Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 65

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 60←Archive 63Archive 64Archive 65Archive 66Archive 67→Archive 70

RfC about independent sources for academic notability

An RfC has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)#RfC about independent sources for academic notability to decide the following question:

Current wording: Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable.
Proposed wording: Academics/professors meeting one or more of the following conditions, as substantiated using multiple published, reliable, secondary sources which are independent of the subject and each other, are notable.

Shall the wording in the section Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria be changed to the proposed wording above?

Editors are welcome to join the discussion. -- Netoholic @ 20:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Notification of Discussion

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums to collect ideas for a potential notability guideline for elections and referendums. StudiesWorld (talk) 22:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

What is a "legally recognized place"?

Comment requested in discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(geographic_features)#GEOLAND_is_self-contradictory_–_what_is_a_"legally_recognized_place"? regarding notability for places – is there a difference in how we treat towns and neighborhoods on a map? What counts as "legal recognition"? Reywas92Talk 23:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of User:Rosguill/NPPRS, a list of sources for new page patrollers

There is a discussion of User:Rosguill/NPPRS, a list of sources intended to help new page patrollers evaluate an article subject's notability. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers § Centralizing information about sources. — Newslinger talk 04:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Page

How can I add a page about myself? Paul Battsy (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Paul Battsy, it would first be necessary to determine if you would meet our notability guidelines. Generally, this means that multiple reliable and independent sources have covered a subject in reasonable depth. Even if that's the case, though, it's really difficult to remain neutral and avoid using personal knowledge when writing about yourself or someone or something you're close to and have an interest in, so we generally discourage that. If knowing all that you still want to try, you can write a draft article at Draft:Paul Battsy (just click that redlink and start writing), and put it in for review once you think it's ready to go into the encyclopedia. But I'll warn up front that for most people, trying to write an acceptable encyclopedia article about themself ends in frustration. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Linguistic research on AFD discussions

Some of you might be interested in this research presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9vvwV5KfW4 (starting at about 27:30 minutes; the first half is on incivility). It includes information about which policies/guidelines are cited the most (WP:GNG and WP:N in general), which types of articles tend to be deleted if they get nominated (we tended to delete biographies, football, martial arts, and athletes; we tended to keep events, locations, history, crime, and architecture), and other information. There is also information at http://www.mandanemedia.com/afd/ with some diagrams. [With thanks to WhatamIdoing for the link]

  • 1 thing in terms of notability policies I found of particular note:

There's one funky dynamic visual aid that shows how different policies are cited and how their users usually vote (e.g. unsurprisingly, people citing BEFORE usually !vote Keep, but AUTHOR is way more mixed in outcomes than the NFOOTY proponents). Nosebagbear (talk) 19:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Train stations

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RMSP 16 railway station, Melbourne is heading for "keep" with a claim that there is consensus that all railway stations, including flag stops, are considered notable. Is there such a consensus? I'm not seeing any support for that in WP:RAILOUTCOMES, or even the essay Wikipedia:Notability (Railway lines and stations). SpinningSpark 14:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't look like that statement "All railway stations are notable" is true given the SNG for trains. I mean, I know a lot can be, but we never adopted any type of rule for those. Merging is a fine solution. --Masem (t) 16:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment on train station notability

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
TL;DR: No consensus exists at this time to presume all train station articles regardless of scope, size etc are notable, and these borderline articles should be assessed on a case by case basis weighing relevant notability guidelines and community consensus. RFC recommended to more clearly define what constitutes a train station under this essay in order to better justify presumed notability in a future discussion. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 07:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Alright, I've read over this for the past couple of weeks and have given this some thought. I also commented at the bottom of the discussion to see if there would be opposition to me closing this - after a month, there's been no response, nor any further discussion, nor has anyone else opted to close it. So I've decided to. By a rough head count only, we would be looking at a narrow consensus for no. Of course, this discussion is not so simple, and this would be a poor way to determine the outcome.

A recurring theme in this discussion is the question of "What is a train station?", however from my several readings of this discussion, I am unable to determine that a clear consensus has been reached on the definition of a train station in line with this essay page. I recommend an RFC or discussion be opened to more clearly define what constitutes a train station in this essay.

Now, onto the point on presumed notability. Given that the discussion is somewhat close, the other take away I am getting is that a decent proportion of those voting no, are no, but xyz. A decent portion of yes votes are yes, but xyz as well - specifically, that exceptions exist to a blanket rule including or excluding articles based on certain criteria. However, this RFC has not determined what that criteria should be sufficiently to make a determination on this basis.

Overall, I am reading a concern by those voting in the affirmative that adopting a no approach could lead to mass deletions of possibly notable train stations. Those voting in the negative are citing our GNG among others, a guideline which historically trumps essays. The other concern I read is a close in the affirmative could lead to the essay continuing to be used to claim all stations, regardless of size or function, or any other qualifier, are automatically notable (a recent AFD was given as an example).

Given that the text of the essay does not clearly specify what a train station constitutes, and that hasn't been determined as a result of this discussion, I find myself needing to read this essay closer, along with other Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Without a clearly defined definition of what does and does not constitute a train station for the purposes of presumed notability, I must assume the broadest possible definition based on past AFDs, which has included water towers, flag stops, etc etc. A few editors have cited that the page is only an essay, so what the outcome here is doesn't matter, but in deletion debates things don't often pan out that way.

Summing up, I overall do not see a consensus that all train station articles (regardless of size, features etc etc) should be presumed to be notable, as currently defined. I stress, that I recommend a discussion takes place here to determine what should constitute a train station, so this result may possibly be revisited, and the scope of what is a notable train station can be more clearly defined, but as it stands, I do not see a consensus to presume all train stations are notable. If in doubt, until the definition is tightened, articles should be assessed on a case-by-case as is standard.

