the use of local sources to limit coverage of athletes known only at a local level (eg high school or ametuers), thus having to include specific advice that while these may met the GNG as currently given, they aren't appropriate. I tried to correct that by introducing the idea of a work's focus; a highly focused work - whether on subject, geography, whatever - would be less likely an independent source (and thus improper to use for notability claims) because its purpose is to highlight that focus, not necessarily a conflict of interest but enough to make it biased. This idea didn't gain traction but I suspect if we can introduce language here to talk about the scope of sources when it comes to notability, we would not need SNGs that have more stricter requirements than the GNG because we'd be covering those here on WP:N. This is not an easy switch to do as we have to be clean on the language, but this would remove the idea that the SNG could be stricter than the GNG. However, until we can, we have to accept that some SNGs have chosen to be stricter for the betterment of the entire work and work from there. --MASEM (t) 15:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd really hate to start loosing even more material (academic, hobby etc.) because it only sees coverage in specialized sources. By that argument we'd never cover a large amount of history (only history books, sometimes very specialized history books), science (again coverage is generally not found in the MSM), and even the arts (same again). There may be a wording that does what you want, but finding something that doesn't nuke half the things that 80% of us would agree we _should_ cover seems hard. Hobit (talk) 16:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Which I agree with - it's a barrier that works for some fields but not others. Which is why I'd rather admit that some fields may require may be more restrictive on the GNG - whether by clarification of acceptable sources or other criteria - than to try to cover every field and start excluding far too much. --MASEM (t) 16:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

That's precisely why I think that SNGs need to be more widely used, and generally in a restrictive fashion. It wouldn't surprise me at all to find that only a trivial number of sources could be found on some ancient historical figures. Telling me that an album track that was mentioned in passing in few reviews is notable when a successful single generally has thousands of sources flies against common sense, though. Discounting a local newspaper's review of a local lounge singer or bar equally makes sense, but that certainly doesn't mean that local newspapers are useless as sources. A literal application of the GNG would allow me to write an article on nearly every residential property in the United States, and I don't think even the most ardent inclusionist would think of that as a good thing.—Kww(talk) 16:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

This is why the GNG includes the clause "significant converage". I agree though that in certain cases the SNGs should be more limited than the GNG. NSONG was mentioned specifically above as one of those cases. --Danger (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Case in point, the current proposed video game notability says that random awards aren't sufficient for notability, because while there are reliable sources like IGN that give out awards and serious ones at that, they also give out silly awards and it's difficult to prescribe language that separates those cases. So yes, I'd rather have SNGs, as necessary, be more restrictive than the GNG instead of trying to strengthen the GNG to cover all cases. --MASEM (t) 17:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Another couple of cases in point:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freakum Dress (3rd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suga Mama (2nd nomination), where I had fellow admins accuse me of disruptive editing for trying to apply WP:NSONGS to material that was barely mentioned in reviews of the parent album.—Kww(talk) 17:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Old RFC

Wasn't this discussed at length at RFC:compromise from August 2008 - March 2009? Although I don't see where it was ever formally closed and still carries a "an analysis is underway" tag. I think that RFC is what Hobit mentions above in their post.

I have always felt that the core notability applies and then becomes subject to, well, subject specific guidelines which, overall, can very well be more strict. In regards to the old discussion the core quesiton seemed to be if there was a spin off article from a core article what should "oversee" the subject matter. That would apply to lists as well as they are considered "articles" as well - which would bring it all back to the overall discussion I think. A list could create it's own set of guidlines via whatever the parent was. By example Guitar is a notable subject. A spin off article about Acoustic guitar should somewhat follow that is is notable, but also start to form a more "subject specific" guideline - that of "acoustic" only guitars. And that, in itself, creates more sub-articles that become even more specific. Such as Classical guitar and Acoustic bass guitar. And any sort of "list of" article would, logically, fall under that "notability" but could impose it's own set of criteria for inclusion. The List of lead guitarists sets up the criteria as a list of significant lead guitarists, arranged in ascending alphabetical order of their last name. The notability factor is not as clearly defined as it is in List of rhythm guitarists which states to "add names here if the person has his own article on Wikipedia." I know some will say such list is not the same as a SNG however if Wikipedia:Notability (music) is considered one it would oversee all of those rhythm guitarists with their "own article on Wikipedia" and allow the subject of "List of" to indicate that not only does any person included on that list be a "rhythm" guitarist they must also have an article on Wikipedia - neither of which are part of the wider notability guidelines or even the more narrow "subject specific" music guideline.

I guess, in short, I am saying that "notability" sets the bar for inclusion in Wikipedia itself. For a spin off, part of that "notability" is to "verify" that the information in several ways. The most obvious would be looking at the "parent" article. Can you verify that, for example, that Gilby Clarke is "notable" enough to be part of the List of rhythm guitarists? Based on the fact they are a guitarist, was a rhythm guitarist, and has their own article on Wikipedia they meet the notability requirement for the list article as laid out at that list. If you ignore the parent article than certainly simply being someone who plays a guitar (of any kind) does not meet the wider notability, and may not even meet the more narrow "subject specific" guideline but may meet the "notability" of some article that is even more narrowly defined. (i.e - the List of lead guitarists contains an entry for Mikis Cupas, who is the guitarist for Wilki. They do not have their own article so, on their own, they do not seem to meet wider notability guidelines, yet do meet the notability requirements of the "list" article.) I think Blueboar makes a valid point that we have several policy/guideline pages that discuss different aspects of what makes an article acceptable or unacceptable. What we don't have is a single policy/guideline page that sums all these aspects up and explains how they interact.

I also understand there is a difference from a stand alone article and inclusion *in* a stand alone article however at some point the "notability' idea should cross over. The A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right wording is fine, however "the box on the right" is not really a full overview in what Blueboar suggests - a single location that breaks the interaction/s down. Just backtracking one moment - on its own a List of rhythm guitarists is not really notable because it is, on its own, unsourced. List of Mainstream Top 40 number-one hits of 1992 (U.S.) could be seen a meeting notability requirements because it is sourced to Billboard (magazine). But it also stems from several spin-off articles: Billboard Hot 100 begat Hot Singles Sales which begat Mainstream Top 40 (Pop Songs) which begat List of number-one Top 40 Mainstream hits which begat List of Mainstream Top 40 number-one hits of 1992 (U.S.). I think the wider issue is when the notabiltiy chain is not so obvious. Which I believe was the point of the RFC:compromise to a large degree. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's not dig too far down into spinout articles which is what that RFC started. In this discussion, the important "topics" from the RFC are the B.#s. There's no conclusion, yes, but based on !votes, its clear that we want SNGs but they shouldn't fall far from the GNG tree. Again, the idea that an SNG can either be more strict on the GNG seems acceptable, and that an SNG providing a short-term GNG alternative seems acceptable. --MASEM (t) 17:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I was in favor of the idea that "SNGs can outline sources that assert notability", which was B.2 in that discussion. I know wording has changed since 2008 in some regards but overall I still feel that same. An SNG can be more strict, and I think in many ways it needs to be. I have pointed out in various discussions that what would work for, say, a book might not work for an album and what work for an album might not work for a singer. At that point though I think maybe it does need to be made more clear that any SNG should not be out of line with the GNG. I know I have been (as have you) involved in image discussions where the same sort of concept applies - there is a core policy, it is broken down via a guideline, and than certain "projects" often create their own set of guidelines - the problem is when those special interest groups (as I call them) start forming their own consensus about what is acceptable that is not in line with the core policy. That is why I think the path from Policy to guideline to specific subject guideline, and yes, a more specific guideline all really need to follow the same path, but also be clear that Policy always overrides a guideline, and that a GNG should also override any SNG that is out of line with the "parent", if you will. Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I think in general SNGs should be stricter, but can note ways that can be used a temporary subsistutes for the GNG - ie items which if brought up to an AfD a short time after the article is created could pass, but subsequent AfDs (assuming good faith noms that give adequete time between them) would be harder pressed to allow that "temporary" criteria to keep the article. That, imo is a good balance as it goes along with the concepts described in WP:PRESERVE and WP:IMPERFECT while not giving a way to truly bypass the GNG forever.陣内_Jinnai 23:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of perspective I really have always liked the way Wikipedia:Notability (books) breaks it down right at the very beginning that These guidelines may be considered a specialized version of Wikipedia:Notability, applied to books, reflecting the core Wikipedia policies, including the following: and lists the core policies. And than explicitly states that Claims of notability must adhere to Wikipedia's policy on verifiability; it is not enough to simply assert that a book meets a criterion without substantiating that claim with reliable sources. I have never felt that Wikipedia:Notability (music), for example, lays that out as clear. For example note that the GNG states that 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 or stand-alone list whereas for music related articles a subject need not meet that requirement as a music related subject need only meet at least one of the following criteria - number one of these optional requirements is that the subject Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.

I am sure at the time it was created the presumption was that if an articles subject, for example, won a Grammy there would be enough "core Wikipedia policies" to back up an article thus there would be enough "significant coverage in reliable sources", however there have been articles whose subjects, per policy or GNG alone, would fail. I have seen, and been part of, deletion discussions where lack of "significant coverage in reliable sources" is brought up and consensus says, in essence, it is not a requirement for music. It is cases such as that where I feel some of the SNG's fail because they do not fully adhere to the GNG. Someone way up said maybe a template that was consistent across all the SNG's might be good and I would agree to that if it was reflective of the GNG the way Wikipedia:Notability (books) and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) are. So, yes, SNGs should be stricter than the GNG - not looser. Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• No, I think the previous RfC in question was more recent: Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 47#Do subject-specific guidelines override the GNG. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The judgement statement

(going from WhatamIdoing's comment above on 28 Feb 16:13) I don't disagree with the idea behind the statement that notability/article meriting is a judgement call (here's the diff: [2]), but that's basically intrinsic when we call this a guideline to start with. The specific advice, such as NOT limiting more, would be best at this other page we're talking about,one that describes all the criteria for an acceptable article. There I can see judgement calls to be more important towards the article inclusion idea. --MASEM (t) 16:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, leaving out mention of judgment could be seen to provide green-light for absolutist wiki-lawyering. I also think that the "use editorial judgment" is implied, but I don't think we lose anything by making a short statement about this explicitly. It may also help smooth things over for new editors who may see policies/guidelines as absolute. (IAR/rule by consensus isn't exactly the first concept one encounters here.) Danger (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this does not need to be specifically stated. A basic principle, much more basic that WP:N, is that all the rules in t/w are to applying with common sense and good judgement (one of the statements of this is of courser IAR; another is NOT BURO. Yet another is the explicit statement at WP:N that this is meant to be a general rule only. sometimes people apply things in too rigid and literal a fashion, but no rewording of the rule is going to stop them. I do not agree with all the parts of WP:N, but this general idea is something we already have well enough DGG ( talk ) 03:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out NOTBURO. There is some HUGE stuff in there that I had not noticed before and I'll bet most editors don't know exists. Basically that following the principle / intent of the rule trumps wiki-lawyering of it. Maybe more rifled/useful/easily used than the nuke IAR. North8000 (talk) 04:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

That could possibly be linked to the welcoming statement for new accounts and possibly updating WP:FAQ to deal with such issues (or making a separate FAQ).陣内_Jinnai 09:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It certainly needs to be unhidden. North8000 (talk) 12:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Why i there is confusion

Notability means whether we can justify a separate article. As currently used, it has no meaning in any terms outside Wikipedia. There are three factors: one , which can in principle be determined objectively, is whether there is sufficient information. The second, which is a matter of established convention which may or may not have an objective determination, is whether or not we want to have certain types of articles. The third, which is almost entirely a pure matter of opinion, is the level of coverage we wish to have.

The need for sufficient information is absolute basic, and nobody disagrees with it, to the extent that it is a basic policy, Verifiability. If there are no sources good enough to write an article from, we cannot write an article. So far that sounds objective, but it is less so in application. We can argue whether the sources are good enough, and we sometime argue this with the intent of including or excluding particular items or types of item by using different standards.For example, we usually are slightly more flexible with respect to websites than for BLP, but if we were determined to keep website coverage to a minimum, we could hold the sources to the same high standards, whereas if we wanted to be inclusive for websites, we could accept considerably lower standards than we do. Those who wish to remove a particular article, generally attack its sources--often with good reason, for that's commonly the weakest element. Within an article, those pushing a particular POV almost always attack the sources of their opponents--and there is often something to attack, for those with a POV tend to use whatever sources may tend to prove their point without much regard for quality. We sometimes call "good enough standards" reliable sources, but there are no sources at all that are reliable in every circumstance. A person's official web site is good enough to show where he got his education, but not for determining his standing among his peers. Old medical sources are good enough for determining the historical use of a treatment, but not the present day therapy. Publications of a political organization that show clear bias are good enough for showing the public views of that organization, but not the actual views of their opponents; they are not even good enough for proving the actual aims of the organization, or the extent of its activities. Our guideline though based on good principles is written in an unrealistically rigid manner, and has to be applied with the realization that there are no statements in it that do not have multiple exceptions. Perhaps it needs to be written in a rigid manner to keep unsophisticated of POV editors from using the wrong sort of sources entirely, but the formal rules are not enough to resolve many disputed cases. Fortunately, the Reliable sources noticeboard and other places where we decide on specific cases have usually given sensible and consistent decisions.

the second factor is the inclusion or not of certain categories. We exclude purely dictionary information. We exclude material that is in violation of copyright and not a matter of fair use. We exclude gossip. We exclude speculation about the future. We exclude pure plot summary. We exclude negative information about living private individuals that will do the harm and is not widespread public knowledge. We are not a medum for publicity, or indiscriminate catalog information. These are the policies at W:NOTNOT, and they have various degrees of acceptance. Some of them are not really as well accepted as others--plot summaries for example, is more like a guideline. Do No Harm has become basic policy. The basic principle of observing copyright are basic policy: the extent to which we employ fair use is somewhat disputed. There is no clear distinction sometimes between essential information and publicity: our articles are inherently capable of giving publicity. Sometimes people try to stretch these rules to accommodate particular interests or show certain biases. We have no clear way of dealing with this except the vagaries of erratic decision making article by article. Worse, sometimes they try to openly of covertly rewrite the rules for that purpose. Sometimes they succeed, and it is hard to balance between the need for change, and the stability to resist manipulation

the third factor is the the desired inclusiveness of the encyclopedia in general, and in specific areas. The guideline says notability is not, importance, but I think that nonsense and a denial of the plain meaning of the words.. If something is important in the world, we should cover it, subject to our other rules--and I do not think anyone actually disagrees with this, though they may say otherwise. That we might cover things not generally important is certainly true, but they will always be important within their context. We have a limiting factor: we almost all accept the principle of not being a directory, and having some degree of selectivity. We could have a good web directory without this principle, but it would not be an encyclopedia. Short of that, we can set the level wherever we choose--we are Not Paper, and the only limitation of size is people to write and maintain the articles--a very real limitation in many areas. In some specific areas we have specific guidelines, and to my mind they always necessarily supersede whatever more general guidelines for significance we may have, both in a positive and a negative direction, unless for some particular reason we specifically say otherwise. In the absence of specific guidelines, we have the General guideline of substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources --and here comes the real confusion, for we use reliable source in a different and more restrictive sense than for WP:V. We mean in effect sources that show the notability or importance, not just those which will demonstrate basic facts or give information to write an article. I consider this rule the rule of last resort, for how to handle things we cannot decide on otherwise. If we promote it to a higher status, we find it useless--sometimes it includes things we do not really want to include--such as all books that have gotten two review articles or all local restaurant with two reviews or all high school football players -- in which case the rules we actually use to restrict coverage are different, or excludes things we really want to include, like geographic places, in which case we ignore it.

Excuse the length, but I consider this a suitable place to explain my position, and why almost all of the prior discussion ignores the obvious facts of what we actually do or do not include. I'll expand it into an essay, with some more examples. DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Masem apparently does not agree with your first sentence, and it is the disagreement over that sentence that is, in the end, the problem here.

I believe that most editors agree with you, but apparently others believe that wiki-notability is dictionary-definition notability, or that wiki-notability is merely your first point, rather than all three.