Note: While I have spent significant time reviewing this discussion, and I did give significant time before closing to allow an admin to pick it up, I appreciate if an administrator wishes to come in and give a different close here. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 07:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia:Notability (Railway lines and stations) be amended to say that train stations are presumed to be notable? 18:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

  • It appears that a certain group of editors have been claiming at numerous AFDs over many years that there is consensus that all train stations are automatically notable. This came to my attention in the AFD mentioned above, where this rationale was used for a mere flag stop on disused branch line. I think that this needs to be bottomed out once and for all with a formally closed RFC. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2019#RfC India railway stations has been cited as previously establishing consensus, but that was closed procedurally as being too vague to come to a decision. SpinningSpark 18:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No train stations should not be inherently notable.Slatersteven (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No. "Presumed notable" should mean that, for such subjects, it is almost always the case that they are notable, via the relevant wider notability guideline (GNG in this case). I see no significant difference between this level of train stop and a bus stop or taxi stand, and no evidence that in-depth reliable independent sources would be almost always available for this level of stop. The advice in Wikipedia:Notability (Railway lines and stations) that in such cases it may be better to redirect and mention in the parent train line article would be well heeded. I would probably be willing to state that every Hochbahnhof (is there an equivalent word or phrase in English?) can be presumed notable, but at lower levels we should go case-by-case. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No Train stations are not inherently notable, since mere existence does not necessarily engender secondary reliable sources. I assume they would fall under WP:NBUILD, though I'm not sure under which prong precisely - I'm not sure it matters too much. WP:NBUILD merely says buildings must pass WP:GNG, though cultural landmarks may be presumed to pass WP:GNG, a sensible proposal. SportingFlyer T·C 19:04, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I find it difficult to believe that any railway station could exist without reliable sources being written about it, although many such sources may not be readily available on the Internet. Is there anywhere in the world where railway stations can be built without going through planning processes? As a more general point, I believe that Wikipedia is failing its readers by the growing insistence that sources should be readily available online. We should aspire to give our readers more than they can get from their favourite search engine. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Existence and notability are not the same. Of course they will have been written about (in time tables for example). But they still have to have been written about in depth, and about themselves (and not for example something that happened there).Slatersteven (talk) 19:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Going through a planning process doesn't mean very much. That is true of all buildings. Even construction of my driveway went through a planning process. I agree that offline sources should be taken into account, but if a page consists of nothing more than existence and location, it would be better merged elsewhere until more information is found. SpinningSpark 20:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
User:Phil Bridger, I believe the answer to your question, "Is there anywhere in the world where railway stations can be built without going through planning processes?" is "the entire American West during the 19th century". A water stop would have been built every 7 to 10 miles the entire length of each line, and many of these were technically tiny "stations" (until the technology improved). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, I guess this comes down to the "What is a station?" question asked below. I wouldn't class a water stop as a station, even if passengers got off there for a few minutes to stretch their legs or answer a call of nature, but others might. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I think you've identified the important question. (These weren't just mechanical necessities; they were destinations for goods and people. I assume that from the railway's POV, if you're stopping anyway, you might as well be getting paid for it. A dime per mile per person adds up, and you're making a small fortune on those bags of wheat the farmer dropped off.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:38, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No, for the avoidance of doubt of where I stand on this. SpinningSpark 19:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No. I do not see any reason to believe that the vast majority of train stations would meet the requirements of substantial, in-depth coverage from multiple reliable and independent sources required for notability, so presuming them to be notable is poor advice. Notability of such stations should be evaluated on a case by case basis based on actual availability of sources. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No per Seraphimblade and others. Small stations can always be covered in an article on the line. Johnbod (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes railway stations are hardly a hotbed of promotionalism that need independent sourcing, they have got a similar notability to large schools and readers of Wikipedia expect them to be included as part of Wikipedia's purpose as a gazeteer. It is just a waste of time to delete and then recreate articles later that obviously have off-line sources, and indepth coverage is not required on every single topic, such as endless controversy sections and argumentative prose -there are many stubs in Encyclopedia Brittanica that are useful and railway stations are a useful and popular part of Wikipedia in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 21:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No - Almost nothing should be inherently notable based just on what it is. What matters is that it's been recognized by others as worthy of note. If it's not the case that 99% of train stations have enough independent sourcing to be notable, we shouldn't consider them such. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes And I vote yes for a specific reason. If we choose to venture down the cul-de-sac of deleting railway stations that may or may not be "notable", then where do we end? Delete one railway station along a route and then we have to consider if the route is notable, and then if the network is notable, and then if the entire system is notable, and then.......well, where does it end? If the nation is considered notable, then its railway system should, and thence downwards. I guess that a fair few British railway stations are not, by themselves, notable, but within the wider context of the British railway system, of course they become important because they are chains within a wider network. Let us not become puritanical about notability. Sometimes we can ignore all rules. doktorb wordsdeeds 22:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
    • What you want can be solved with a list of stations along a specific route. The Banner talk 23:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
    • We have guidelines for inclusion. There's no slippery slope argument about deleting non-notable topics. What you're saying is contrary to WP:NOTINHERITED. Every subject should be able to stand on its own against our policies and guidelines. thence downwards until which point? Each seat on a train? People at the factories that manufacture parts of the seat? To draw a line indifferent to actual sourcing is original research. If subject A is extremely notable, then very prominent positions, features, etc. of subject A are likely to be notable, but subject A's notability isn't inherited by anything else. Heads of state are notable not because heads of state should be notable, but because they are inevitably the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Universities are notable not because we decide so but because they practically always receive coverage in independent sources, etc. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:23, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes The page Wikipedia:Notability (Railway lines and stations) is an essay and so has no special status. Insofar as it makes a difference, the page should discourage deletion nominations because they will rarely be successful as there will usually be a sensible alternative to deletion. The worst case will usually be merger of any insignificant station into the line, railway company or other more general article. Andrew D. (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Mixed, in many cases there's almost nothing to be said about a train station that couldn't be better presented in an article about the line or network it's a part of. That having been said, stations that serve as connections between two or more lines would be a difficult edge case to handle. Thus, I would consider supporting a proposal that all stations that serve as interchanges should be considered notable, and that all train lines or networks (and other mass transit) should be considered notable, which would head off the slippery slope suggested by Doktorbuk. I'm also concerned that implementing a No ruling in practice would be a WP:BIAS nightmare, as in my experience most of the new train station articles that are added these are for locations in India and Vietnam where a lack of availability of online sources and the lack of English language coverage is going to lead to the nomination of many articles where WP:NEXIST is likely true but impossible to prove. signed, Rosguill talk 22:46, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes... BUT... the presumption of notability is not a guarantee of notability. There is no free pass. “Presumption” of notability is not the same as inherent (or automatic) notability. “Presumption” simply means that there is a strong likelihood that the required sources exist... even if they have not yet been cited. So, WP:BRFORE applies. That said, there is no guarantee. If, after a reasonably exhaustive search, no sources can be found, the topic can be deemed non-notable, and the article CAN be deleted. Blueboar (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Here's the thing with that. On the most basic level I agree with you, but the problem with explicitly stating that something is "presumed notable" is that in practice it functions much like inherent notability when tested. Is your experience with that different? Whereas with all other editing on Wikipedia, the WP:BURDEN is on those arguing for inclusion, when something is said to be "presumed notable" first per such-and-such WP:NOTABILITYSHORTCUT, the burden is placed instead on those arguing the opposite to prove the negative. There's something to be said for this, I suppose, in that it adds a level of protection to some articles that might take some effort to properly source and so be subject to hasty deletion nominations, but I'm generally wary of giving things what amounts to mostly-but-not-quite a free pass with this kind of addition. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
I feel like the ideal way to handle this would be to institute the practice such that articles presumed to be notable per SNG should be routinely accepted at NPP, but that otherwise that shouldn't be used as an argument at AfD if nominated at some other point in time. That having been said, I agree with your impression of how this plays out in practice. signed, Rosguill talk 00:36, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No When here is nothing more to tell than a building permit or time table info, than it clearly fails WP:GNG. Existence is not the same as notability. The Banner talk 23:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes Provided there is sufficient reliable information about its existence to write an article. I wonder if the people saying no have thought through the implications; It would mean endless debates over which stations are considered notable or not, which would doubtlessly take up lots of time and energy which could better be spent elsewhere, and would inevitably lead to lots of arbitrary and disputed outcomes. Far better to keep things simple and have a simple consistent rule on the matter. G-13114 (talk) 01:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
The hard part is agreeing on what information is “sufficient”. Blueboar (talk) 01:56, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't know whether anyone else has or not, but I can assure you I have, hence my statement that it should be decided case by case. That isn't "arbitrary", that's how we decide whether Wikipedia should or should not have an article about a particular subject. Though one hopes if sufficient sources to demonstrate notability don't exist, no one would create an article on the subject to begin with. But that's not always the case, so when someone doubts the notability of an article, we have a discussion to determine whether there are or are not enough reliable, independent references to support said article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Nice theory, but in practice in my experience deciding things "case by case" that tends to produce lots of arbitrary and illogical outcomes. G-13114 (talk) 08:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, for this essay but keep in mind it's just an essay so it's rather odd there's a RfC on it. - There is a long-standing and very wise precedent that all mainline rail stations are considered notable, whether it be the impossibility of extensive sources not exist (in-depth government agency reports at least) or the history and current role rail stations have played in localities and regions. WP is a never-ender process of creating articles of notable topics and improving existing articles. It takes a tone of time, care and energy for us all. There are tens of thousands of rail stations and if we suddenly have to be sidetracked to flesh out the retaining merits of each and every one of them then there will be a colossal diversion of our writing and improving efforts not to mention open a hornets nest of constant and never ending animosity between thousands of editors over the years in this proposed never-ending process. Highly respected Administrator DGG expressed a similar sentiment many years ago and WP has very wisely taken that position. There are common sense applications to our notability guidelines and we should leave well-enough alone and get on to having our editors focus most of their work one what readers care about, providing constantly improved articles on topics they want to learn more about. Oakshade (talk) 06:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
    • So fear for a critical approach? Or just fear of a lot of work? Is there any reason to believe that suddenly every station-article is hammered and in danger? The Banner talk 09:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, generally, but I agree with Blueboar's comment that this doesn't guarantee notability. There are far, far, far less train stations than bus stops or taxi ranks, so the argument that these are comparable is wrong. It is WP:RECENTISM gone mad to suggest that, say, a station closed in 1963 requires multiple indepth online sources to prove notability. If multiple reliable independent online sources can be found about current railway stations, we can be quite certain that there were sources for a historic station (that may have existed for decades). I'm not sure a 'flag stop' would be considered a 'station', but maybe the definition of a 'railway station' needs to be nailed down. Sionk (talk) 12:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes per Sionk and Blueboar's reasoning. Just because the sources are not on-line means absolutely nothing in terms of notability. And notability is not temporary, so the fact that a station closed even decades ago doesn't change it's notability. And, finally, the fact that the presumption of notability has been the standard around here for over a decade now, applying as it has to hundreds of articles, states plainly to me that any perceived conflict with other guidelines doesn't really exist, and that the broader consensus is already established. oknazevad (talk) 15:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No but following on Blueboar's reasoning, if there were criteria to limit what stations to consider (such as station in major metropolitian areas to start), then this would be reasonable. We cannot presume every station is notable, but I can believe a reasonable subset of stations like those in major cities can be presumed notable. That still means the notability can be challenged later (and this is why we cannot presume every station is notable to start). --Masem (t) 16:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No: I don't believe anything is automatically notable absent reliable sources backing up the same, and I don't care for the arguments of some of the 'yes' proponents. No one requires online sources for anything, and "oh it'd be too much trouble and work to change things" begs the question "Who's forcing you to do that work?" Ravenswing 16:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Speaking more generally, I see from the discussion that my basic view is not yet accepted in these discussions on inclusion --that the purpose of WP is to write articles , not to debate about writing articles. After 12 years of trying to explain this, I see that the majority of the community interested in discussing policy does not agree. The inescapable conclusion is that most people who contribute to these discussions regard WP as a place to have arguments, rather than do constructive work. Fortunately for WP, the great majority of WPedians pay very little attention to such discussions, and are here for the purpose of writing and improving articles, and if they want to discuss and argue a little, want to discuss what constitutes proper article content. The appropriate role for the others is to stay out of their way.
There are only two reason for not having an article: that there is nothing much to say, or that what there is to say is harmful to our purposes. The first is a reason for having in many cases combination articles, or lists with information about the items. (And even in the GNG, this is sensibly provided for). The other reason is thej ustification for removing articles which will inevitably be primarily promotional, or constitute gossip, or be of only temporary interest, or cannot be adequately verified. .