I do not know how to resolve this dispute. I do not believe it likely that Masem will change his mind to agree with you, and I do not think it likely that the community will change its mind to agree with Masem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm of the opinion that calling this guideline "notability" is misleading, confusing, and maybe even a little insulting (even if I think people shouldn't take it personally if they're interested in something that's "not notable"). DGG is right that it's about whether we can write an about a topic in a way that is reliable (verifiable) and neutral (independent of the topic's source). I would personally support renaming this guideline to get this point across. Because we almost always run into huge fights whenever someone brings in their subjective ideas of importance from outside the encyclopedia. (It's not to say that subjectivity is prohibited on Wikipedia, but it's one of those WP:IAR things, not something that we should build into important guidelines.) Shooterwalker (talk) 02:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it is that people want to cling to a single word definition and that their is the natural resistance to change. I don't considering this guideline's contention, think its too late for a radical name change in order to distance itself from dictonary encyclopedia if that's what people want, but it needs to be done through a phrase, like WP:Criteria for Encyclopedic articles similar to how we have phrases for WP:What Wikipedia is not陣内_Jinnai 03:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe we're all speaking the same thing, but it's semantics getting in the way. We all agree that a necessary but not sufficient requirement for having a stand alone article is demonstration of notability, nominally through the GNG. There are several other policies and guidelines that can make a notable topic inappropriate for an article. The problem is that this guideline page named "WP:Notability" is trying to a lot and at the same time not enough. It has come to be considered the only guideline for when an article gets a page, but in actually it still is part of several gates that an article must meet.

The best solution to resolve 90% of these issues is to create a guideline like Jinnai said that lists out every gate from guidelines and policy that would prevent an article from being created or to be sent off to deletion. That page should then hopefully become the predominate argument at AFD (moving arguments from "this topic isn't notable" to "this topic doesn't meet #1 of our inclusion guidelines, being notable"). Then this page, being called "WP:Notability" suddenly retains its original intent, a gate based on the dictionary concept of notability, objectively realized by secondary source coverage. There's no fundamental change to how AFD works, etc., but simply clarity of what this guideline means. --MASEM (t) 03:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Your heart is in the right place but I don't think that clarifies very much. It shows that notability isn't the only test for what's an appropriate article, but it does nothing to get people to stop obsessing over subjective feelings of worth and start focusing on sources. If we're going to keep a notability guideline around just so people can demonstrate notability without sources... we may as well take what we call the "general notability guideline" and spin it out into a new guideline more accurately named "independent sources", and see if it's tenable to keep a notability guideline that only says "articles should be worthy of notice". Shooterwalker (talk) 05:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

"WP:Notability" has two parts, the GNG, and the reference to the SNGs; all require sourcing, but some more or less than others. There is still a need for calling it as such. --MASEM (t) 05:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

That said, I can see adding language here that says "Notability can be highly subjective. For purposes of Wikipedia, topics should show evidence of notability through external sources, either as identified by the GNG, or through SNGs", making it clear notability for WP is always about evidence of such. --MASEM (t) 05:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Related to all this confusion, it seems to me that two distinctly different types of SNGs exist -- and there is a need for both types. The two types are: (1) SNGs that restrict the application of the GNG -- in that they describe additional attributes beyond the GNG that must be met for a particular type of topic to be eligible for an independent article -- and (2) SNGs that sometimes are broader than the GNG -- in that they describe characteristics that identify a topic as notable (i.e., eligible for an independent article in Wikipedia) even if it is not (yet) demonstrated that the criteria of the GNG are satisfied. The first type of SNG is typically created for topics that are deemed inappropriate for inclusion (generally due to considerations of WP:NOT) although they may have received thorough third-party coverage. Examples of topics that often are excluded as a result of this type of SNG include high school athletes, other local celebrities, many businesses, and most WP:ONEEVENT situations -- topics that receive lots of coverage as news, as a result of public relations efforts, or because of a "human interest" angle. The second type of SNG is related to the much-maligned topic of "inherent notability" -- it applies to topics that "common sense" indicates should be notable, but for which in-depth third-party coverage may be scarce (although there is sufficient verifiable content to create at least a minimal stub article). Examples of this type of topic include legitimate universities, populated human settlements, and prominent scientists (their work may be widely and thoroughly documented, but their biographies often are not). Unfortunately, it generally has not been made clear which SNGs are of the first type and which are of the second type. For example, is WP:ATHLETE a type 2 SNG that means that every athlete who ever was a professional for one day or more is eligible for an independent article, or is it a type 1 SNG intended primarily to restrict the scope of the GNG as it applies to athletes? --Orlady (talk) 05:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Every so often a proposal is made to add a parallel Wikipedia:What the Wikipedia is policy to the Wikipedia:What the Wikipedia is not policy. Of course, a past consensus not to do this does not bind the present or future, but let's review why the past consensus on this came to be and why it remains the right choice at present. Wikipedia is more than topic choices, it is content. WP:N is a guideline limited to bring some consensus to a process that cannot be either every topic gets an article or no topic gets an article. Whether some given text, photo, or data adds to knowledge and finds a home in some article in the Wikipedia is another matter. patsw (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• I think Orlady has somewhat mirrored what I had said above. And I think this is overall a real issue. To me the "process" should be Policy > GNG > SNG (And even more specific SNG's as needed). What seems to happen many times is the GNG gets skipped and someone goes to a SNG and simply uses that, alone. If the SNG doesn't fully follow Policy, and ignored some of the GNG, than "Houston we have a problem". Patsw brings up a great point with the Wikipedia:What the Wikipedia is not policy - this ties into spin offs, such as list articles, which if done per the "process" I feel should be followed, should have no issues. However if it is done on its own, without any real consideration for the GNG, or even a SNG, it can end up ignoring overall policy, such as Wikipedia:What the Wikipedia is not. The notability issue overall I don't think will ever be solved to everyone taste because, as many have pointed out, "Notable" in the real world =/= notable in Wikipedia automatically. On the other hand the reverse can also be seen as true - an article on a subject would presumably mean the subject meets the policies, GNG and SNG on Wikipedia but in the real world (And I mean "world", not "your neck of the woods") is not notable. Part of the issue is that Wikipedia does not really require article to be reflective of the "world", it can very well be an article about something "in your neck of the woods". (I know when using {{Globalize}} I have been asked/told variations of "Who cares? This is an encyclopedia, it covers all views") In those cases the "I've never heard of it", "I've hear of it" and "other stuff exists" arguments are inevitable, and I think it is because of that fact there must be a very clear and explicit path from Policy > GNG > SNG > more specific SNG if need be, that must be followed. DGG also said it - along with policy it is clear We are not a medium for publicity, or indiscriminate catalog information but yet there are well fleshed out articles and spin off articles from those that are just that - and they seem above being touched because they meet one criteria at some SNG while ignoring the overall GNG and even policy. I am in full favor of having a standard "notice" about requirements that is placed where ever the issue of notability is touched on - along the lines of what Masem has said - but with a underlying, clearly worded: that the principal of all of this is that SNG's should actually be more strict than the GNG, not less strict. If a "core Wikipedia policies" are clear, if the GNG requires that the subject of an article "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" than any SNG should not imply that those elements are not needed. Jinnai seemed to echo that further up as well. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to factor WP:N by making WP:GNG a separate guideline

I see a problem in WP:N (I find it confusing and think others are confused) by defining notability as "worthy of notice", and also including one specific guideline, WP:GNG.  I believe that the GNG and each of the SNGs are guidelines to help with determining "worthy of notice".  I think that for clarity in this regard, the GNG should be in a separate guideline, Wikipedia:General notability guideline.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see much value in this unless we actually rename the general notability guideline to something more description and neutral, like "independent sources" or "how to verify notability". Otherwise we're still stuck with the same problem, that people throw in their subjective views of what's worthy of notice or not. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Renaming can be done to the WP:GNG section whether or not the material is moved to a separate guideline.  I'm not aware that we are discussing subjectivity.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good solution. As long as it's clear that notability is evaluated by using either the GNG or SNGs then we're fine. --MASEM (t) 22:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if you can explain why the GNG is in the WP:N article, and the SNGs are separate.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 01:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Because the SNGs are much longer and consider several topic-specific factors while N and GNG are highly generic. Stacking all these into one single guideline would be far too long. --MASEM (t) 14:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Opposed. When GNG is satisfied, that's a compelling argument favoring inclusion of a topic in Wikipedia. When GNG is not, or a more precisely cannot be satisfied after a diligent effort is made to do so, that's a compelling argument against inclusion of a topic in Wikipedia. However, cases to the contrary of both types occur often enough that make the proposed upgrade of GNG a break with past practice, and which today, doesn't seem warranted by either articles which should be included are not, or articles which should not be included are. I am not accepting the "it is confusing" claim. Also, What does "factor" mean in the context of the proposal? patsw (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • It's like "re-factoring" a comment on a talk page: In particular, Unscintillating proposes to divide the current page across two pages (one of which is the part of notability that deals with sources [i.e., GNG] and one of which is everything else). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Patsw: I pretty much agree with what you are saying, but I think what you are saying is that being "worthy of notice" is a reason for inclusion even when the guidelines are not satisfied, and not being "worthy of notice" a reason for exclusion even when a guideline is satisfied.  Yes, by factor I just mean organizing of concepts.  I'm lost as to how moving the WP:GNG section to a separate page is an "upgrade".  Unscintillating (talk) 01:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Opposed: I look at the GNG as the first step - it is the required first step in any, and all, notability claims. While I am generally against simple "in a nutshell" summary's the one here works: those that have been "noticed" to a significant degree by independent sources, that backs up the GNG which explicitly defines the terms. The specific line you refer to, Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice", in the overall context of how this is all laid out reads fine. On the other hand - is your suggestion more about the possibility that the GNG, on it's own, be moved from a guideline and made into an actual policy? Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

GNG is not a required first step. Conformance to the notability guideline is the requirement and GNG is a means to demonstrate notability. patsw (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below and is not excluded by WP:NOT thus: 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 or stand-alone list. ← this has been the consensus for most every single article as a "first step" in aiding to establish notability. Now if you read what I said up above the *policy* is step one - just as this *guideline* says at the start: For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons. Policy > GNG > SNG. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Draft of Stand-alone Article guideline

Based on the ideas earlier in this conversation, I've drafted an idea of what I've been thinking for a more over-arching guideline on the idea of stand-alone articles that places notability first but identifies the other guidelines or policies that must be met for stand-alone articles. I am not married to any language, only the approach I've used.

The draft is at User:Masem/Stand Alone Articles. --MASEM (t) 02:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I think what you are getting at here is only incidentally connected to determining what topics should become standalone Wikipedia articles. It seems more about what goes into a new article that meets all guidelines and policies. Your draft could be better integrated into the Wikipedia in Wikipedia:Starting an article which covers much of the same ground using the "help/how-to" writing style. patsw (talk) 03:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with both of you, and I don't see this as either/or. I read Masem's draft, and I think that it is very helpful in speaking to some of the areas of confusion that have been discussed here. I also agree that it is of particular usefulness to new users. One approach might be to integrate it into Starting an article, while another approach might simply be to link to it from there. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I certainly won't argue it being useful for new editors or to editors when creating an article. But like it was discussed above, I want to have something that can be pointed at by other policies or from AFD to say "Ok, this article, having existed for a while now, meets GNG and NOT but fails this point and thus is not a good stand-alone topic", something to be used by experience editors. The question is: how do we get there? --MASEM (t) 17:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC0

Masterful work, but I think that it has a structural problem It covers more than criteria for existence of an article, it covers some criteria for existence of article content. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I realize there are some content guidelines in there, but it is important that all content of an article must meet those guidelines; if the article only contains content that fails those, despite if it somehow passes notability, we wouldn't allow the article. But you'll notice they are low on the list. WP:N (strictly inclusion), WP:NOT (inclusion and content) lead this list. --MASEM (t) 23:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I like this draft, it is more intuitive to a reader to read about when stand alone artilces are allowed, and see that notability is a major point (but not the only one). I would do as Masem has done, a page on ""Starting a new article" is more a "how-to" and should sum up the criteria, but it would need to cover too much to be a focused guideline on this point. After some polishing, I'd endorse Masem's work. It looks a good way to go. Will take a look and see if it can be improved. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The guidance at WP:N/N introduction could be useful? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Notability by acclamation

I nominated particle for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Particle because there were no sources I could see that supported the wide range of topics in. It looks like it will be kept though, I think this raises an important point. Lots of people have asserted it is a very notable topic and said strong keep without actuially giving a citation for the whole business except an extension of an dictionary entry for particle. Should things like this be considered a case of 'occasional exceptions apply' where a lot of editors consider there should be an article on something even if there aren't good sources for the overall topic? I noticed World is quite similar in what's in it and there's probably a lot of others too. Dmcq (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

there are good sources for every aspect of the material covered in particle, and world. There may be no single source that covers exactly the topicsin the same way, but this is true of all general summary articles. Perhaps you made this nomination to prove my point above, that the GNG is nonsense. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I made the deletion in good faith and I don't care for personal attacks thank you. I have never done anything just to prove a point. I believe editors should not make up topics and that's that. If there is no source that covers the general area of a topic then it fails notability. That's what WP:Notability says 'On Wikipedia, notability determines whether a topic merits its own article. Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article.' And personally I don't believe there should have been an article, I believe it should have been left as a disambiguation page and that would have helped people find what they wanted faster. As to the only thing which could be produced eventually to cover even part of the project it was a web page on particulate matter. I believe an article on particulate matter would be quite reasonable, however this article mixes in elementary particles and stars as particles as well a plus a bit of theoretical particles. I'm not saying the individual bits don't have citations, I'm saying the overall topic is made up and does not pass this policy in any straightforward manner. It has been passed by acclamation of notability. It has now passed AfD so we have to deal with the implications. World looks very similar and I guess it would pass too at that rate. Policy Guidelines and policies describe what is done but this policy guideline differs from what has been done. Dmcq (talk) 11:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I see this is a guideline not a policy so it can be treated less strictly. I guess that could be used as a reason, the AfD has tested the notability and the article is an exception. Dmcq (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I regret not having participated in the afd debate, but what is worth mentioning here, to apply to similar articles in the future, is that Particle passes WT:N as the guideline is written. I see a desire on part of the delete voters to have read into our actual requirement here for relevant third party sources, that there also be some sort of broadness/narrowness calibration.

There isn't a good Wikipedia article for every word in the dictionary, but I believe that many words which don't have Wikipedia articles now, could have them in the future. I would be happy to see them. patsw (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no source for the topic as opposed to individual uses of the word. I am not contesting the existence of the article now because it has been passed by AfD fair and square and look at AfD is a way to determine what is acceptable to editors and should be in the guideline. If you think there is a source for the general topic then try and go and find one. Even the dictionary definition doesn't include stars and atoms and grains of sands and colloids by any stretch of the imagination, you need a source that covers a reasonable variety of these to say you have a source on the topic. No source was found on the general topic as opposed to the individual sections, sticking it together was original research. Dmcq (talk) 17:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

There are a few articles which cover a term that has different meanings in independent fields, all connected by one common over-arching meaning that reflects all of them. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Common circumstances

The guideline has some sections explaining how notability works for specific common circumstances. For example about half of "not temporary" is actually a summary of how notability works for events.

I've grouped those together to distinguish the sections describing notability itself (not temporary, requires evidence, does not limit content) from sections covering specific common cases (promotional/indiscriminate sources, events, stand-alone lists), and grouped the latter together in a section. This also let the text be simplified in a few places. I think it flows better.

I made one addition, that in some cases (such as a controversial book or song) the book or song (object) may not be notable but the controversy (event) is notable. It seemed worth noting.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Games Biographies and people in categories

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Board_and_table_games#Biographies and people in categories

I am hoping to build guidelines for notability criteria for what makes someone notable in the games field i.e. Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Curling. Especially games players that I feel needs to have a section similar to the sports and athletes. An example of a question that has just arisen is does winning the first scrabble world championship count as just WP:Oneevent. Combined contribution issues also need defining.

The other conversation is do we want to have category inclusion criteria does a certain threshold need to be met before we add someone to Category:Chess players. Should Ben Afleck count as a poker player?Tetron76 (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

This to me is a problem with the whole NSPORTS guideline, as each respective sporting area wants to carve out their own areas, and of course as you point out, this should also apply to non-athletic competitions as well. I don't mind considering across-the-board wide allowances but NSPORT carves out far too much for this.

As for categories, if we're trying to distinguish between people that are known to play chess, and those that are considered in the "chess" competitive circuit, there likely should be a second category to describe that. A category of "chess players" seems perfectly reasonable, and using notability to limit that would be a bad thing, but creating a more discriminate category would be good. --MASEM (t) 15:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

What I was wanting to address is an imbalance that can occur in wikipedia profiles through not dealing with situations where there are one line mentions in newspapers saying something like "and the event was won by two time world champion John Smith." or "co-authored with John Smith probably the top expert in board games in France." but this doesn't pass wikipedia notability.

What can happen in board and card games is that it is possible for an ordinary person to participate in a competition and for this ordinary person to be the feature of the article with only a passsing mention of the elite player. The only sporting events that would compare to this would be the marathon where the guy in the Rhino suit is being interviewed as they run but having no chance of winning. What I would like to see is the ability to have a consensus that there are RS saying that this event is important and winning it is a notable event. Then being able to have consenus to use the official governing body's website for Verfiability and treat the event in a similar way to someone who has won an award in say the creative field.