As applied to this particular type of subject, my view is therefore

  • Yes, but sometimes they will be combination articles. WP is properly inclusive on transportation infrastructure. The comparison with bus stops and taxi stands is inappropriate. Bus stops except for central or intercity bus terminals are not buildings, but usually markings of a sidewalk, with perhaps a shelter--those that do correspond to railway stations should be considered notable. Taxi stands are not normally buildings at all. Both of these can change without significant physical construction. The nature of railway lines is otherwise. But w're talking about railway stations, not railway stops. Those that are merely shelters, usually unattended, can be considered insignificant enough that they not need to be included as articles unless they have been more substantial in the past. Those stations that are more than this, but still with insufficient information for a full article, can be in combination articles. We are too much concerned with what is worth having a full article--that is important only for those who consider the measure of their work here to be number of articles, not article quality, and for those whose real purpose is to get articles highly ranked in the search engines. DGG ( talk ) 18:20, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
    • The AfD that led to this RfC was about a railway stop that basically consisted only of a flat piece of ground around the tracks with a sign (see the pre-redirection version of the article). It was not a building. In that sense it was indeed more similar to a bus stop or taxi stand than the sort of station you are thinking of. Perhaps the wording of this RfC is too ambiguous in its use of the word "station"? But that word was part of the title of the AfD article. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I had this same thought. I have been to "train stations" that are a bench next to the track and a booth for buying tickets. So the idea that all of those would be automatically notable seemed bizarre. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Insufficient data for meaningful answer There are stations that are buildings, stations that are unenclosed platforms, stations only indicated by a sign marking a point where a train can optionally be stationary... XOR'easter (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No. There is no such thing as automatic or inherent notability. Although most actual train stations will turn out to be notable because of the available sourcing, presuming that all stations are automatically notable will just lead to people trying to claim this makes every disused siding, branch point, or flag stop automatically entitled to an article whether sources exist or not. Reyk YO! 09:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No. There's a presumption that railway stations are highly likely to be notable even if the sources can't be found—they almost invariably have significant impact on the local economy and consequently it can be assumed that they receive press coverage (my lengthy thoughts on the matter are here)—but no topic is automatically notable. Even in those cases where it's reasonable to presume notability, if the sources aren't there the topic is almost certainly better covered as part of a broader article on the route or area rather than as a one-line stub; "this is notable" isn't synonymous with "this must have its own article". ‑ Iridescent 22:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No. Largely per Iridescent. That said, in my experience (as an off-line researcher as well), I think there are many rural flag stops in the United States for which even newspaper coverage can't be presumed. While some of the charismatic short lines have obsessive board-by-board coverage of the sort exploited for Wood Siding railway station, but there are stations in my trusty SPV atlas where passenger service lived and died too far from any community large enough for a newspaper. That said, I don't think a great many articles that meet that description are being created. Choess (talk) 23:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. The Banner (and maybe others) suggested that a list of stations along a specific route would be sufficient. This would be a complete nightmare for something like Greater Anglia (train operating company): the table would have 150 rows, with entries for 'Place', 'Local authority', 'Grid reference', 'Coordinates', 'Station code', 'Managed by', 'Number of platforms', 'Annual rail passenger usage', 'Key dates', 'Original company', 'photograph', 'Preceding station', 'Following station', 'Former services' (at a minimum) for each station. The "No"s need to pause and think about what the unintended consequences will be. Useddenim (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Scaremongering. If you have so much info, you also have sources. And with sources, you can make a claim for notability. Ow, and a sortable list of stations, listed from start point to endpoint, will be sufficient. The Banner talk 00:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
As opposed to rabble-rousing? Useddenim (talk) 04:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. A presumption of notability is not a guarantee of notability, but it is almost always the case that sufficient information is available about railway stations to pass the GNG - it's not always easily findable online (given that many stations long predate the internet and the prominence of information that is useful to travellers but not for encyclopaedia writers) but it's almost always there. There will be exceptions, but these should only be nominated for deletion when there is evidence of failure to meet the GNG not an absence of evidence that it meets it. There are cases when the encyclopaedia is best served solely by a list of stations (e.g. on an article about the line or company) but that is not the same as the station not being notable. Thryduulf (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No. Due to this leaving the door open for exploiting the guideline. OP already mentioned this rationale being used to start page abut flag stops and other such things that surely are not included among the train stations that were considered when the notability claim was made. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Definition? What's a "station"? I'm happy to see stations as implicitly notable, but I recognise that there are many "places where trains may stop and passengers alight" which are neither notable, nor stations. In many systems, there is a distinction drawn between a "station" and a "halt", "flag stop" or whatever.
This question isn't about the notability of stations, so much as the distinction between a station and these lesser locations. That's a technical issue, not a WP policy one. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree with this, the AFD the OP starts with is for an article on a flag stop, not anything with any real infrastructure AFAIK. So this whole RFC has been rather mired in equivocation. postdlf (talk) 13:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree also, but I don't think "halt" is a useful term here as usage has varied very significantly depending on time and place. I think that any discussion about what constitutes a "station" for the purposes of presumed notability would best be held at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains. Thryduulf (talk) 15:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