While there is the argument that winning the event can be reported on the individual page what happens is that there are occasions where someone has accomplishments in many different areas and it is desirable to show that this is the same person. Another common situation for games is that the person has written a game book, for a non self-published book it normally requires a high level of achievement in a game but without the publisher's introduction counting as a RS. I am merely trying to clarify wikipedia policy for games when there are terms such as major, sportsperson and creative all of which mean different things to different people. There are bodies with 10 millions of registered members whose website aren't regarded as RS and then you get lists whose purpose isn't made clear Talk:List_of_world_championships#Chess_World_championship .Tetron76 (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It really comes down to figuring out what is really worth reporting and what the best location to report it is. If a notable person happens to win an obscure sport/game tournament, that factoid might (or might not) be worth a brief mention in the notable person's bio article... but it does not justify a stand alone article on the obscure tournament (notability is not inherited). If an obscure person wins a notable tournament, the person might be mentioned in passing along with other winners in the article on the notable tournament, but it does not necessarily justify having an article on the obscure person (per oneevent). Blueboar (talk) 17:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree a lot with this sentiment, but there are issues as to whether guidelines are needed as it is not clear whether a source in a journal dedicated to a particular topic counts as primary for anyone involved in that topic. I was wanting something along the following guidelines:

• Original definition of Grandmaster was for anyone who won 2 major international tournaments

I think by defining a major tournament as one that is not restrictive such as U16 and notable through more than one RS independent of the field (such as a national newspaper) directly describing the event. Without such there will be differences as to when the WP:Athlete apply. The World Mind Sports Games would be such an event where not all the events should be automatically notable but the event as a whole large coverage.

• Grandmaster Chess, Xiangqi or 9P (9 Dan Professional) Go (game)

The most established games with clear ability needed to achieve the rank

• Or Combination of say three significant contributions: (Hall of fame, World Records, Move combination named after them, designer of a notable game, all time record holder, multiple short mentions as being an expert in newspapers...)

There is certainly a point where a group of contribution makes someone notable but without an indepedent body giving awards there comes a point where more than one's person expertise would be needed to connect the facts together. By having a threshold it means that an article can be built without having to establish all of the facts at once and when the name is common or a person marries or doesn't use the roman alphabet there can be issues as to some facts as to if it is the same person or and requires experts in the field.Tetron76 (talk) 13:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Intro and nutshell

Not sure what's happened to this, but the current version is poorly worded.

• Notable topics are those which have been noticed by the world at large as evidenced in reliable sources. Collapsing this to "have been noticed by independent sources" invites users to believe that verifiability means notability and not understand what we're really looking for evidence of - a common error
• "A topic is deemed appropriate..." - I don't know any experienced user who would say that it is this definite. It's often a matter of judgment
• "Notability determines whether a topic merits its own article" - plain incorrect or at best misleading
• Does not really explain how inclusion/exclusion is decided.

I've tried to refactor/redraft.

1. Nutshell now uses correct terms to explain what we're actually sifting for - "noticed by the world at large" (WP:N historical wording) and "enduring notice" (WP:NOT).
2. WP:NOT explained more intuitively ("...and are not excluded for other reasons")
3. Explains to the reader that editors discuss evidence of the notice, which can come from journals, books, awards etc - this is easy to understand and immediately puts WP:AFD into context and tells newcomers what we look for in a deletion discussion.
4. Correctly states that notability is a "test used" rather than a "determines whether"
5. Removes duplicate text from intro - description of GNG is given in nutshell, and GNG, no need to repeat a 3rd time in almost the same words, in just a few lines
6. Simplifies explanation of subject specific guidelines by describing them more accurately. They are editors' consensus of what will usually be considered evidence of notability in a given area, and hence save constant repeat similar discussions.

Hopefully an improvement

Diff.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm confident this is better. Lately the issue with notability is that people want to see it as a mechanical objective guideline, but it really comes down to this: "Have you provided sufficient objective evidence to demonstrate this topic is wikt:notable?" Where the GNG and the SNG fall into that, it doesn't matter much as understanding WP:N is to prevent people saying "I know this is a notable topic, trust me" and not provide a single source to show why. --MASEM (t) 16:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. I tried to make it more concise. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

and enduring

I have removed "and enduring" from the nutshell. Nothing requires a topic to have durability and this was not in the prior version of the nutshell. We are not deleting articles because what was noticed in 2005 is not noticed in 2011. patsw (talk) 03:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

But we do delete articles that are flash-in-the-pan events with no further discussion on the days after it occurs. Enduring may not be the best word but there is a time consideration here. --MASEM (t) 03:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

We most certainly do. For example: Christina Desforges died at the end of 2005 and was the primary subject of dozens of news articles in 2005 and 2006. The article was deleted in 2009, because the attention did not endure past one 'news cycle'. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That's because it fails WP:NOTNEWS; its a death. Shocking as it is, death is a routine occurrence in the world.陣内_Jinnai 05:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Yea, looking at the deleted version of that article, we're still talking here about having secondary-type coverage after the initial round of newsreports - whether the field that topic is in means 12 hrs later or 1 week later, it depends, but that is considered in deletion. Again, maybe there's a better word for "enduring" but in the nutshell, it is correct, as the time concept is explained later in the guideline. --MASEM (t) 13:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

According to the community, recent newspaper reports are secondary sources... using the special wikijargon definition of "secondary". The real world normally considers newspaper stories to be primary sources. In this instance, there are a small number of proper secondary sources, e.g. [3], but essentially, the article was deleted because the event, and the failed publicity campaign that was going to exploit it, was a flash in the pan, and is now ignored outside of specialty publications (e.g., discussing why you shouldn't plan a publicity campaign until you're absolutely sure that you've got the facts straight). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

NTEMP is guideline wording. NOT is policy. It's useful to go back to policy and basic principles on difficult cases like this. "Enduring" is the term in WP:NOT. Before "enduring notability" (2009: [4]) it used the term "historical notability" (2008: [5]) and somewhere in 2008-09 "enduring historicity". This is not a recent or temporary policy wording. WP:NOT is the source from which notability derives and as WP:N itself says, normally takes priority if there is a difference between WP:NOT and WP:GNG. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Enduring is fine. If someone has a better way to describe it... go ahead. But the spirit is correct. You need more than a burst of news coverage to belong in Wikipedia. Newspapers name drop constantly. You can't just hack together an article from those. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see my proposed change to the "enduring" wording in WP:NOT here WT:NOT#"Enduring" patsw (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Buildings

Is there a guide for Buildings ? Mtking (talk) 00:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

In general no; building notability should be shown through the GNG. Be aware that this likely means local sources wouldn't satisfy the GNG here - if there's a locally-known building but with no wider coverage outside of that, it likely won't be kept. --MASEM (t) 02:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• • What about Ramsay Hall ? Mtking (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Notability is not temporary... but notariety can be

I think we could do a better job of distinguishing between long term notability and temporary notoriety. This would help people to better understand how concepts like WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONEEVENT mesh with this guideline. Thoughts? Blueboar (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

More and more I am coming to like Masem's idea of a guideline on stand-alone articles - which would focus attention directly rather than indirectly on the issue.

A good example for discussion on the point you raise is at this AFD. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I think hacking out distinctions like this are just going to add to the confusion. Better to use plain english than to try to make a distinction between words that are basically synonyms. Part of the problem goes back to the fact that "notability" on Wikipedia doesn't just mean "notability" as it does in real life. The more plainly we can explain what it is the better. I'd gladly support renaming it "independent sources" or "third party sources" or something like that. I've been frequently asking people to WP:verify notability as a shortcut... because it really is about what the sources say about notability, not notability in the ordinary sense of the word. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

My concern is with clarifying a common misunderstanding of what we mean when we say "notability is not temporary". The phrase is frequently misunderstood. It is quite common for an event or a person to make a splash in the papers for a few days, but to have no lasting significance. That, to my mind, is notoriety, not "notability". Blueboar (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we just say something other than notability is not temporary? People sometimes take it to mean that once you establish notability in the short run, it lasts in the long run. What we mean is that it cuts both ways. Something with a burst of news coverage is not notable. Something with more than that is notable, and for all time. There's something to be said for the pithiness of "notability is not temporary" but it's pithy at expense of clarity. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is part of a bigger world of online media, as well as aggregated into Google News.
• If recourse to the dictionaries could resolve all the difficulties in editing Wikipedia, we have a lot more time for the rest of our lives. That's why WP:N doesn't devolve to Wiktionary:notability.
• Mere notoriety, equivalent to mere celebrity sometimes does create enough buzz in terms of secondary coverage by independent third party sources to satisfy the GNG and SNG tests in an objective sense. We're editing an encyclopedia, and not writing popular cultural criticism essays.
• I think Blueboar is onto something: I would endorse moving the text of WP:ONEVENT intact to WP:NOT. It comes up over and over again, to give it the weight of policy rather than being only a sub-guideline would be a big help. patsw (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that notoriety can evolve into notability (and into WP:NOTABILITY)... but that is not a given. Notability and notoriety are subtly different concepts. I think we need something in this guideline to help editors to understand the difference. Blueboar (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhpas one event does need to be policy, the other answer might be to simply say that Lasting notability is not temporery (it has to be demonstrated that the event has had a lsting and notable impact).Slatersteven (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree it's a distinction that needs to be made. But trying to mince meaning between "notoriety and notability" doesn't really clarify anything. Just explain that on Wikipedia, we're looking for "this" kind of coverage in sources, not "the other kind". Shooterwalker (talk) 22:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

May be remove it then, after all if something has lasting notability then it won't be tempoary. And if its not lasting its tempoary.Slatersteven (talk) 22:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Basically, the problem is this: If notability == sources, then notability cannot be temporary (unless you can somehow make all the sources cease to exist).

If notability means something more than "sources wrote about it"—say, notability == qualifies for a stand-alone article—then this discussion might be pointful, but there is a sizeable minority on this page that disagrees with this necessary precondition for "Notability is not temporary" to be anything other than nonsense. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to duplicate the discussion which is on-going at WT:NOT#"Enduring", but I propose new wording there to capture the sense of "notability not temporary" and "enduring notability" discussed here. patsw (talk) 00:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Roads

What's the general rule on these? Is there a notability guideline subsection documenting it? For example, consider B4632. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 19:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Have to meet the GNG. Your example fails completely. It can be listed in a table within a list of major roads within geographic area (as that's part of our gazetteer function) but shouldn't be an article. --MASEM (t) 19:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

GNG is not Notability. Notability is not GNG. GNG is evidence that the topic satisfies the guideline. Failing GNG, and challenged to show that a topic merits inclusion in the Wikipedia, you have produce some other persuasive argument for inclusion. patsw (talk) 03:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Notability in lists

Hundreds of lists of people have numerous redlinks where the article linked has been deleted because of lack of notability. Is there a rule stating what should be deleted and what should be kept on these lists - some redlinks are useful, of course, because they encourage articles about these people to be written -? An example would be the page Wilks where I deleted all the redlinks because they seemed non-notable (see [6]). Is this the right procedure? Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 15:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

If the lists have been built on the consensus that the inclusion for people in such lists include if they are notable, then yes, deleting redlinks and non-linked names is completely appropriate. If the list allows non-links or red-links, then they must be referenced to be part of that list (it is implicit that blue-linked names will have the appropriate reference within their articles). --MASEM (t) 16:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

What happens if the there is neither consensus one way or the other? Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 16:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, if there are no sources to support a non-link or red-linked person in a list, it needs to be deleted. --MASEM (t) 16:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info :-) Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 16:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Masem answers the question about red-links correctly. I disagree with him as to his last (parenthetical) point about blue-links. Far too often Blue-linked names don't have appropriate references at the linked article (or, at least, don't have references that appropriately justify their inclusion in the list). Thus, it is important to include appropriate citations in the list article itself... even for Blue-linked entries. Blueboar (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, again, I've seen people argue its implicit, but I fully support at least one RS per entry for even blue-linked names to assure WP:V is met. --MASEM (t) 16:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

While I agree with a RS being needed for inclusion on a list, not every item on a list will rise to a level of individual notability. You might have a list of presidents of a notable organization. Many of those presidents might be individually notable enough to warrant an article, but not all will be. You would still want to include those who aren't individually notable on the list or the list isn't complete. Similarly, you might have a list of buildings/songs/books/etc that compromise a specific defined group (The works of a specific author). Not every item will be notable, but the list might not be complete without inclusion of those items. Now, if it is a list of painters of the renaissance, then those lists generally require the painter to be individually notable to be included.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

True... although a list of presidents of a notable organization should probably be presented within the article on the organization, and not as a stand alone list article. (Size being a factor in that). Blueboar (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Depends on the list. Sometimes yes, but other times no. A lot of lists, particularly ones that want to be Featured Lists, will include more information than just the name. They sometimes include pertinent information related to the subject, so a separate list might be a better option. Long and short, you can't say that every item on a list needs to be independently notable. Sometimes you will have notable subjects, where non-notable entries might be be included. This often will provide an opportunity to include information on a subject that doesn't warrant a stand alone article. EG suppose you are dealing with List of recurring characters in The Simpsons. As far as I can tell, none of those characters has a stand alone article---and we definitely should not have individual articles on 95+ percent of them.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

We're focusing on specifically lists of people, because BLP applies to this. As to cases like lists of university presidents where not every one will be notable, there should be at least one reference for the whole list that lists out the presidents (such as from the university's own pages), so that would be sufficient to qualify. Basically, at minimum, I would expect that for each person in such lists, that either that person is bluelinked and a reference on their page affirms their membership, or if a red-linked or no-linked person, either a specific reference for that person or a general reference covering the whole list should be provided; if that is not there for red- or no-linked names, off they go. And to add to the earlier point it would be better if references for blue-links were on the list page themselves too but that's a bit of a difficult one to enforce immediately. --MASEM (t) 22:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

See WP:LSC. The bottom line is that the editors at the list must decide what the list is going to include. They may choose any sensible set of criteria they want, but they ultimately must make that decision themselves. There's simply no way around it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Are patents notable in and of themselves?

Are patents and patented objects notable? Or does it take more than obtaining a patent on something, for it to be worth including on Wikipedia?

I see some editors trying to promote their patented inventions on wikipedia, and I don't know at what point the article goes from being "non-notable marketing" to an established and notable product or service. DMahalko (talk) 19:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Is every product notable enough for a wikipedia article? Is every variation of a product notable enough for a wikipedia article? No. As a general rule, just getting a patent is not going to be enough to merit a WP article. Now some patents may turn out to be meaningful/notable, but there could literally be hundreds of patents involved in the production of my watch.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I would agree... Obtaining a patent does not establish notability. Blueboar (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Shouldn't the test be the same as for anything else: Is there any significant coverage beyond simply the patent itself? Msnicki (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yup. Blueboar (talk) 19:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yup, it comes down to coverage. Consider this, one can patent ideas. You don't even have to have a working prototype to get a patent.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You'll want to see WP:CORP for information on products. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Many (perhaps most) patents have never developed into a device which was manufactured, or a process which was used, since they are too silly, too impractical, or too trivial. In many cases someone had a bright idea, then scraped up the money for drawings and filing fees. See WP:GNG; if it is not satisfied, the patent is not notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Edison (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Patents are best considered as self-published sources; obtaining a patent doesn't involve anything more than paying money and making sure nobody thought of it before. Self published sources are not inherently notable, but they can be notable if referenced from elsewhere.Rememberway (talk) 03:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Topics that deserve a page in wikipedia

As the average person would comment, this page isn't notable and should be deleted, huh. 79.107.213.10 (talk) 00:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The average person realizes that this is a policy/guideline page and not an article... since the guideline applies to articles (or more specifically to article topics), the guideline does not apply to this page. Blueboar (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The point is, this topic may not be notable, yet it deserves it's own page. And it is just a wikipedia page with it's notability on the line. 109.242.216.253 (talk) 15:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Pages in the Wikipedia: name space are not considered "articles" for purposes for conforming with policy and guidelines. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

No, i don't think you can have pages remain under Wikipedia: without them being notable. 109.242.216.253 (talk) 15:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes you can. The only pages that notability applies to are their in mainspace. --MASEM (t) 15:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

What you are saying is that if i was to create a number of not notable Wikipedia: pages they would remain, which isn't true, they would be deleted for not being notable. This isn't the subject of this section anyway. 109.242.216.253 (talk) 15:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

If they are nonsense pages that have nothing to do with the functioning and operation of Wikipedia, they will be deleted for being spam, not because they weren't notable. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It depends on what kind of page you created. If you created a number of stupid articles, you would be correct... they probably would be deleted for not being about notable topics. If you created a number of stupid Wikipedia policy pages, however, they would not be deleted for being non-notable (because WP:Notability does not apply to pages in policy space)... That said, there are lots of other reasons to delete policy pages ... such as not reflecting community consensus. The point being that different kinds of Wikipedia pages are kept or deleted for different kinds of reasons. Blueboar (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the subject of this section anyway... OK... then perhaps you should start over... what is the subject of this section? what exactly are you concerned about? Blueboar (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this is an April 1 post, a bit tardy. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The subject was more like that notability shouldn't be a guideline on getting a page deleted since the topic of the page could deserve it's own page in wikipedia but not be notable. 79.107.197.112 (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Admins cannot (or are not supposed to) delete pages because they lack notability - instead that is determined by consensus at the WP:AFD process. There are limited cases where vanity pages may be speedily deleted by admins (see WP:CSD) but there is a process to challenge those as well. --MASEM (t) 17:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the OP is essentially saying that he/she does not like the fact that people refer to the notability guideline to justify their delete !votes in AFD debates. He/she thinks the "usefulness" of the article is more important than the "notability" of the topic. I disagree. "Notability" is a criteria that can be objectively quantified (by seeing how many reliable sources discuss the topic) while "usefulness" is purely subjective (with different editors having very different concepts of what is "useful"). Blueboar (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

OP here. People using the notability guideline as an excuse to get a page deleted was my primary concern.

Explaining the common reasons why the community deletes some pages and keeps others is exactly the purpose of this page. Deleting this guideline would not have the effect of preventing the community from deleting whatever it wants to; it would only make it harder for new editors to find out what the common reasons are. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Something for the OP to think about... the concept of notability is actually a very good gauge for determining how "useful" an article will be. If a topic isn't notable, few people will search Wikipedia to find information on it... thus the article will not be very useful. However, if a topic is notable, lots of people will search Wikipedia to find information on it... thus the article will be useful. Blueboar (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Could the criteria for a useful topic be described in a objective way? patsw (talk) 03:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

If it was possible, it would be in terms of what an independent and reliable source says. But based on the metrics I've seen proposed so far... my answer is no... it can't. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Change notability criteria for list topics

WP:LISTN currently says that a list topic to be notable, if it has been discussed as a set or group by independent sources. I have a concern with this which I will explain with an example. I am the creator of the article List of aperiodic sets of tiles. This article has reliable third party sources for each entry there. However, as far as I know, there exists no published source which discusses this group of sets of tiles as a whole. Therefore, the articles topic doesn't seem to be notable per WP:LISTN, although I think it is one of the better lists on Wikipedia. I think the restriction that a list topic must have been discussed as a set or group should be removed in order to give Wikipedians the ability to compile lists from multiple reliable sources. Otherwise Wikipedia will be left with almost no list articles at all, which I often consider useful. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

That list strikes me as salvageable, even consistent with the guideline here. Worst case, it could be merged into a broader list of tilings, as you might find in this third-party source. Best case, there has to be SOMETHING in the main aperiodic tiling article that can verify that this is a notable class of things, and not just a class of things invented by (or notable to) Wikipedia editors.

There was an extensive discussion on this not too long ago. The idea is that we don't just want people verifying a bunch of entries and then making up their own criteria for lists. For example, I can verify that plastic bags, crocs, and ice cream all exist, but it wouldn't entitle me to create an article of List of things that melt when you put in the oven. That's what the guideline is trying to avoid: made-up lists. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The entire exhaustive list does not need to be included, but clearly some evidence that the group of items in the list is discussed as a notable topic. This allows new elements to be added to it even if the original sources don't discuss this. But if its just a topic, and then the group of those elements are never discussed, that's the problem we're trying to avoid. --MASEM (t) 17:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The whole concept of aperiodic sets of tiles is discussed for example in papers by mathematician and geometer Chaim Goodman-Strauss. However I think no mathematician would ever publish a complete list of these sets of tiles, because they either discuss the properties of a particular set or the properties of aperiodic sets of tiles in general and then giving a few examples is sufficient. However I have also been in contact with some geometers, and they said they find this list very useful, because it is the only such list that seems to exist. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

That's consistent with this guideline though. It doesn't say you need to find a source where a complete list already exists (although a few fringe editors insisted on that position). All it says it that the class of things has been discussed. If you're right that a few sources talk about "the properties of aperiodic sets of tiles in general", let alone offering "a few examples", then it meets this guideline and is totally sufficient. What part of the guideline makes you think that we require a complete published list? Shooterwalker (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I would be a little more broad. "Utility" of the list would be, to me, an important element. More so than "notability" of its elements. Wikipedia is known, moreover, for having some fairly useless lists which are zealously protected (the top 20,000 people in line to succeed Queen Elizabeth II, as one example). Collect (talk) 18:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:LISTN says: "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." Is this statement to be interpreted as saying that:

• the reliable sources must have presented the whole group or set, or
• the reliable sources must have presented the concept behind whole group or set

If it were the former, then List of aperiodic sets of tiles would clearly fail this criterion, because there is no published source (and I think it is unlikely there will ever be) that lists all of the aperiodic sets of tiles together. If it were the latter, then there are sources (like the papers by Goodman-Strauss and others) which discuss the concept to great depth and the article would therefore satisfy this criterion. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

It's closer to the latter, definitely. "Group or set" is supposed to refer to a concept-as-category type of phenomenon. If someone has talked about a category of things known as aperiodic sets of tiles, it warrants an article (and it does). Maybe we should add something to the guideline that makes it clear that you don't need a third-party source with a complete list? Shooterwalker (talk) 18:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the guideline should be made clearer in that point and although I might be the only person having a problem with the current formulation of the guideline, this discussion shows that it is not really clear. I would welcome an addition to the guideline addressing this. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I've added a line to note that the concept of grouping needs to be notable, not that the entire list is. --MASEM (t) 19:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I support the clarifications per Toshio Tamaguchi and Masem. The grammar needs work... but I'm not good with that stuff. Any further minor edits are encouraged. Anything more MAJOR is discouraged :) Shooterwalker (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your input to this discussion. @Masem: Thanks, for adding that line. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

While I'm not against the changes Masem did, the whole list is likely a complex "List of X of Y" X being "aperiodic sets" and Y being "tiles". Tiles is notable; the subset is a complex list we purposefully sidestepped because of these issues.陣内_Jinnai 20:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, not really. Just because the word "of" is there doesn't mean the list is "X of Y". Here, the topic is "aperiodic sets of tiles" which could be stated as "aperiodic tiling". That grouping has been shown notable, just not the entire group in one fell swoop. --MASEM (t) 20:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Masem... we have an article on the notable topic Aperiodic tiling, which could be renamed Aperiodic tiles. The list article we are discussing could be renamed List of Aperiodic tiles. In other words, we could change the names of both articles so their wording matched. I don't think that is necessary... the fact that the two articles are not absolutely identical in wording is minor... they are still about the same notable topic... "Aperiodic tiles". Blueboar (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

"Automatically" notable topics

Should this guideline include a section listing topics that are generally considered to be notable by default? Some examples that I've seen are:

• All plant and animal species.
• All permanent human settlements.
• All geographical features with widely recognized names.
• All established public high schools.

I think this would eliminate at least some unnecessary AfD submissions. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Related: WP:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. No comment on the merits of the proposal. --Cybercobra (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather just link to common outcomes in the "See also" section.陣内_Jinnai 22:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree with this... I dislike the entire concept of "automatically" notability (or in Wiki-speak: "inherent notability"). I feel strongly that every article must establish that its topic is notable, and that there is no such thing as inherent notability. Blueboar (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not condoning the concept of "automatic notability", but it does seem relevant for this page to link to common outcomes.陣内_Jinnai 01:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Blueboar, your view is a reasonable one, but Wikipedia does not have a Legislature or Supreme Court of Wise Editors who promulgate rules based on "how they feel" about something. Notability guidelines are pragmatic and reflect practice and consensus of those editors who bother to show up and !vote at AFD. If something is invariably kept in AFD, then it has de facto notability. I sincerely doubt that you or I would succeed in deleting an article about some species, some hamlet on a map which is a US census tract, a public high school, a lake which is on published maps, or a member of a US state legislature or equivalent, even if no one can find multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage. This is not to say that the consensus couldn't change over time. Maybe in the future every verifiable elementary school will be kept in AFD; at present they usually get merged to the school district. Maybe in the future every verifiable religious congregation will be kept; at present they need to satisfy WP:ORG. Right now every numbered US highway gets kept, even if it is a short connector piece of pavement which does not satisfy WP:N. There was an argument that every tiny naval vessel got its own article, even if it was one of hundreds of little undistinguished vessels; but sometime now they get merged to an article about the class of vessel. AFD discussions about some class of subjects are easily and frequently buffaloed by small groups of fans of the class of subject, who have a project or a newsletter, or who use off-Wiki means of communicating when the thing they are fascinated with comes up for deletion. Edison (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

In my experience, the only thing that is reliably kept at AFD is something with sources. But there are subject specific notability guidelines that cover this... even if some of them are WP:WALLEDGARDENs. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Yea, but there is more leniency given to lists; they still have to meet WP:V, but often they don't have to meet the criteria of the GNG for daughter articles.陣内_Jinnai 20:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree... daughter articles (even lists) do need to establish that the daughter topic is notable. Far too often the notability of a daughter topic is assumed to be notable because the parent topic is notable... that is a on-going problem. The problem is that very often both parent and daughter are both notable. It happens so often that people begin to make the flawed assumption that this will always be the case... and they forget that there are always exceptions. They begin to assume that everything and anything associated with a notable parent topic is inherently notable. This simply is not the case. Every daughter needs to establish notability on its own... Notability is not inherited. Lists are no exception. If the daughter topic of the list is realty notable, it should be easy to establish that notability. Blueboar (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with Blueboar. People are right that a lot of daughter lists get kept. But it's important to understand the right reasons, because there are lots of daughter lists that get deleted when the reason for keeping just isn't there. It remains a vague area. But one thing that's for certain is that a lot get deleted, a lot get kept, and we've yet to fully explain the boundary. (At least... there are a lot of theories but not a well-articulated consensus yet.) Shooterwalker (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I respectfully have to disagree. While certainly ones that violate WP:NOT are deleted/redirected and even some that aren't, many aren't in that they don't show the notability, as defined in the GNG, in that article. Episode lists are a good example of this. They might get redirected, but only if the list is really short or the parent article is really lacking, or it fails WP:V.陣内_Jinnai 22:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we should add a sentence on this point, perhaps under WP:NRVE, that directly says, "No subject is automatically or inherently notable." WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

With what purpose? Policy follows practice, not dictates it.陣内_Jinnai 22:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that follows practice. Most things without sources are deleted. Episode lists become notable not necessarily because they are sourced, but because they are sourceable. There's bound to be SOME newspaper that said "Season 3 of Aquaman wasn't that good". The list of episodes from that season would be notable, if not workable/mergable. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

All, some, none

• It is self-evident that some classes of topics have (or should have) stand-alone Wikipedia articles for each member of the class, because their significance to knowledge is self-evident:

Class Articles	Example Member Articles
States of the United States	Alabama .. Wyoming
Shakespeare's Plays	Henry IV, Part I .. The Two Noble Kinsmen
Chemical Elements	Hydrogen .. Lawrencium

• Likewise there are classes of topics where some but not all members of the class have (or should have) stand-alone Wikipedia articles.
• Finally, there are classes of topics where no members of the class have (or should have) stand-alone Wikipedia articles. While the class of topics itself may be an article under the usual criteria.
• To get to the heart of the matter that has been raised, I don't think that in the abstract one can enumerate the topics of the first type ("all members of this class get articles") a priori. It's a matter of determining each class to see if it is one of (all, some, none) when its a live controversy before us.
• A weaker version of my suggestion is to proffer that the Wikipedia perhaps already contains all the classes of topics for which each member of that class merits a stand-alone article. (or in the language of earlier replies "inherently notable") patsw (talk) 22:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

While there may be a few "class" level topics where every "member of the class" happens to be notable enough for a an article on its own, I don't think there are any class level topic where the members are inherently notable. In each of the examples you give, there stand alone notability is separately established. Both the class and the member topic needs to establish that it is notable on its own. Blueboar (talk) 12:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, I don't think you'd have any trouble finding those topics covered in third party sources. They're sourceable, they're notable. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly... there is no need for inherent notability. Blueboar (talk) 19:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

This is part of the problem with the fact that the only written-down inclusion guideline is notability. Topics like the elements or nations and primary subdivisions should be included not because they are notable (they certainly are) but that they are just that critical in an educational work that even if zero secondary sources existed about them, we'd still include them. It just so happens that notability covers these topics nicely with no grey areas, so there's never an issue with "key educational topics" for inclusion. That is, were we to define an inclusion guideline that a fundamental topic that would be part of regular academic learning, it would seem duplicative with the GNG. But if we think along those lines and understand that when you start to get into topics that may be less fundamental to academics but are still appropriate to enumerate, such a guideline to counter the regular GNG argument makes sense. For example, not that I subscribe to this, but the argument goes that every government-recognized placed is notable despite lack of secondary sources for many settlements in third-world countries. The idea of my inclusion approach would mean that, if the consensus argues that any government-recognized settlement is fundamental to an educational work, then we include them all, no notability comes into play. To think this way is a major shift from current use of notability, so I don't push it, but I think its a goal to strive for to make the clarity between topics that have an obvious place in an encyclopedia (like elements and countries) verses topics that likely never have been in an encyclopedia but would be appropriate per Wikipedia's goals. --MASEM (t) 21:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Subject Specific Guidelines and Deletion

In a recent AFD discussion the question arose whether or not failure to meet a Subject Specific Guideline (SSG) was reason to delete an article if the article met the General Notability Guideline. One of the involved editors asserted that the GNG overrules SSG and on a quick examination I convinced myself he was correct, ate crow, and apologized for the drama. The AFD closed with what I feel was a fair result even though it did not support my position, but the closing sysop implied that the relationship between GNG and SSG was not so simple as discussed in the article. I've since looked more deeply into the matter and am confused about the question. Here's what I've seen since that AFD closed (but let me say that this is not to question the outcome in that AFD):

• Deletion Policy (current statement, first added in October, 2005): "Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following: ... Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)". (That list omitted WP:N until December, 2007, when it was added without talk page discussion, though a prior August 2007 discussion proposed adding it because some people were taking the position that its omission implied that failure to meet WP:N was not grounds for deletion of an article.)
• July-August 2008 extended discussion which seems to say that, for a variety of reasons (including the fact that some SSG's predate WP:N which was created September - November, 2006), SSG's are primary and GNG is secondary.
• September-December 2008 RFC in which the positions with majority support were that SNG's can outline sources that assert notability (76%), SNG's only provide subject area interpretation of the GNG (56%), [but] SNG criteria support reasonable presumptions of notability (62%).
• January 2011 extended discussion in which the 2008 RFC seems to have been forgotten and a variety of different views asserted in which there was no clear outcome, but perhaps some recognition that the GNG is primary and some SNG's relax it while others set higher standards. (This discussion also makes reference to a pending or just-concluded RFC which supposedly contains some discussion of the topic. I think that it was this one about lists, but I've not dug through it to try to tease out the relevant discussion.)

While all or most of them refer to their use in AFD discussions, none of them seem to bear substantially on the particular questions of:

• whether failure to satisfy a relevant SSG is a sufficient ground for deletion and
• whether satisfaction of the GNG is enough to preserve an article which fails to satisfy a relevant SSG.

The last of the discussions mentioned above seems to suggest that the answer may depend on the particular SSG involved, but gives no guidance on which SSG is which. I'm confused. Have I missed somewhere that this was all sorted out or is there no consensus? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It's basically either/or with GNG and SSG ("A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not. A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right."), although the question of "Is this a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article?" should be asked, and is in my view just as important - plenty of subjects get enough coverage to pass GNG but are not appropriate for encyclopedia articles. SSG's are a 'rule of thumb' of what is likely to get articles kept or deleted, while GNG is a guideline to what is 'generally' required in terms of coverage - some people are apt to treat them as 'rules' which must be met, but employing common sense where available is always preferable. That's my view anyway, expect others to disagree.--Michig (talk) 20:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, they are "guidelines", not "policies". They are useful for providing consistency on decisions about what subjects should have an article in Wikipedia. One area of possible disagreement is at what point consistency becomes foolish. In any case, I would say that we should avoid worrying too much about whether GNG trumps an SSG or vice-versa, and refer to both guidelines (where an SSG exists) to help determine what is best for Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury 09:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, true, they are guidelines, but from the original question, and what I've seen myself, is that some treat the SNGs as overriding the GNG completely (eg there was a case of an athlete that was coming on to join a pro team, but his youth career received inter/national coverage, enough to qualify for the GNG easily, but because one criteria from ATH was "played at the pro level", some were ready to dismiss the person as non-notable until he stepped onto the pro field.)