If we don't know what we're talking about, then we don't have a meaningful result, but instead one that is necessarily overbroad and an invitation to start untargeted and wasteful AFDs. postdlf (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. Stations should be presumed notable providing they consisted at some point of more than a hut and a platform; however many stations should be considered for merging into larger parent articles providing they are not disruptive to that article (e.g. Too many stations). Certainly a series of near identical articles saying the same two lines of prose is pointless hoping for someone to expand it out is nearly pointless. There is some benefits namely wikidata and infobox for having an article that are lost on a merged one. One would wish some commonsense to be applied to particular situations, it can be annoy if a line consisted of 7 stations and one halt and the single halt was forced into a merge; but that can be the Wikipedia way. And if it isn't badly broke leave it alone. Tables sometimes work but they can be bad it some stations need to outgrow their row and may render poorly on mobile devices with limited screen width. What I do feel strongly about is that tram stops should be non notable by default, certainly this is an issue around Dublin.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
    • I broadly agree with you, although "tram stops" vary from a sign by the side of the road and nothing else (e.g. some in Blackpool), all the way up to stations that are more significant than some train stations (e.g. the former Station Street stop in Nottingham). If there are 7 stations and 1 halt on the line, then consider merging the halt to a section on the article about the place it serves - if there ins't anywhere to merge it to then it probably deserves an article so the next/previous boxes work if nothing else. Thryduulf (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
    • more than a hut and a platform That's just excluded much of the modern British rail network. It's not a useful distinction. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
      • I think what might be useful is a list of features, to be presumed notable a station would need at least one of them but not necessarily all. A permanent building entirely or primarily for railway use would be one entry on the list, but not the only one. Thryduulf (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
        • It would be even more useful to not create a set guideline and just refer back to either WP:NBUILD or WP:GNG at deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 17:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
          • It's not that simple. Much of the significance of a station comes from it being part of a line. That's still the case, whether we can easily demonstrate WP:N / WP:GNG and certainly WP:NBUILD for each and every station on it. Teesside Airport is an example of a station that's certainly marginal, but it's on what's still the world's first passenger railway and our coverage of that line would be lacking if it were removed.
I do wonder if WP:N generally ought to take more account of the completeness of other, broader topics, not merely notability in isolation. After all, who needs thulium? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
After all, who needs thulium? Tom Lehrer. Thryduulf (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes Andy, we've often seen that a mechanical application of notability guidelines threaten to poke arbitrary holes in subjects that merit comprehensive coverage. It's a useful rough proxy for identifying content we want, but not an end in itself. And often misapplied as a bludgeon to WP:SPLITS, where we see AFD nominators confused as to what the relevant topic is, versus just what element of that topic happens to be most convenient to format as a separate page. postdlf (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No, and I would like to see this added in clear and direct terms. It is neither inherently notable (nothing is) nor presumed notable (a status that we accord to subjects that we're certain we'll be able to find sources about, e.g., US presidents). I suggest a few sentences along these lines: "Because there is so much variation in what 'a train station' means and has meant through history – ranging from an empty field where people could signal the train to request a stop, to a water stop for steam trains, to an unenclosed platform on a suburban commuter line, to major facilities on long-distance rail – it is impossible to say that all train stations are notable. Instead, each current and former train station must be evaluated on its own merits. Small and short-lived train stations should generally be combined with larger articles (e.g., the nearest town and/or a list of all stops on that rail line), as should any train station for which relatively little is known." WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No Not categorically or automatically wp:notable North8000 (talk) 00:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak yes per the first pillar: Our encyclopedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Wikipedia is, partly, a gazetteer, and there is merit in us having comprehensive information on railway stations in line with that purpose. For that reason stations should be presumed to be suitable for inclusion (i.e., presumed to be notable). "Presumed" does not mean every station is notable, and arguments about notability not being inherited from the line, or there being no inherent notability miss that crucial word; even things that meet the GNG may not actually be notable, we just presume that things which meet it are. I don't see this addition as being out of line with those policies. On the other hand, Wikipedia is not a directory and we shouldn't include every station on a line simply because it exists: there should be clear evidence that a given station is actually important. Perhaps something similar to WP:NACADEMICS where researchers with particularly high citation metrics in relation to the rest of their field are presumed notable under that subject specific guideline? Stations that meet some threshold of ridership relative to other stations? So a post in a field where a train may optionally stop wouldn't qualify since it likely doesn't have high ridership, but most regular stops likely would. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 03:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No (Summoned by bot) – there's nothing special here that requires extra verbiage about notability; existing standards are sufficient. Oddly, it seems like some of the "no" and "yes" votes cite the same reasoning, stated with reversed polarity: "No, unless it meets notability"; "Yes, provided it meets notability". Is everybody really just revealing their Inclusionist/Exclusionist bias, here? Did I say I vote "no", yet? Mathglot (talk) 06:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment, As I predicted, this discussion has shown up the Pandora's box which would be opened by changing the existing guidelines, given the wildly differing interpretations of what different people would consider 'notable', which is why I argued against opening it. Of course to have a meaningful answer, we would first have to define what is meant by a station, presumably any reasonable definition of a station would imply some form of permanent infrastructure such as platforms, buildings or shelters, which would rule out most 'pole in a field next to tracks' type entities. G-13114 (talk) 08:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
A proposal to change an essay is not going to change anything. WP:CONSENSUS has and long considered mainline stations notable and retainable regardless of what this essay was lacking. Even a "no" "outcome" to this RfC will just signify the status quo.Oakshade (talk) 03:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
In that case I request that the closer formally assess what effect this discussion has on the consensus of train station notability. SpinningSpark 16:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