What really the relationship is that every topic deemed notable by the SNG should ultimately be shown to be notable by the GNG, but may not be sourcable that way at the immediate time. Thus, the SNGs cannot override the GNG, though I can argue cases where it tightens up on specific requirements for a GNG-notable topic (such as ATH and the limitations on local school and amateur athletes). --MASEM (t) 12:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/33550336 is an AfD in which deletion was argued on the basis of a SNG and not allowing that WP:GNG was relevant.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I've heard the "notability is guideline not policy" many times before, and took it as gospel, until I encountered the line, which I quoted above, from the deletion policy which says that failure to meet GNG or one of the various SSG is a reason for deletion. It would appear to me that for purposes of deletion that they are policy. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The distinction between "guideline" and "policy" is not necessarily a clear line. The distinction is more a matter of how much weight to give the page. Policies tend to carry more weight than guidelines when it comes to deletion, but both can be valid rationals. (and this does not even get into the various "essays" that are considered valid rationals when it comes to deletion discussions.) Blueboar (talk) 13:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

While DP may point here as a reason for deletion, one needs to understand that how notability applies to an article is more contentious and thus why the GNG and the SNGs are all guidelines. Just because policy points to a guideline does not elevate that guideline to policy. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I suppose that I should have said, "It would appear to me that for purposes of deletion that they are treated as policy." If policy says that articles can be deleted on the basis of a notability guideline, then it is policy that those guidelines set the standard by which articles can be deleted under that line of the deletion policy. They may still be guidelines in their own right, but by the incorporation of those guidelines into the deletion policy they have in effect become policy. We're to refer to the spirit of policy, but the spirit of the deletion policy would have to be the definition of when and how articles can be deleted and by the inclusion of that line in the deletion policy, that spirit would appear to have been clearly expressed in the letter of policy, just as is required by WP:POLICY#Content. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you have it right - in that the problem is that WP:N here is really two separate thoughts: one that we've stated that articles should be notable to be included (that's more policy than guideline), and that notability is demonstrated by the GNG and/or SNGs (that's more guideline than policy). When you recognize this, you can understand why the GNG and SNG aren't hard rules and why discussion towards them at AFD makes the most sense. --MASEM (t) 15:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

In some ways, this reminds me of discussions we used to have over the "status" of WP:RS. WP:V (a policy) has long included a requirement for reliable sources, but linked to WP:RS, which was "only a guideline". This caused confusion. We more or less settled that confusion by changing the title of the guideline from WP:Reliable sources to WP:Identifying reliable sources (WP:IRS). Thus, the requirement for reliable sources is Policy... but the details involved in determining reliability/unreliability of a specific source (ie whether "source X" is reliable or not) is more clearly guidance (ie carries less weight and is more flexible in tricky situations). Perhaps a similar title change could help here... distinguishing Policy (that article topics must be Notable, and articles on non-notable topics may be deleted)... from guidance (this is how you identify and establish notability)... suggestions for a title change might include: WP:Determining notability... WP:Establishing notability... WP:Identifying and establishing Notability" (you get the idea). Blueboar (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The only issue here is that we don't have a parent page, short of WP:DP, where notability is discussed and why its important to WP. (it would be what V is to RS). Of course, by doing a few header changes and maybe adding a section without changing the page title, these points can be addressed: the top section defines what is notability and how it is used in article retention/deletion (this would include, for example, our advice on list articles), and then a second section is the statement "Establishing notability", which breaks down the GNG, the SNGs, and the various other statements. Ultimately those pages could be separated, but I'm not seeing a clean and consensus-friendly solution immediately. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I suppose what I am suggesting is that we split this page into a parent and daughter page... The parent (promoted to policy) would be fairly short, and focused on the principles behind notability... the daughter (which would stay as a guideline) would be longer and explain the details of how editors determine and establish notability. Blueboar (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Effectively yes, but given how complex and contentious notability is compared to the idea behind V/RS's split, I'd rather not do that. I'd also have a feeling that even if we promote the idea of notable (by any means, not just GNG/SNG) being a requirement for an article, we'd get people complaining about that too. --MASEM (t) 15:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Is a chemical substance recorded in CAS notable?

For example PENTACONTANE.--Inspector (talk) 11:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not notable simply for having a CAS number. But if it has a CAS number, there is a good chance there are academic studies that involve the compound, so finding those will make the species notable. --MASEM (t) 12:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Concur with Masem. Blueboar (talk) 13:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

So, is CAS itself a reliable source?--Inspector (talk) 14:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

What I know of CAS, it would be a reliable source but primary, and would not contribute towards notability. But again, to be clear, if a compound's in CAS, that a good chance that people have studied it, and that means there are secondary sources you can find for it. IIRC we do want people to cite the CAS number on articles on chemicals possibly in the infobox, but I would have to double check, so its not an invalid source. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that CAS is a primary source; it appears to synthesize information from multiple primary sources. It might be legitimately described as a tertiary source, however; it's basically a dictionary of chemicals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I would agree with that - but again, still not sufficient for notability on its own but certainly a lead to find more. --MASEM (t) 04:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:Notability (video games)

This is up for proposal as a SNG.陣内_Jinnai 16:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Report things that happen

Not sure where this belongs but it should be explicit in policy. Wikipedia reports things that happen, not things that did not happen. Vegaswikian helpfully pointed out this simple fact in another discussion. This may seem obvious but when the media psyches up the public that "something" should have happened" or "would have happened" we often get contributions based on essentially nonsense. "Newark should have had the expansion team" or Zanzibar should have won the Winter Olympics. etc. Too much space (and, Lord knows, arguments) over reporting a fact for one place and omitting it for the losers since they never had the proverbial snowball's chance in hell of getting it in the first place. Just a total waste of editors time.

Or they didn't want the Winter Olympics and their tiny demonstration stopped the city/state/nation from staging them. Something that didn't happen credited to some group who had no actual affect. The city couldn't come up with the money! But it is a non-fact. Non-facts are hard, even impossible to report. Sticking with facts is hard enough. Let's put it in policy! Student7 (talk) 12:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that you're at the wrong page. It's pretty uncommon for someone to attempt to write an entire article on "____ should have won the Winter Olympics"; that sort of thing is usually dumped into a legitimate article on a notable subject. This advice page is about identifying suitable subjects for entire, complete, stand-alone articles, not for sentences or paragraphs within articles.

Consequently, you probably want to be at WP:V, WP:NPOV, or WP:NOT. And before you go there, you might want to think about it for a while—because we do (occasionally) legitimately write articles on "things that did not happen", e.g., movies or other projects that were canceled or whose author died before writing, conspiracy theories about what 'really' happened, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is this needed?

Seems to me all the points are already covered by Verifiability and What Wikipedia is not. ··gracefool☺ 13:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:V requires third party sources for inclusion anywhere, but to determine if something should get a standalone article, we need to be discriminate and judge to what depth we can cover a topic, generally based on the amount of coverage given to it by secondary sources. --MASEM (t) 13:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

All of our policies and guidelines interact and slightly overlap... similar issues are often addressed in different policies with slightly different scopes and focuses. The scope and focus of WP:V is on sourcing specific statements within the article... the scope and focus of WP:NOTE is on the article topic as a whole. Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that's putting it mildly. IMHO they are fundamentally different both in their target (inclusion of material in an article vs. existence of the article) as well as in their criteria. Regardign criteria, wp:not requires a certain amount of a certain type of coverage in RS's, wp:v requires coverage in 1 RS that specifically supports the statement which cited it. Sincerely, 16:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

To give a more general answer: This advice page exists for the same reason that all advice pages exist, which is that it seems to be useful.

Specifically, if you're talking to an inexperienced person, and trying to help them figure out whether Wikipedia should have an article on a given subject, it's useful to have a page specifically about "Should Wikipedia have an article on a given subject?" instead of pages that deal with many subjects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit semi-protected

In section #Stand-alone lists, the Further information notice needs to be formatted (the template does not auto-format all text as a link). The markup should be adjusted from

• Further information: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (stand-alone lists)

to

• Further information: [[:Wikipedia:Manual of Style (stand-alone lists)]]

Thanks. --213.168.110.92 (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Done Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --213.168.110.92 (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

WikiSports as notable

On the authority of the random article link found on the frontpage of Wikipedia, I can state with confidence that about a third of Wikipedia is devoted to times, places, and people engaged in various sporting activities (some notable, MOST not), another third is devoted to geography (some notable, MOST not), but does not include useful geographical information such as how congressional districts are being gerrymandered for political purposes. The final third of the randomly selected articles in Wikipedia actually deal with something notable and useful for encyclopedic content instead of a sports almanac or a world atlas.

Sooner or later, something will need to be done about this, or else every kid who shoots dice with some friends in the local alley, or gets enough friends together to play a game of touch football or marbles will have their own Wikipedia page. Sports needs to be lamblasted out of the pages of Wikipedia the way that pornography was.

This is verifiable. Check out the random links yourself if you don't believe me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.248.4 (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

That's why there was so much discussion going into WP:NSPORT, following the guideline version that existed before it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

That covers two very different cases. I'm guessing that most of the geographic ones are bot-generated stubs on every town, state and province in the world. Those probably meet both the letter and intent of notability guidelines. For sports, I think that a confluence of factors has tipped the scale where there are a lot of articles that shouldn't be:

1. The ratio of media coverage to real-world notability and enclyclopedia-suitability is higher for sports than other topics.
2. Avid fans and promoters skew the processes at all stages, from creation, to talk pages to AFD's.
3. Not that I would want to change this, but SNG's that are stricter than wp:gng can mostly be ignored by simply going by wp:gng.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Should I be relieved that "popular" music groups/people do not constitute a large number of articles? I would have thought differently. And place articles are normally covered by most encyclopedias. With print space at a premium, many places that are not covered there are indeed covered here. This obviously dismays the initial commentator but not me. I agree about transitory sports figures. They, along with entertainers, are 95% of most notable/alumni groups from high schools and college. Not exactly what I was hoping for as a US taxpayer (a bit different for other countries). Student7 (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem with NSPORTS is that it starts with assumptions that don't seem to connect to meeting the GNG as an end result. The idea of any pro athlete playing a single game and making them notable is bogus, to say the least.

Because there is a plethera of sports coverage, they shouldn't need the overtly specialized cases. There are a larger proportion of athletes that will meet the GNG compared with any other major profession. I can understand for sports that are not regularly covered in press, like track and field events, meriting some criteria, but there is no need for any American footballer to rely on anything else but the GNG. --MASEM (t) 19:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

On the merits of it, yes, I have to agree with you both. There is too much sports fancruft on Wikipedia. But try to change that, and, watch out! About NSPORTS, I think that it is (a) a pretty meager compromise that still lets too many pages through, and (b) pretty much the best that we are going to get on Wikipedia in the foreseeable future. There, I've said it, and I feel better. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

When the current (well, it was much less convoluted but it was still a wide allowance) version of NSPORT was in development, the discussion was dominated pretty much by editors from the athletic projects, which is rather obvious. To change it, the discussion would need to be more pragmatic, not just about sports but about the idea that the SNGs are meant as temporarily allowances to eventually fulfill the GNG. When you can establish that as a metric and then look to all the criteria given to NSPORTS, you can easily see some that simply are not assurances of meeting the GNG. But there may be other SNGs that would be affected by this as well (possibly MUSIC with singles, albums, and artists making a chart but still not necessarily being notable...) --MASEM (t) 23:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Independent sources for fictional characters

A contentious AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons) suggests that we need to clarify what it means for the source to be independent of the subject matter. Editors are (seriously, in good faith) claiming that the creator of a fictional entity is automatically independent of the fictional entity, because the human creators are not the fictional entity. I'm sure that anyone who's thought this through will agree that Matt Groening is no more a third-party, WP:Independent source on Bart Simpson than the Bill Gates is a third-party, independent source on Microsoft.

Does anyone have any ideas about how to clarify this? Would it perhaps be better to address it only at WP:NFICT, rather than both places? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The editor espousing that concept is Colonel Warden. I don't think it's a widespread misconception. As you can see at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Colonel Warden, many editors believe that he will use pretty much any tactic to argue against deletions. Unfortunately, it's proved impossible to do anything about him. Attempting to modify policies and guidelines in an effort to actually get him to admit that one of his arguments is flawed is highly unlikely to be fruitful.—Kww(talk) 18:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. CW's opinion on this matter is pretty far out of line with the community's views and unlikely to get much traction. There isn't much need for any action here. Reyk _YO! 07:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• Matt Groening is cited in the Bart Simpson article and this seems quite proper. As for the Lamia, she was created by Aristophanes. Numerous other authors have written about her since and it's not clear why WhatamIdoing thinks that Gygax or Turnbull were any less independent in their editorial position than Keats or Graves. The essential questions are whether the sources are reliable and whether there is reasonable evidence that people want to read about the topic. When Matt Groening talks about Bart Simpson then people listen and publish his words. That's notability - will people pay to publish and read it. Warden (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

"created by Aristophanes"? How many hit points did he give her? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

and the AfD is not about Lamia. It is about Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons) Active Banana (^bananaphone 15:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• • It is not the case that we can't use dependent sources for sourcing an article - in fact, it would be very difficult to talk about the creation of many works of arts of contemporary times without going to a source that is directly out of the creator's mouth. So there's no issue about using Groening in the article on Bart Simpson.
  • The problem is that we can't only rely on the dependent sources, because while the creator may think his work is the most important thing in the world and talk about it at depth, without any outside, independent source, it is all rhetoric. This is why the GNG has "independent" sources as a requirement, as to assure that the importance of the topic is not tied to people invested in it.
  • Of course, there is the weight of whom the creator is behind the dependent source that is a judgement factor. If Matt Groenig wrote a whole book on, say, Comic Book Guy, but there were no independent sources on the character, there would likely be some WP:IAR allowance for this given that Groenig is certainly an authority on the character and the work itself would be considered partially secondary. But at the same time, this would not allow me, a nobody, to write a long essay on the creation of a brand new web-comic, and suddenly give notability to each of the characters due to the publishing of that essay.
  • So as to the question at hand - no, the GNG already accounts for dependence of creator and topic, and generally requires more beyond that. (Heck, I think this even comes from WP:V). There's some wiggle room but it likely depends on the source itself. --MASEM (t) 19:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
    • WP:Secondary does not mean independent. Groenig could very well write a secondary source on his creation, but he cannot write an WP:Independent source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
• "Independent" has always meant "independent of the subject and its creator". Bill Gates can't tell you what's notable about anything Microsoft creates any more than Obama can tell you what's notable about his public works. It goes for anyone who has ever published something on the web (I can't be used as a source to tell you that my blog is notable). And it goes for any author of fiction. It's so common sense that almost anyone would agree with it. I've gone ahead and added something to the guideline. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, notability is not a content guideline

Whether Wikipedia has or doesn't have a stand-alone article on a topic chosen by editor, we try to apply criteria to determine if the topic should have a stand-alone article. When it comes to content different rules apply.

• If the topic has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject then it greenlights inclusion as stand-alone article. Really, it nothing more than that. It is a threshold consideration for a stand-alone article.
• When it comes to including content created by Gygax, Gates, Obama, etc. and summarized here, then there are content rules and editing judgments that do not engage this guideline. That content might wind up in another article if not in its own named article. patsw (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Essay elevation to Guideline proposal

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide#Essay to Guideline. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

Nomination for deletion of Template:Notability

Template:Notability has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is closed, withdrawn by nominator. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Book Notability

I'm not sure if there's a discussion elsewhere about the notability of books, but I've been writing a few articles based on books I've read when I've gone to look it up and found it has no page. Many of these are newer books, more recently published, and there isn't much out about them aside from options to buy from bookstores and Amazon. The books themselves are instantly verifiable by checking online, and are published by reputable publishers, not online self-publishing. Does the publishing of such a book in of itself make the book notable, or is there a more stringent line that needs to be drawn? And if so, where would it be drawn? I think that the article should mention/reflect this clarification once it's made as a guide for others. Atherton53 (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Notability (books) (WP:BK, WP:NB, WP:NBOOK). Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

School Notability

I've done some searching through the archives and while this is an often discussed topic (notability of schools), it seems that a consensus has never been reached. My question is, why are schools not considered organizations or companies? More specifically, I patrol new pages and I see more and more for-profit education companies keeping their pages by calling themselves a school. They're effectively using WP as an advertising platform simply because they teach something. Further down the spectrum, training companies or companies that have their own training program could call themselves educational establishments. There's a line somewhere and I think it may need to be more carefully defined than it is now which is to say, not at all. OlYeller^Talktome 15:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

To elaborate, I have ideas as to how the line can be more clearly defined but wants to see if there's an interest in the discussion before I open the can of worms. OlYeller^Talktome 15:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Notability (schools) and Wikipedia talk:Notability (schools). patsw (talk) 15:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

What am I supposed to "see" there? It's a failed policy proposal and neither make any reference to the difference between for-profit and non-profit schools. OlYeller^Talktome 19:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Those may be failed policies, but the ideas in them often inform decisions here. Also see Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Education. As for for-profit schools, if Wikipedia is going to be a comprehensive information resource, it needs to document both for-profit and not-for-profit educational institutions. In both cases, however, the articles should be based to the extent possible on information from reliable sources independent of the organization. --Orlady (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

This is true for typical high schools, and for accredited for-profit establishments; where this breaks down is when you have a non-accredited institution whose degrees are either rejected or only accepted with strings attached and are not notable for some sort of scam. They're not really schools so much as they are moneymaking projects that use giving a (purported) education as a vehicle for their income. That's certainly not mentioned anywhere in the links above, and I think this is what we're trying to clear up. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The less typical the school, the less friendly the reception it gets. Nobody tries to keep "Miss Lilly's Ballet School" if they can't find a good number of sources, because it's not an academic program. Nobody has much sympathy at AfD for "Apple High School", with enrollment of "two siblings", a location of "the kitchen table", and a teacher named "Mom", even though it might have a stellar academic program and a class on building websites (fortunately, we see very few articles on home schools and other tiny schools). But the "typical high school" is an important qualification. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The "for profit" colleges wind up looking like regular colleges. The "for profit" non-credit institutions wind up looking a bit more like companies. Both pay property and income taxes, before you throw stones. They exist in the real world. Neither have "overpaid" unionized teachers/professors funded by taxpayers with COLA retirements and two months vacation.

Attendance is voluntary. Attendees are serious. Having said that, financials may be a bit hard to come by since they are often private companies and they are not required to report to anyone but the state and federal corporate tax people. I document them as above, always "looking" for financials but seldom finding any.

BTW, in your sainted "non-profit" state colleges, what would be "net" is swallowed up by salaries with a 7% increase in tuition (during 2011, a depression year) for next year, for next year's raises. These private, for-profit institutions live in the real world and don't necessarily have that option. And, yes, their net goes to dividends to investors. It seems more honest to me! There is no pretense of "nobody making a profit." Student7 (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if your directing your questions at me but I'll respond just in case.

It seems like you came here to fight a fight that was never started. No one is attacking for-profit schools. No one "sainted" non-profits. No one one is fighting the idea that for-profits are in any way better than non-profits. In my opinion, there's no need for this to turn into a political discussion. Your opinion is noted but I don't see how it matters here.

I'm not saying that for-profit schools are bad (it seems like you're suggesting that's my opinion that I, in fact, never stated). I'm not saying anything about the quality of either for-profit or non-profit institutions. My point is that WP:N makes the point that all "schools" are notable (or at least high schools if you go by the oft-used essay) and the definition of a "school" is incredibly under-defined in English speaking society and therefor not surprisingly, on WP. To me, they're organizations like any other but that's simply my opinion. If we want to say that "schools" or some portion of them are inherently notable, it seems obvious that a definition of what a "school" is, needs to be created. Otherwise, the interpretations can be wildly different (I can see someone defining a 2 person training department in a larger for-profit company as a school and someone else determining that only federally or state accredited institutions are schools despite profit/non-profit status).

In my opinion, this is a simple issue. We at WP have decided that "schools" are somehow fundamentally different from other companies/organizations. We need to determine why that is and what defines "school" so that we're not saving every junk company that makes a WP page from speedy deletion because it has "school" in its description and forcing it to an AfD where we can fight around on what the definition of "school" is and why the organization should have to comply with WP:GNG. OlYeller^Talktome 15:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Schools are considered WP:ORGs. Search for "educational institutions" in that guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

My apologies to the editor who pointed out that I had gone too far in my answer. I did not intend to attack him. I am guilty of grinding an unnecessary axe. Sorry. Student7 (talk) 19:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

@WhatamIDoing, that's interesting. I never saw that there. More importantly, why don't we apply WP:ORG to schools? It seems clear enough; if it's a Non-commercial (does that mean non-profit) school, "the scope of their activities is national or international in scale" or it has to satisfy WP:GNG. It seems to me that the same would apply to commercial or for-profit organizations. Everything makes sense except that we still find that some schools are notable and some are not but don't apply any official criteria to that selection besides maybe WP:IAR. It seems more and more obvious that a definition of a "school" needs to be made if it's something different than any other organization. If it's not, we need to start applying WP:ORG to all schools which would most likely result in mass deletion. OlYeller^Talktome 19:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

@Student7, no worries. For what it's worth, I think your points are valid for that particular argument. People seem to apply a set of values to non-profits and for-profits that don't always make sense when you consider the goal of each. OlYeller^Talktome 19:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-commercial means non-commercial. It includes government and non-profit organizations. And let me point out that purely local organizations can qualify for an article. The standard requirement is only that some source outside that limited local area have taken notice of the org. In practice, this means that almost every school with a sports team that plays "away" games meets ORG (resulting in a systemic bias in favor of Canadian and American middle schools and high schools). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

If people are interpreting the idea that playing an "away" game grants notability to the school because they will be covered by a non-local paper that is covering their own local team's performance in that game -- ugh, that's BS. One: that says nothing about the school itself, that's a sports team. Two: just because the school team has to drive 5 miles by bus to get to the playfield in another town suddenly doesn't magically make the school notable. If we go by NSPORT (which still has problems but at least they recognize this issue), they define local as including local city, county, and even at times state coverage for determining if high school, college, and amateur athletes are notable. (That is if the only coverage of these people are from these "local" sources, they do not get an article) The same needs to apply to schools. --MASEM (t) 12:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The sports program is part of the school, just like a math program is part of the school. It is not unusual for teams in some states to travel 100 miles away for games, and any US school that has ever had one team play in a state championship tournament is likely to be able to prove not merely "next door to local" coverage, but fully statewide coverage. The same's true for schools that participate in music contests, debate tournaments, and other, more scholastic programs.

We're trying to treat schools like any other organization. You'd never say, "Only the heart surgery division of that hospital got statewide coverage. The heart surgery division isn't the whole hospital, so it doesn't count." Similarly, we don't want to say "Only the sports program has been discussed outside the local area. That's not the whole school, so it doesn't count." WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I can appreciate, very weakly, that a high school may be notable because its team won a state championship, the rest of the activities of the school being only influential at the local level. The thing to remember is that notability requires "significant" coverage as well as "enduring"/non-temporary coverage. So if a school's only non-local claim to fame is that their football team won the state cup one year, covered in the week following by various papers from around that state, but no further mention, that really begs the question if the school itself is notable. (Note that I'm not questioning that there may be plenty of WP:V-compliant local sources to fill out the rest of the article on the school.) I certainly would not accept that a team that drives half-way across a state to play but not for a championship, and getting covered in a news outlet 100s miles away, makes that team suddenly notable.

This is the problem with using sports coverage for covering schools. Sports coverage is very large, outweighing all but major international news events, moreso when you get to local papers. It is also very routine, as every game will be covered. Sports happens, just like the stock market and the weather, but we don't have articles on these unless the event is very unusual as to receive an unprecedented amount of coverage. The same should be the same for sports, and any topics that are based on that (including schools). Which is why I'm weakly acceptable of a state championship, but anything less is just BS for notability's sake.

And just to take it to the hospital example: More than likely, though, hospitals don't get routine coverage like sports - maybe yearly they get rated and ranked, and if there is a serious medical accident, or a major breakthrough, will it get notice that way. It is much less a problem when you consider the issue of routine coverage with high school sports. --MASEM (t) 17:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yup, ORG is weak. For a local-only organization—WhatamIdoing's Gas Station—it basically requires one newspaper story (ever) outside of the local area, plus enough local-only coverage to meet the other standards (enduring coverage, for example). But that seems to be a reasonably accurate description of the actual standard in force (once you ignore the handful of editors who still believe in automatic notability because high schools are "so important").

And, yes, I think it silly that American newspapers devote so much ink to high school sports. (You should have heard the complaints when one of the newspapers near me decided not to have a physically separate sports section last year. The outcry about "deserving" grandchildren "needing" to have their picture on the "front page" of a section was swift and severe. The newspaper promptly reversed course.) But the fact is that these are reliable sources, and, unlike their European counterparts, they are freely choosing to take notice of school sports programs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

For those taking part here, this AfD may be interesting to you. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It does not surprise me in the least that TerriersFan (an editor whose primary interest is high school sports) presented his disputed automatic-notability essay as if it were the sole accepted standard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I have a number of high school articles on my watchlist, and they are collections of unsourced ephemeral trivia, such as lists of school clubs and teams, game scores, district and state championships, favorite teachers, etc. There is very little in any of them worth salvaging, but I have resigned myself to just insisting that "notable alumni" actually be notable in the WP meaning, as demonstrated, for example, by having an article in WP. I do think that the encyclopedia would benefit from having some criteria for notability of schools that is more structured than simply saying that all (high) schools are notable. I do realize that most high school students think that their school is notable, and that details of clubs, teams, etc. are important information that must be made available to the world, but I do not agree. -- Donald Albury 11:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The information about schools that is normally encyclopedic includes:

• Circumstances surrounding its creation (and closure, if closed)
• Entity controlling it
• Funding sources
• Basic history of the facilities (e.g., any historically important buildings?)
• Educational program (if unusual)

This is all easily sourceable, but I agree that it's not what usually interests teenagers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm still not sure if analyzing specific instances is productive but Kenya institute of media and technology is a new article that I think is worth taking a look at. I find more and more article like this appearing. I'll keep my opinions about it to myself until a few people get to take a look at it.

Furthermore, I'd like to either add a potion to WP:ORG specifically about schools or try to resurrect WP:SCH soon. It seems like there's some interest in a continued discussion and possibly narrowing down the definition of a school or how WP:ORG applies to schools. If you have any suggestions or comments about starting how to proceed, please let us know your opinion. OlYeller^Talktome 17:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Synthetic notability

Is there a rule about manufactured or "synthetic" notability? That is, notability recently created that allows the creation of a Wikipedia article that would then assist in things such as Google Bombing, white washing, propaganda? For example the problem surrounding Campaign for "santorum" neologism, as described in this article "Wikipedia awash in 'frothy by-product' of US sexual politics" (The Telegraph). I mean, if a Wikipedia article is playing a direct part in a Google Bomb propaganda campaign, there should be some rule/guideline, to set the bar high so that the notability rules can't be easily gamed. I suspect we will be seeing more cases like it in the future. Green Cardamom (talk) 06:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

As should be painfully obvious from even a brief glance at the Santorum issue, this is a work in progress, and I doubt that there will soon be a consensus that will resolve the matter neatly, but there are many editors paying close attention to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

With 7 pages of talk archives, nothing is brief or obvious there :) I'm not involved with it BTW. Really what's needed is a step back to avoid confusing the content disputes surrounding that article (since there are people emotionally invested as part of a campaign to smear Santorum), and approach it as a higher level Notability concern impacting all articles. Green Cardamom (talk) 16:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The specifics of this may be over my head. But a lot of today's articles/television is "manufactured," right? Commercial slogans, campaign slogans, that sort of thing. Manipulating the media is what it is all about, apparently. If we do away with those articles, we'd have a much tighter encyclopedia IMO. Can't happen, though, right? It would be unusual if Wikipedia were not used in the same way. Student7 (talk) 18:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Absence of proof not proof of (something

A change reads "The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable." I suppose this is what is discussed above. But, to me, this seems to remove WP:BURDEN from the editor. "You should have known there was stuff out there, why did you Afd?"

It seems to me, that is exactly what we are trying to discourage in new articles: I am now forced to research notability prior to Afd-ing on a topic on which I am barely interested (a new link in an article in which I am interested). Student7 (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This has always been true (well, assuming that you don't want to be embarrassed by regularly AfDing articles that are actually notable; some people don't care). Notability has always depended on whether or not suitable sources exist in the real world. It has never been safe to assume that the absence of sources named in the article means an absence of sources in the real world. For most subjects, this process requires only a few seconds. A single web search will prove, for example, that the subject of Heat intolerance is likely to be the sort of thing Wikipedia ought to have an article on.

Until you actually WP:CHALLENGE the specific material, there has never been any BURDEN on the original editor to prove that the material is supported by sources. More importantly for notability purposes, sources that fully meet the BURDEN of verifiability may be completely inadequate for demonstrating notability.

I agree that unref'd articles are undesirable, but no policy actually bans them, or even seriously discourages them. WP:V, for example, fully agrees with WP:N when it says "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." If we meant "If no reliable third-party sources are currently cited in the article...", then we would have actually said that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

If it's a matter of consensus of editors that sources exist -- now how do we get them into the article? In some articles, in which I am not a subject matter expert, I just use the standard reference works on the subject, summarize them, and you've got an article that passes WP:GNG. If there's a dispute and it is asserted that no sources for this topic exist, and then that becomes the consensus of editors and the article is deleted in due course, or an industrious editor finds the sources and adds them to the article. There are many, many good articles without sources which have never been challenged. Again, its about improving articles, not deleting them. patsw (talk) 00:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is this not official policy?

The way I see it, either notability matters, or it doesn't. This page's status as a "guideline" instead of a "policy" leads to a lot of confusion. I've recently begun to run into some editors who simply say, "Well, that's just a guideline, so this is an exception", and move along. I'm not well-versed in policy-making around here, so I'm genuinely confused as to why such an important requirement for building an encyclopedia wouldn't be part of official policy. LHM 16:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

"Notability" like is policy level in its treatment, in that notable topics are presumed to merit articles. The General Notability Guideline (ignoring the name) however is of guideline nature because exactly how to meet the GNG is a debate far and wide on WP. Most agree its appropriate, but the exact enforcement of it is difficult, and thus best left to guideline status. --MASEM (t) 16:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

So, notability is a guideline treated like policy? Why not simply elevate it to policy, then, and have a discussion around GNG concerns as it relates to policy? LHM 16:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

We would need to do something like WP:V and WP:RS, where the former is policy, the latter is guideline. As there's not much to say on notability beyond "to have an article, it must be notable", it doesn't make sense to dedicate a lot to that. --MASEM (t) 16:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

To me, it makes sense in that it would give the imprimatur of official policy to concerns about notability. As it currently stands, any interested editor can simply dismiss such concerns as "well it's only a guideline." LHM 17:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Since notability is really only a guideline applied at AFD discussions, an editor trying to claim "it's only a guideline and can be ignored" will likely be drowned out by other editors involved in the discussion. The guideline nature comes into play if someone were to argue "this is clearly a notable topic but I can't demonstrate that with published sources, but most everyone in this field recognizes it", and there may be agreement to that. --MASEM (t) 17:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

And those votes will be discarded by the closing admin. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Not if there's clear consensus that the topic is notable despite the lack of sources (it's a far long exception, but it is there). More often, it's more the challenge to the specific SNGs that there needs to be "guideline"-style looseness. But that's why these are discussions and not votes nor decided by a single person. --MASEM (t) 19:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

L - Think about Notability and Reliable Sources as hurdles whose height varies with context. Think about Verifiability as a fixed height hurdle. It is the same all time, content is verifiable or it is not. Policies on WP tend to the absolute. Guidelines are more flexible and contextual. I don't think notability will ever be a fixed height hurdle. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't disagree with the analogy, but I do think that "a notable topic gets an article" is a fixed hurdle, what's the variance is how that notability is demonstrated. --MASEM (t) 19:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

As I see it, WP:Notability flows directly from WP:V and WP:NOT. That is, the guideline provides some of the details of how those policies are implemented. (Think about it.) --Orlady (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:V is content policy, WP:N is concerned with the existence of articles as a whole, see WP:NNC.  I've commented further about WP:NOT below.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

LHM, when you encounter folks with that reductive notion of policies, you might like to point them at WP:The difference between policies, guidelines, and essays. Some of our most important pages—like WP:Five pillars and WP:Bold, revert, discuss—are "just" essays. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

No, the five pillars is not an essay.  The five pillars is "fundamental principles" and is listed co-equal with policies.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:N is a guideline that explains the WP:What Wikipedia is not policy which for years, editors have resisted attempts to turn it into a WP:What Wikipedia is policy. The laser-like focus of this guideline is to figure out what topics get stand-alone articles. That's it. The other policies like WP:RS and WP:V weave into WP:N. The origin of this policy is to have some objective criteria listed, and for the subjective criteria, some definitions, consistency and transparency for how we discuss it. It is unlikely to ever be renamed, but I would rename it to WP:Criteria for topics to become Wikipedia articles. patsw (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Whatever link once existed between WP:NOT and WP:N, this connection does not now exist.  WP:NOT is often used in AfD arguments attempting to delete a topic that has notability under WP:GNG.  For example WP:PLOT is routinely cited in topics about fiction.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

If the article meets the GNG, there's no way it can fail PLOT to be deleted - it may be too much plot relative to other parts, but PLOT states that we just don't source articles to the primary works. --MASEM (t) 05:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

While you're right that we don't source articles solely to primary works, WP:PLOT does not appear to say anything about that. It says that the sole contents of the page cannot be merely a plot summary, but nothing about sourcing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

It's an extrapolation - both WP:V and WP:N assert that primary-only sourced articles aren't long for this encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 02:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

If by "primary-only sourced" means "all the sources that have ever been published in the world about this subject are primary sources", rather than "all the sources whose names have already been typed into the article are primary sources", then we agree. None of our policies or guidelines pretend that notability is determined by the sources currently named in an article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I mean. However, I will say that if you don't include indication that other sources exist, one must be prepared to understand that someone may send that article to AFD on a non-notable claim. --MASEM (t) 16:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:N is a guideline for WP:Deletion policy, "The Wikipedia deletion policy describes how pages that do not meet the relevant criteria for content of the encyclopedia are identified".  Unscintillating (talk) 05:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the premise of this section that WP:N should be a policy.  WP:GNG is a guideline of the WP:N policy, and needs to be a separate guideline like the SNGs.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The deletion policy is a process policy: some other policies or guidelines determine if an article gets deleted based upon content, and WP:DEL describes what happens to get the article deleted. If WP:N is a guideline for WP:DEL, then likewise WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP are all guidelines or policies for WP:DEL in like manner.