That’s impossible as a decade and a half of consensus on mainline stations and how editors apply common sense approaches to notability isn’t at all affected by a limited RfC discussion about wording of an essay on an obscure project talk page. They can try to reach a “conclusion” but it doesn’t change anything.
I certainly hope that the closer does reach a conclusion, otherwise it will be necessary to start yet another AFD. To claim that this discussion is "limited" is quite perverse given that it is on a major policy page, has been trailed at VP, and has a high level of participation. Conversely, AFDs often have a participation of just two or three. Frankly, it is being disruptive to declare in advance that you are going to ignore the result of this RFC and carry on regardless. It is not true, in any case, that train stations are invariably kept at AFD. When there is little available information they can be closed as merge or redirect. The one that triggered this discussion was so closed. So was Woolloongabba railway station, Belvidere station, Manchester Avenue station, and Yeouinaru Station. But you already know this, you are just choosing to ignore it. SpinningSpark 09:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Whatever "conclusion" a closer on an RfC about an obscure essay performs is meaningless. And yes, a single RfC in a limited discussion in which the participation is minuscule compared to the 15 years of consensus in AfDs does zero change of that true consensus. This reminds me of the RfC discussion on airline destinations on an obscure talk page like this one in which that limited discussion "concluded" there should be no airline destination articles. After an AfD that had much more participation and subsequent DRV, editors quickly rendered that RfC "conclusion" as meaningless as that was a WP:CONLIMITED discussion with no true gauge of consensus. Same thing is happening here except this page is even more unknown and the discussion is about an essay. Those AfD examples were just mere tram stops, not actual main stations, something even you acknowleged in the last AfD. Oakshade (talk) 14:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Oh please, don't be misrepresenting what I said. None of those examples are tram stops. SpinningSpark 15:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Someone's just grouchy that consensus isn't going their way. I suspect the "reeeeee RfCs are meaningless" tone would be rather more gloaty if everyone was saying all flag stops and sidings are automatically notable. Reyk YO! 15:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
(ec) Yes please. The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manchester Avenue station AfD was just about a tram stop. The 1st Yeouinaru station AfD, which was just about a tram stop, was overturned and in fact retained after the second Afd - strange you chose that as an "example" of a deleted article when it in fact was kept. The Woolloongabba railway station AfD and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belvidere station AfDs were deleted for WP:CRYSTAL reasons as they were just proposed stations. Oakshade (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Depends I'd suggest that stations on nationally-important commuter rail (Amtrak, British Rail, etc.) and prominent rapid transit (NYC Subway, Chicago "L", Paris Metro, etc.) lines/systems are/ought to be presumed notable, but not for less prominent lines of systems such as the Rochester, NY subway. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
    You are aware that British Rail hasn't existed for over 20 years? ‑ Iridescent 19:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
    Technically that has literally nothing to do with Notability, per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Newimpartial (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
    But it might have quite a lot to do with whether it's good example of a nationally important commuter rail. ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No Nothing in inherently notable, and far too many people assert a presumption of notability in certain categories means an article is immune from even discussion for deletion. Absurd to think that Wikipedia needs to include any place a train stops in its own article. Reywas92Talk 07:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Train Stations should be presumed notable, but the definition of what a station is needs to be tightened. At the least, a train station must have a platform, a station building, a manned ticket booth, facilities, and a a timetable board. Flag stops and other stops are not notable. Darx9url (talk) 09:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
    Would this new definition include metro/subway stops? Blueboar (talk) 14:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
    Would this proposed definition include non-passenger facilities with this qualities (except presumably the ticket booth)? What about a train station that existed briefly at some point? (Perhaps the rail line failed, or the station was replaced with one in a slightly different location.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:51, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Wrong question. Per the explicit votes of XOR'easter and Andy Dingley, the important question is not "Are all X notable?" it is "What are some minimal criteria that an example of X should satisfy for it to be presumably notable?" This argument is also made/question is also raised (but not as an explicit vote) by David Eppstein, Phil Bridger, Sionk, Masem, DGG, PraiseVivec, postdif, Thryduulf, Djm-leighpark, WhatamIdoing, Wugapodes, G-13114, and Darx9url. The suggestion of an NPROF-like list of criteria is excellent; the details can be haggled over outside any RfC. --JBL (talk) 12:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes we mustn't give Wikipedia a beeching axe to Wikipedia's open source ad free railway coverage. 2A01:4C8:41D:80F0:96E3:B69F:DA6C:E498 (talk) 12:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Only people my age or older, and British will have a clue what you are talking about. Nice analogy though. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No There is no such thing as inherent notability, and the current language "It may be considered that if enough attributable information is available about a station on a main system to verify that it exists, it generally is appropriate for the subject to have its own article" should be rewritten to reflect that.
Sure, it's "just an essay", but it's presented as advice (not simply an opinion piece) and it's silly to maintain bad advice in Wiki space especially if folks are using it to support !votes. –dlthewave ☎ 19:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • My original contribution of 31 Mar 2019 within this page, which questioned the notability of rarely used flag stops, has since been archived. My concern related to the stops already listed within the main article for the Jasper–Prince Rupert train that all possess their own stub pages. Based on passenger volumes and sheer remoteness, I could not imagine that any train has stopped at the majority of these trackside poles in years. The fact that these pages remain as stubs after a decade of existence suggests their insignificance. The meagre contents of these specific stubs varies from misleading to largely erroneous. Making corrections seems pointless, since it would merely duplicate the railway section of the respective Wikipedia pages covering these hamlets/ghost towns. If interested parties were successful in having these particular stubs deleted, would someone less familiar with the locations just reinstate them? DMBanks1 (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