Beware of policy creep. One sure was bringing chaos to Wikipedia is to elevate WP:GNG which is now a threshold test, into a guideline and then observe that thousands (and maybe a majority) of Wikipedia articles fail a WP:GNG challenge. There may be even people to argue that level of deletion debate on thousands of articles would be a good thing. I, for one, believe we are, over time, becoming constrained, and should be, in how much policy can change. Creating or modifying policies that would retroactively make thousands of articles which were created and edited for years under then-current policies, then able to be challenged for deletion is a form of intellectual betrayal. patsw (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• I've been in an on-going--and quite cordial--discussion with a sitting arbitrator that relates to this. I was told, regarding WP:Notability, that "guidelines are there just to guide", and that he wasn't a "slave" to such things (or something to that basic effect), if enough people thought the information was useful and interesting. This has already been used as a basic "WELIKEIT" recommendation at AFD, and to gloat a bit when an admin closed the GYFC discussion (without explanation) as "no consensus" when the only keep arguments relied almost exclusively on WELIKEIT-type arguments. This is why the Notability "guideline" needs to be the Notability "policy." LHM 20:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Forced notabliity.

When articles about talentless actors, singers and "stars" become notable anyway due to the spam of the hype machine media.

Examples of forced notability

• Justin Bieber
• Kim Kardashian
• Planking
• Twitter

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.103.64.194 (talk • contribs)

The media has covered these topics in depth, regardless if you like them or not, and thus they pass notability for Wikipedia. --MASEM (t) 00:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Restoring an important point

Prior to October 2010, this guideline used to contain the language: "Although articles should demonstrate the notability of their topics, and articles on topics that do not meet this criterion are generally deleted ..." In October 2010 an editor altered the text with the subject heading "copyedit." However, the alteration completely removed the notion that "articles should demonstrate the notability of their topics." As another editor recently pointed out here, articles do need to demonstrate notability per the proper application of WP:V, which is a policy. Our current notability tag is also based on the same premise: "Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic.". Are there any objections to restoring that piece of language to this guideline?Griswaldo (talk) 11:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I made the change, although my main purpose in re-drafting that section was to get omit needless words, like "it is important to consider...".

The "should demonstrate" has unfortunately been misunderstood by certain editors as meaning that notability is determined by whether or not an editor has already named sources in the article, rather than by whether the sources exist (that is, have been WP:Published, not have been WP:Cited; it might be clearer if we change that language from "exist" to "published"). According to these people, if we'd had the current notability guideline back then, then Cancer would have violated for the first several years of its existence, because the first proper citation wasn't added until the article was several years old.

Others have misunderstood that line as meaning that articles needed to contain a sentence like "___ is notable because...."

Overall, I think that the guideline clearer without the confusing and misleading statement that all articles should "demonstrate notability".

I agree that it is convenient for other editors if you demonstrate notability in advance of a challenge—if you fill an article about some alleged celebrity with a dozen sources, that saves me the bother of figuring out if any sources exist—but failing to pre-demonstrate notability doesn't actually violate any standards or make the topic be non-notable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we all agree that our articles should demonstrate why their topic is notable in some way... where we get into problems is determining how this is/must be achieved. Obviously, the existence of lots and lots of independent reliable secondary sources that discuss the topic will demonstrate notability (and I think including at least some of them in the article should be strongly encouraged). Blueboar (talk) 00:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboar. The language in question, which WhatamIdoing removed when s/he significantly altered the meaning of that paragraph in Oct. 2010 was longstanding. I see the exact wording it as early as 2008, and the idea that articles should establish their notability existed prior to that as well. Again, the idea that reliable sources establishing notability should be in an article if they exist is compliant with policy. Namely WP:V. The current wording makes it sound like we should not strive to add such sources to articles, merely note that they exist. Was there consensus reached anywhere to drastically alter the guideline in this manner? The subject heading of the edit merely claimed a "copyedit." I'd like to ask again if we can restore the idea that articles should establish the notability of their topics. Is there any objection to this? Please do point me to a relevant discussion if there was indeed one that established consensus for the current language. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I know that you're unhappy about the change. However, I really do think that you need to go read WP:V very carefully. It requires citations for exactly three types of materials (BLP adds another; see WP:MINREF for the complete list). If an article doesn't contain any of those types of material (and many stubs don't), then the article can simultaneously contain zero citations and fully comply with the WP:V.

And yes, I object to adding any language to this guideline that can be (mis)understood as saying that unref'd articles have violated the notability guideline. The guideline directly says, "Notability requires only the existence of suitable reliable sources, not their immediate citation." It would be unfortunate to have it say in one place "notability requires only the existence of suitable reliable sources" and in another place on the same page to say something like "notability requires you to cite suitable reliable sources". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

So change the former to match the latter. Is there ever a reason to have sources and not cite them? Reyk _YO! 21:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure: For example, you might know enough about the subject to know that many sources exist, but you might not have any at hand. I could write a substub on any number of notable, encyclopedic topics without having to consult anything more than my own memory. I fairly often expand articles based on nothing more concrete than my extensive knowledge of the subject. The information is verifiABLE (=sources have been published about it; usually, those sources are even on my bookshelf). The policies do not require that it be verifiED (=sources named in the article) except in four specific situations. And even if the stub violates the content policies on that point, it doesn't mean that their absence makes the subject somehow non-notable.

The context of this guideline is important here: The purpose of this page is to tell people what subjects qualify for a stand-alone article on Wikipedia. Citing the sources doesn't make a subject qualify. The subject qualifies if suitable sources have been WP:Published, not if they have been WP:Cited.

To use the example above: the article on Cancer literally did not get its first proper bibliographic citation until 34 (yes, thirty-four) months after its creation. The subject—the only thing this guideline cares about—was notable the entire time. The article needed help, but the subject was actually notable before the page was even created.

Put more directly: When we say that "Notability does not directly affect the content of articles", we actually mean it. Notability does not affect the content of the article, not even to the extent of telling editors that they should cite their sources. Telling people what to type on a page is the job of the content policies, not the notability guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Another reason: if you're one of the 99.9% of Wikipedia's users to whom citing a source in MediaWiki is an arcane and impenetrable matter -- it's a huge stretch for most people to even hit the edit button. I lurked on Wikipedia for years before I felt certain that I could write a citation without screwing it up, and I went to college and wrote research papers. I think it's easy for an experienced editor to lose sight of what an astronomical barrier to entry it would be if the standards were verified, not verifiable, and notability proven by citations, not notable. —chaos5023 (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I do sometimes forget what a barrier that is, since it's so automatic now. When I was a newbie, I pretty much could only add bare URLs. User:Arcadian patiently and silently cleaned up a lot of my citation messes back in the day. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

No one is going to delete an article if the newbie editor stuck in their citations as direct links to the third-party articles in question. (If they are, that editor needs a massive trout-slapping). That's an easily fixed problem. I'd rather see a new editor slap down bare URLs to support useful information than to try to understand citation templates and get frustrated and walk away. As long as those links are supporting verification and notability, hey great. But we need those in the article so that notability can be demonstrated. --MASEM (t) 13:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Putting that in would open the door to some pedantic social misfit deleting about 1,000,000 stub and short articles on cities, towns, provinces, obscure species species of plants and animals where the ability to meet wp:notability is presumed and probable, but it has not been established in the article. North8000 (talk) 00:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we all agree that notability exists as long as citations could be added to the article (ie they exist, even if they are not actually cited)... I hope we all agree that "best practice" is to establish that notability by actually citing some of them.

What I think we want to clarify for readers of this guideline is this: "While the lack of citations (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not necessarily indicate that a topic fails notability, providing citations to reliable sources is the best way to demonstrate that a topic passes notability. So, we strongly encourage editors to provide citations when they create an article, and to add citations to existing articles." (If people accept this approach, then we just need to figure out the best way to word it). Blueboar (talk) 12:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. North8000 (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm down with that. I'm strongly against AfDs on topics where an absolutely trivial external reference check shows notability, but on the face of it I don't see this language encouraging those. —chaos5023 (talk) 14:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I hope not... I dislike those as well, and it was not my intent to encourage them ... although (purely as an aside) there is the other side of the coin, and it is one of my pet peeves: All to often, when there is an AfD on an article that has no citations and a quick reference check shows that sources exist and are easy to find ... NO ONE BOTHERS TO ADD THEM TO THE ARTICLE. I really hate that. I don't think this policy can mandate that someone must "fix the problem" ... but we should include some wording to encourage them to do so. Blueboar (talk) 16:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I fully admit that I've only lightly followed this conversation but the issue I see popping up has to do with motivation or requiring action. People may start sending articles to AfD as a means to clean them up if there's a legitimate push to add references found in an AfD. I'm guessing one side will say that they're easily found in the archived AfD found on the talk page and the other side requiring that they be added by the end of the AfD. The compromise is possibly undefinable and if a line is drawn, it may be used to force improvement in lieu of deletion which, in my opinion, doesn't typically help the project as a whole.

Also, the participants here may be interested in the conversation going on here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Is_WP:BEFORE_obligatory.3F. OlYeller^Talktome 17:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Agree. On the former, based on cruising through random articles, that was a genuine reasonable guess of "1,000,000 stub and short articles on cities, towns, provinces, obscure species species of plants and animals where the ability to meet wp:notability is presumed and probable, but it has not been established in the article" which would be vulnerable. North8000 (talk) 17:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

But we should not be encouraging people to create stubs or articles without using reliable sources. That goes against WP:V. My problem is that the current language and even more so the argument that seems to be supporting it does encourage that. I agree wholeheartedly that notable subjects should not be deleted because they presently lack sources, with the exception of BLPs of course. On the other hand if sources are not included in articles then we have a WP:V problem. We also run into the problem that while finding the right sources for certain topics is very easy for some people it can be very difficult for others. Those others may in good faith look at an unreferenced article, fail to understand why it is notable, look for sources and not find any then go to AfD. If the obscure subject is easily referenced by someone who knows where to look, that person often turns around during the AfD and calls the nominator's good faith in question. If notability is established during the AfD, but the sources are not incorporated into the article just wait another year and watch the process repeat itself. Why is this better than simply doing the necessary work when we create and improve articles to source them adequatly? I really don't get it. It's a lose, lose proposition. Maybe some people like the AfD drama, and the constant arguing between inclusionists and deletionists, better than being productive.Griswaldo (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Probably the most common case amongst those is a geographic place stub article created by a bot. I'm not commenting pro or con on that, just pointing out that a LOT of those exist. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't object to the general approach suggested by Blueboar. However, I don't believe that WP:FAILN is the right place for it, since that section is all about what to do if suitable sources don't exist. WP:NRVE might be a reasonable home. Alternatively, we could created a new section like ==Notability is not determined by the number of citations currently named in the article==. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah... I would agree that WP:FAILN isn't the right place for it... in some ways my suggestion is a counter weight to FAILN... its more along the lines of a "PASSN" statement or perhaps a NOTFAILN statement... although those are not quite right either. I think it is an important point for the policy to make up front... but I am not sure where. Blueboar (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Fully support restoring some form of this long standing language and I think the suggested langugae fits perfectly right after the first sentence of WP:NRVE. Modifying it just slightly to fit there, it would read:

The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention to support a claim of notability. Thus, while lack of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not necessarily indicate that a topic fails notability, providing citations to reliable sources is the best way to demonstrate that a topic passes notability. So, we strongly encourage editors to provide citations when they create an article, and to add citations to existing articles.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I've taken one baby step towards doing this. I'm a little reluctant to declare any single approach to be "the best way". Citing independent (NB: not merely "reliable") sources is maybe convenient (for other editors), effective at stopping deletions, and common, but I'm not sure that it's necessarily "best" in every situation. Also, I wanted to phrase it in terms of benefits to the person who's doing the work, rather than "because we said so". So I started copyediting the suggested text, and I got lost in the weeds. I've added the first sentence and am thinking about the rest. My re-write, at the point that I gave up, looked like this:

However, naming citations to independent, reliable sources is an efficient way to communicate to other editors why you believe the article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If editors provide citations when they create or expand an article, the article is less likely to be nominated for deletion.

I'm not convinced that this would have been an improvement, so I didn't add it in the end. Perhaps someone else would like to have a go. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

What we're really talking about isn't a change in the rules that ultimately come into to play when there is a genuine question about actual wp:notability, we're trying to nudge towards two kinds of behavior before it gets to that:

• Make an effort to put sources in
• Do a common sense / reasonableness check before tagging for deletion. If it's a city, a province, a species of plant, etc. it probably meets wp:notability.

But it may be hard to write that in. North8000 (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm that social misfit, but is the point of 100,000s of stub articles on obscure organisms? No one is watching them and they can be easily altered to move an organism from one family to another, or to have an incorrect images added, with no one noticing. John lilburne (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget towns, geographical units etc. They seem to have been mostly built with bots, often noting one tertiary type source, but not using it as a citation. Somewhere some decision must have been made to allow doing this with bots. Most look like OK data, probably "cited" well enough for the one sentence that the article consists of. But nothing establishing wp:notability. Not commenting either way, just saying that there are lots of them out there. North8000 (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Mostly they are just hooks waiting for someone to hang something on. Who knows what else is out there. Seriously we have articles of groups whose notability is built from directory listings, obituaries of their members, and other such sources. Articles on the babies and pre-school children of celebrities, which is based purely on birth announcements, and tabloid gossip. John lilburne (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

You say, "...we have articles of groups whose notability is built from directory listings, obituaries of their members, and other such sources." Can you give any examples? I'm not sure what you are referring to. Bus stop (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I can build notability for a duck pond out of this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this. John lilburne (talk) 22:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Answering your much earlier question which may have been merely rhetorical. Organisms. Haven't seen much vandalism generally. I happen to watch one that has what school children consider an "amusing" name, and changes are 90% IP vandalism, driving the rest of us nuts. But other than that, haven't seem normal articles messed with that much. Nothing to drive the middle schooler to the article in the first place. Student7 (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Aye there was a degree of rhetoric in there, but many of the obscure critter articles are simply a vehicle for a picture, which are not the correct species according to some, of course Stubbs and Falke might have got that one wrong, I'll ask Steve next time I send him observation records. As for IP edits I see that someone has recently been having fun with Rhagonycha fulva's alternative jokey common name. Point is that community is unable to monitor this stuff, the L. laternaria page get 30-40 views of month all of them seeing a picture of the wrong organism. Add in 1,000,000s of villages and hamlets and it becomes impossible to monitor. [[Évreux Cathedral] has 224 stained glass windows dating from 1460-1520 each of them important artistically and culturally all documented in academic books etc, each one of which could warrant a stub article. 2 miles down the road at Saint Taurin there is another cache of about 100 scenes similarly documents and discussed. Local Roundtable Committees, one should be able to establish notability for almost all of them. All it needs is someone with a passion of them and we have 1000s of separate articles to maintain. John lilburne (talk) 20:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, now you know one of the reasons I'm a mergist.

AFAICT, the community doesn't actually care whether every single page is perfectly accurate and every single change monitored to keep it that way. These stubs exist because someone cared enough to start them. Eventually—and WP:There is no deadline—someone else will care enough to expand them and monitor them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

So have we established that the guidelines, as applied, can create notability for a duck pond? I'd like to know because there are several 100 such groups that we can write articles on, plus many of the individuals involved are also prominent in other local groups within there particular area. There will many articles where the press contact for the group will be interviewed across a number of local topics. Back in the 70s and 80s we set up Gingerbread drop in centres in squats, providing protective muscle at Haven houses, this was originally planned and organized in my mates kitchen, adjunct to that were the claimant union groups that were set up on the housing estates, and groups that harangued the local council social services and organized sit ins, and other activities that the lawyer types couldn't get involved with. Frequently the same people were involved in all of that activity. Most of it activism had its original start from discussions over a coffee and carrot cake in the high street (plus a number of industrial strikes were planned there too). If we dig back through the archives many of the players can have notability established, in pretty much the same way as the duck pond. John lilburne (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

No, that can't happen, because coverage strictly limited to local sources is not equivalent to "independent" and "significant coverage", nor likely would be of non-routine, enduring nature to be usable. --MASEM (t) 14:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Really are you sure? 'cos all those recent AFDs on synagogues were 'establishing' notability on local coverage and directories of synagogues, not sure there was any significant national coverage on many of them. Yet the AFD opposition were adamant that even slight local coverage was enough. Meanwhile I can summon up BBC news reports for my duck pond, that L&IRG was the forerunner of a number of such organizations across the UK. Plus a number of radical and left wing newspapers and magazines on the rest of it. But it won't be limited to those outlets. I mentioned the pressure groups on social services and welfare benefits, well it wasn't enough to just get people rehoused or make sure that they had money to feed the kids, one also had to provide them with working appliances and furniture. Community groups need transport to take them to see and talk with other groups in other cities, so a transport service was needed, the duck pond developed after a community transport minibus took a group down to see the Bristol development. National organizations came later as various groups federated or merged with their counterparts in other towns and cities. There were a number of research papers that came out of Warwick University on the phenomena, other places too, the developments promoted by Inter-action Trust won't have gone unrecorded. Moving on as the different groups required access to graphic artists that could create leaflets, posters, and other campaign material, a community arts group was formed, we stocked that with silk screen presses which we made ourselves, and a darkroom from equipment we'd managed to obtain from various companies. That group went on to develop courses with the arts department of the Lanchester Polytechnic, and there are still murals in the city that celebrate various campaigns. Some of the members in the initial groups reached out to create wildlife groups, others started architectural preservation groups, and last I knew there were still links back to the wildlife group. After the core group splintered, the independent groups that had formed were all interconnected in various ways, and all drew on each other for combined resources. Each of the organisations will have local and national coverage, we all came from the same stable, we all knew how to manipulate press coverage. John lilburne (talk) 17:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I supported WhatamIdoing's edit to WP:N just on the principle that it eliminated some circularity in defining notability: (paraphrasing) "non-notable articles are the ones that get deleted because they are not notable". A lot of the arguments raised for deletion are properly arguments for improving the article. I look at every poor article and ask myself "Can this be improved?" and not if its deletion can be rationalized for AfD. My own view is that the bar is not WP:GNG but lower - a consensus that with improvement, GNG can be passed. patsw (talk) 00:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hatnotes

I've boldly culled the formerly massive (and poorly punctuated) clump of hatnotes at the top of this page. Here's what was included, followed by my (perhaps erroneous) reasoning in pruning it down:

This page is about Notability guidelines. For the Notability noticeboard see WP:N/N. For Neutral point of view, see WP:NPOV. For Not now information page, see WP:NOTNOW. For what Wikipedia is not, see WP:NOT. For Citations, see WP:CITE. For Footnotes, see WP:FOOT

"WP:Importance" redirects here. For article importance within a WikiProject see Importance of topic.

"WP:NOTE" redirects here. For an explanation of Wikipedia reference notes, see WP:REFNOTE.

As far as I could see, WP:NPOV, WP:NOTNOW, and WP:NOT were included because they started with the letter N (and WP:N goes here). This rationale seems pretty flimsy to me, and there are other WP redirects/topics starting with N, such as WP:NONFREE.

WP:CITE, WP:FOOT, and WP:REFNOTE (which goes to a subtopic of WP:FOOT) were apparently included because WP:NOTE goes here, which makes sense, but why do we have to include three such links? I replaced them with one link to WP:NOTES, which I guessed was where WP:NOTE would target if it didn't go here.

The "Importance of topic" thing made a little sense to me, since "notability" and "importance" are certainly related topics, but I doubted that there was really much likelihood of confusing the rating of article importance within a WikiProject with the concept of "notability." Perhaps the bigger problem with this link is that it's piped, and the actual target is not Importance of topic but Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Release_Version_Criteria#Importance_of_topic, and piping in a hatnote doesn't make much sense because it doesn't inform the user of where they were actually trying to go, and including the entire unpiped URL seemed excessive in light of the previously estimated low likelihood of someone coming here looking for that page. So I eliminated that one.

On the other hand, someone coming to WP:NN looking for WP:N/N makes perfect sense. Hence, what I ended up with was:

This page is an article notability guideline. For the Notability noticeboard, see WP:N/N. For article footnotes, see WP:NOTES.

I hope I didn't step on anyone's toes. Comments/corrections welcome. Theoldsparkle (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Nutshell

The nutshell tells readers that

Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained significant and enduring notice by the world at large, and are not excluded for other reasons. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources such as published journals, books, and newspapers to determine if the world has shown "significant enough notice" for an encyclopedia article. Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only their existence.

The talk of enduring notice would seem to me to require that every topic should be at least twenty years old (or at best should be analogous to twenty-year old topics whose notice has endured); and once this is combined with a requirement that notice should be by the world at large, most topics are out, because only a tiny percentage of WP editors can start to look for significant notice in Swahili, Hausa, Mongolian, Azeri, etc. All in all I think that the nutshell requires rephrasing, at least.

Without (yet) bothering to link, italicize, etc, here's a very tentative first redraft:

Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained significant attention, lasting beyond the news cycle, and that are not excluded for other reasons. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources such as published journals, books, and newspapers to gauge this attention. Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only their existence.

No doubt this is riddled with flaws and could be greatly improved. -- Hoary (talk) 01:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that "enduring notice" requires all topics to be twenty years old, since we can use some judgment to decide whether something is likely to endure (and, of course, add or remove it later, if our best estimate proves to be wrong).

I think it's important to retain the "noticed world at large" concept, since "noticed by me and my three best friends" (in the case of garage bands) and "noticed by the tiny newspaper in my hometown, circulation 116 including the free copy sent to the library" (in the case of small businesses) isn't what we're after. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Certainly "enduring" wasn't and isn't intended to mean "demonstrably lasting 20 years". But I wonder what it does mean. Let's consider for a moment that big name of 2008, Sarah Palin. Her tweets still make the news, and I suppose that even if she decides to devote her life to shooting caribou or whatever rather than politics she'll live on as mentions within bios of Prez Obama. But what about all the kerfuffle around her -- the books by her, parodies of her, faked interview of her, etc? My guess is that this will be of no interest unless she "stands for office". And yet I don't suppose that many people would want it all deleted, or even say that it should be deleted a decade from now if it's as uninteresting then as it might be. Or if Palin is too uncomfortably political, how about "2010 Northumbria Police manhunt"? Huge news (or non-news) in Britain at the time, but will it last? If it doesn't last, should the article be deleted? (My gut feeling is that it shouldn't, as it will be useful for later investigators into the British mass media who may wonder what all the fuss was about.) ¶ As for "the world at large", you and I are looking at two opposite extremes of what that might mean. Maybe my interpretation is more ridiculous than yours, but anyway, can't this be reworded? -- Hoary (talk) 06:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like you're thinking more about WP:DP than about WP:N. That said, though, I agree with you about the nutshell. I'd suggest changing "significant and enduring" to "significant enough". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it's worth clarifying this at WP:EVENTS and WP:NOTNEWS. But as for WP:N, some amount of endurance is required. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Supporting Hoary's remarks, television has slow news days when someone abusing his dog gets prime time, "end of the world as we know it" coverage, which is the only way they know to cover news. It's all supposed to seem terrifically important at the time to keep you tuned in to their advertisers. But "newsworthy" it is not. And not even close to encyclopedic. Student7 (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Palin's article will probably be kept permanently, simply because she was the governor of a US state. This would be the case even if she hadn't run for vice president, written books, etc.

The Northumbria manhunt, however, might not be kept ten years from now; instead, it might be shortened dramatically and merged into the article about the area where it happened. But we don't know: it might turn out that this was a hugely important event that triggered major legal reforms. There's no way to predict whether coverage will continue. It is not at all unusual for Wikipedians to write an article about a current event that seems to be major at the time, and then delete it three to five years later, when it's clear that it was just a flash in the pan. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, "enduring notice" doesn't not mean "ongoing notice". See the section about "notability is not temporary". Once it is notable, it is notable forever, even if everyone forgets about it 3 days from now. Gigs (talk) 00:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not the job of the nutshell to extend the guideline beyond what is on the page below.  The text at WP:NTEMP does not use the word "enduring".  And there seems to be clear agreement that "enduring" is problematic.  This proposal is to replace the word "enduring" with "non-temporary":

from: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained significant and enduring notice by the world at large, and are not excluded for other reasons. to:      Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained significant and non-temporary notice by the world at large, and are not excluded for other reasons.

Unscintillating (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The only question mark I see here is the word "non-temporary" which is not the most common of words; however, a Google search shows that it is common use.  Unscintillating (talk) 10:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

What about:

Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained significant notice over a period of time by the world at large, and are not excluded for other reasons.

This avoids the problematic word "enduring" and the unusual word "non-temporary.陣内_Jinnai 18:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Combining the above ideas; including text from Hoary, Wtmitchell and Jinnai:

from: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained significant and enduring notice by the world at large, and are not excluded for other reasons. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources such as published journals, books, and newspapers to determine if the world has shown "significant enough notice" for an encyclopedia article. Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only their existence. to:      Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained significant enough attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not excluded for other reasons. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources such as published journals, books, and newspapers to gauge this attention. Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only their existence.

Unscintillating (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I like "enduring" but "over a period of time" is probably good enough. I just sort of expect someone to come around and say "But three days is 'a period of time', so we have to keep my article on the lulz cat that was mentioned in the media on three days last month."

Also, in practice, events and people who are in the media a bit for a year or so, and then never heard of again, do actually get deleted a few years later. If you've got six news stories from 2005, and not a peep since, then it's not unusual for an AfD to close with deletion. The minimum period of time seems to be multiple years, if the coverage is not ongoing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

If you feel that would happen quite often, we can add phrase it as "over an extended period of time". As such, 3 days would unlikely to be see as extended. A month could be for some things.陣内_Jinnai 19:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The proposal uses the words "significant enough", which defers the issue to the guideline itself as I think it should.  I do not agree that we would want to change it to "an extended period of time", the guideline at WP:NTEMP says that the time is "not temporary".  There is more at WP:Notability (events); also, I read somewhere that Balloon boy hoax is considered to be a benchmark.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone agree to add this?  Unscintillating (talk) 03:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems that we are close here to bringing the word "enduring" in line with the guideline.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

My suggestions:

• Change "consider evidence ... to gauge this attention" to "determine its significance" (which more accurately and concisely describes the process).
• Change "their existence" to "whether the topic should have its own article" (for precision) Other than that, I endorse. patsw (talk) 00:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

from: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained significant and enduring notice by the world at large, and are not excluded for other reasons. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources such as published journals, books, and newspapers to determine if the world has shown "significant enough notice" for an encyclopedia article. Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only their existence. prev:  Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained significant enough attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not excluded for other reasons. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources such as published journals, books, and newspapers to gauge this attention. Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only their existence. to:      Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained significant enough attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not excluded for other reasons. We determine its significance from reliable independent sources such as published journals, books, and newspapers to gauge this attention. Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article.

  Unscintillating (talk) 02:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

But notability is so much more than analysis of journals, books, and newspapers; I think the prev proposal, which perhaps we agree uses fuzzier logic, was better for this nutshell.  Also the word "its" has an unclear antecedent.  To the second change, I agree, which leads to this proposal:

from: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained significant and enduring notice by the world at large, and are not excluded for other reasons. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources such as published journals, books, and newspapers to determine if the world has shown "significant enough notice" for an encyclopedia article. Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only their existence. to:      Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained significant enough attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not excluded for other reasons. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources such as published journals, books, and newspapers to gauge this attention. Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article.

  Unscintillating (talk) 02:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I concur. patsw (talk) 02:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, enduring

We're sort of stuck with "enduring". It is an import from the "What the Wikipedia is Not" policy upon which this guideline is based and attempts to expand. I can't explain why "enduring" has defenders. I agree with Hoary that the word doesn't express what we actually do. Here is my substitute for the WP:NOT text, which if there were a consensus that it is an improvement would devolve to WP:N as well:

(WP:NOT) from: Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. to: Wikipedia articles on persons and events are on those which have a significance beyond the time frame of their initial appearance in primary and secondary sources. A consensus of Wikipedia editors can determine that significance immediately, or can defer the evaluation of significance based upon the actual course of events and the appearance of other relevant sources.

There's a strange idea that Wikipedia articles have undefined expiration dates requiring new sources and lacking such coverage ought to be deleted. Editors holding this view point to enduring as support for it. patsw (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I take the term "enduring notability" as an upfront requirement, not a back end expiration date. We need to establish that a topic has enduring notability before we write an article... But once "enduring notability" has been established, that notability does not expire. It's the difference between fleeting notoriety and lasting notability... and between news and history. Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Grammar issue

I'm concerned about saying "those that have gained significant enough attention". That sounds ungrammatical to me. Perhaps "significantly enough"? (I had suggested "enough significant attention", but was reverted.) Would "sufficiently significant" be better? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Would "significant-enough attention" be an improvement?  Unscintillating (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, so that's the intended meaning. I'd say "yes", but only relatively speaking. My first choice would be "sufficiently significant", and my second choice would be "significant-enough". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, except I don't see "significant-enough" as a viable replacement. "Sufficiently significant" is far preferable. LHM 20:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

My initial reaction to a change from "significant enough attention" to "sufficiently significant attention" is that it adds three syllables.  The phrase "significant enough notice" has been in the nutshell for a long time.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Then it's been wrong for a long time. I guess it just wasn't noticed until now. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry if my revert seems picky. "significant enough" means the same as "sufficiently significant" in my my view. "enough significant attention" is referring to a quantity of significant attention rather than the level to which attention is significant. This change was therefore more than just a grammar fix as it changed the meaning. A change to "sufficiently significant attention" would be ok I think. Unless there's consensus to change the meaning of course.--Michig (talk) 21:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
  • No problem about your revert. I understand. Sorry that I was imprecise about what I meant, but hopefully I've clarified that here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
    • FWIW, I support your edit. The criteria per the GNG are that 1) the attention is significant 2) there is enough of it. "Significant enough" invites in exactly the kind of stealth-WP:IDONTLIKEIT source snobbery that I'm utterly sick of dealing with. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
    • In fact, I have now reverted its reversion, on the basis that the consensus represented by the GNG itself supports the revision. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Wouldn't it be great if these changes were discussed properly by a large enough group of editors *before* they were made? This is kind of an important guideline.--Michig (talk) 22:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
        • Well, sure, but revising a nutshell to be closer in meaning to the text that it's ostensibly summarizing presents a much lower bar than changes that actually alter the guideline itself. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
          • I agree with Michig that there has been too much reverting without discussion in the last 24 hours. And I don't think that there is consensus for the hyphenated "significant-enough". I still think that "sufficiently significant" is just plain better English. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
            • Regarding the hyphen, I made the change as a bold change because I was of the clear opinion that "significant-enough attention" was preferable to "significant enough attention", and that it was worth comparing to other options.  FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

from: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained significant enough attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not excluded for other reasons. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources such as published journals, books, and newspapers to gauge this attention. Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article. curr:  Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained significant-enough attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not excluded for other reasons. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources such as published journals, books, and newspapers to gauge this attention. Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article. to:      Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not excluded for other reasons. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources such as published journals, books, and newspapers to gauge this attention. Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article.

The curr version has the hyphen, and the to version uses "sufficiently".  Unscintillating (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• I support the change, in the first sentence, to "sufficiently signficant". About the second sentence, I'm not sure where "We determine its significance from" comes from. The page (at least currently and recently) says "We consider evidence from". And it doesn't make sense to say, in a single sentence "We determine its significance from... to gauge this attention." So I would support changing what the page says now to read "sufficiently significant". --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that, thanks for the quick feedback, I've replaced all three segments; the "from", "curr", and "to"; with text from the WP:N page.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. This word choice removes the possibility of misunderstanding that it has something to do with quantity rather than quality. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)