ReconditeRodent, I strongly challenge your blatant supervote close here. The current consensus seems to be that it needs at least a platform and a manned, permanent, purpose-specific building [to be considered a railway station] not only doesn't reflect consensus, it isn't even suggested as a possible consensus. This closure as worded would redefine roughly 90% of the world's railway stations as no longer being stations; in most countries only the largest stations have staffed ticket offices and customers either use ticket vending machines at the stations or pay a guard on the train; in much of the world stations don't have physical platforms, just a cleared area where people wait for the train; and many mainline stations which no sane person wouldn't consider "railway stations" (e.g. Roughton Road railway station or Ebbw Vale Parkway railway station) don't have a building of any kind except maybe a rain shelter, let alone a "manned, permanent, purpose-specific building". ‑ Iridescent 06:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Sorry. I'd meant for the definition to be temporary, pending further discussion, which was not clear, and I'd tried to base the criteria on what was suggested by the most holdout conditional votes to assuage concerns of the guideline being overreaching, not to imply that stations which don't meet it are excluded by default. I've amended the wording to try to reflect that but since this was my first close I obviously won't object to a do-over if you and others have further issues. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 12:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • ReconditeRodent, I would also object to your closure here. This discussion shows clearly that there is no consensus that train stations should be presumed notable. Under non-admin closures, non-admins shouldn't close close calls or cases where the outcome isn't clear. It's nice that you're trying to be helpful, but please reverse this and let someone more experienced evaluate the discussion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
As there doesn't seem to be any clear consensus any way, the default position is to retain the status quo. G-13114 (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Nobody has the foggiest idea what the status quo is, or if there even is one. That's why we're trying to come to an agreement here. Reyk YO! 19:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
The status quo since WP's inception is to retain mainline rail stations. Oakshade (talk) 06:51, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
You keep saying that. But AfD results are not so consistent. Trying to sneak in disused sidings and flag stops as actual stations doesn't really help either. Reyk YO! 08:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
AfD results on mainline stations are very consistent and have been since the beginning of WP. It not me or anyone saying that, it's the fact. Oakshade (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I believe that you'll find that "status quo" in this case, according to the policy on policies is that when something like a notability essay is disputed, then the policies trump it. And unless things have changed since the last time I looked, the policy on consensus says that if you are asking questions about whether to adopt a rule (e.g., "retain mainline rail stations"), and you can't demonstrate an actual consensus for adopting it, then the result is non-adoption. The result of non-consensus is effectively a repeal of the rule. Therefore, if you want to wikilawyer this – which, for the record, I don't recommend – the policy-based answer is currently "all rail stations need to meet the GNG", not "Having demonstrated that there is no consensus for this rule, we get to keep insisting that it be enforced anyway". My advice for supporters of a rail-specific rule is to get busy crafting a workable definition of "mainline rail station", so that rest of us can figure out exactly what constitutes a "mainline rail station". For example, does the line need to still be in operation? Does it still need to carry passengers, or is it enough for to have carried passengers at least briefly in the past? And I'd also make doubly certain that the boundaries of your preferred rule are made very clear, so that it doesn't creep from "all mainline stations" to "all stations" to "someone told me that every part of the rail system can have a separate article" (because WP:Nobody reads the directions, and that kind of word-of-mouth creep will happen if you don't actively resist it). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposed closure

Hi all. Spotted this one on AN/RFC. Noticed that someone else closed this RFC which was then undone. I'm not an admin, but am relatively experienced with closing RMs. Before I assess, and given this has been open nearly 2 months, and with the backlog of RFCs to be closed, I thought I'd check in here first since others have opined a desire for an admin to close this one. Thoughts? Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 16:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Withdrawn closure by ReconditeRodent

TL;DR: Yes, with several conditions. Points that should be included in the wording of the essay are in bold.
Points that I'd recommend including as they may not occur to all users are asterisked.

Yes !votes argue along various lines:

  • Wikipedia is, and is expected to be, more than any old encyclopedia.
  • Editors’ time and energy can be better spent than in endless AfD discussions, which are neither particularly valuable or clear-cut.
  • Most AfD discussions are unsuccessful or, at worst, end in a merge (see WP:RAILOUTCOMES).*
  • Since this is a guideline, rather than a rule, it should not stand in the way of case-by-case decisions.
  • It is necessary for every stop to be included for a line to be covered comprehensively.
  • Coverage by reliable sources likely exists for most stations even if it is not available online.
  • To prevent a bias against countries from which sources are less likely to be easily accessible.*
  • The GNGs are just guidelines – we decide what's notable.

Most No !votes argue that the notability of any given station is best decided on a case-by-case basis, and even an informal one-size-fits-all policy risks being used to shut down reasonable debate. Some argue that in many cases significant coverage in reliable sources will not exist, or will not be accessible.

The balance would seem to be tipped by the mixed opinions (Rosguill, Masem, DGG, Djm-leighpark, Wugapodes, John M Wolfson, Darx9url, and JBL, though many others make similar points) which endorse the idea only under certain conditions:

Firstly, a clear definition for a ‘train station’, pending discussion. From the discussion that’s been had, the current consensus seems to be that it needs at least a platform and a manned, permanent, purpose-specific building. Many ‘halts’ and ‘flag stops’ are therefore will likely not be presumed to be notable although this does not mean they can be presumed to be non-notable. I would say that there also seems to be a tentative consensus that they should not be given an article for the sole purpose of ‘completeness’.

Second, at least one other indicator of notability, such as:

  • The station is on a major line.
  • The station serves as an interchange between two lines with articles.
  • The station is located in a major metropolitan area.

The above list is based on what editors have suggested but should by no means be considered final; it could be used as a starting point to be amended by further discussion (see WP:NACADEMICS for something similar).

As for what it means in practice to ‘presume’ notability (other than not systematically targeting articles for deletion), I would endorse Rosguill’s proposal, that articles meeting these criteria are routinely accepted at WP:NPP but should a Merge or AfD discussion arise, this guideline does not guarantee inclusion, and consensus must then be established, as always, on a case-by-case basis. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 03:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've made an appropriate edit to the page to reflect the close of this RFC. This mainly involved reverting a previous edit from January 2016. SpinningSpark 17:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

What Wikipedia Editors Determine as 'Acceptable' Notability

Hi all, I am a fairly new account, still waiting on my draft to be accepted. This has given me time to scroll through the many AfC pending submissions pages. I just wanted to draw attention to the overall theme of many of the comments on pages I have seen, for pages that have been repeatedly resubmitted, or still waiting in the backlog of 1700+ submissions as of today.

In the lists of drafts, I find the topics quite international, global in other words. And I have an understanding that Wikipedia being offered in many languages is a global landscape of editors and accounts and read all over the world.

Which brings me to a point of contention. Many of the re-submissions and drafts waiting that are international in nature, tend to have sources that are from those countries. And I can't help but wonder if the topic of "Notability" on Wikipedia is biased. I am not a data scientist, but if I had the time and assistance to crunch the numbers, I would say Wiki articles sourcing from "independent sources" that are US/UK/AUS or generally the "Global North" would more likely be accepted than those with sources from "independent sources" in the Global South.

I am saying the establishing notability process seems incredibly biased towards citing American-based independent and reliable sources, for international topics in countries that American-based independent news sources would never write about - and then using that as a yardstick for what is "notable".

Just want to draw attention to the bias. And remind Wikipedia that all those drafts were written by flesh and blood people TRYING TO CONTRIBUTE TO THIS PLATFORM and to not forget that.

By all means have high-standards, but realize that the New York Times is not going to be writing about a hospital in a poor county of the Philippines. That hospital might not be notable to YOU in the West, but seeing a Wikipedia page about that hospital for a foreign tourist or local could help establish a sense of relief for someone in need of emergency help. Landmarks and services are notable; they shouldn't have to be resubmitted 5, 6 times and given the same excuse to provide reliable sources like a broken record.

Wnkwdy (talk) 06:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)Wnkwdy

  • I'm unfamiliar with what you're frustrated with, but I'm frequently reviewing drafts at AfC. A level of bias will always exist - for instance, it's difficult for me to review sources in Korean since I do not read the language or the script, so I am less likely to accept an article that only uses Korean sources, even with translation services. There's also bias because it's more difficult to verify places that aren't in English, for example Somalian villages have come up for deletion frequently because we can't prove they exist (to be fair, most of those articles were bulk generated from old inaccurate print maps.) And there's also bias in the way different countries operate with their journalism - we are biased toward feature articles, and not every country does full-length features on particular individuals in the same way say the New York Times might. But the test to pass AfC is not a very difficult one. If there's an article that's continually rejected, either the editors are ignoring reliable sources, or whatever's being rejected just hasn't been proved notable. SportingFlyer T·C 07:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I would second this, and add as well that the solution to Wikipedia's systemic bias against topics relevant to the global south is not to mass accept non-notable, unverifiable, or otherwise unpublishable articles about these topics. Having an encyclopedia with lots of unverifiable content about the global south is not an improvement over a simple lack of information. signed, Rosguill talk 18:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  • A note: We are not a travel or local guidebook. It is not our place to document hospitals for people to be able to find them, or landmarks. They must be notable buildings or businesses or geographic features. This is not to counter the point that we do have a bias on English/Western sources, and that in general we should not reject articles on notability if they only come from non-English sources (per WP:NOENG). --Masem (t) 18:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

A link I added to give more information on "Multiple sources" was swiftly reverted. The reverting comment simply said "Needs discussion", which sounds like the reverting editor is making a WP:POINT, but in case the editor has legitimate concerns, they can address them here. Banana Republic (talk) 22:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

A concern I see is that this implicitly suggests "three sources and you're good". That's not really true as it depends on the depth of coverage of the sources, and this makes something to be gamed. It's also a rather new essay so I can't say if it has generally broad consensus. --Masem (t) 22:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't think the essay says that. The quality of the sources can be challenged. But yes, in general, it's hard to challenge notability when there are 3 good solid references that are independent of each. But it does not mean that it's impossible. Banana Republic (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Specifically added language that a challenged reference would reduce the quantity of good references. Banana Republic (talk) 17:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • See WP:AGF your bold link to an essay from a policy was reverted see BRD, which you then reverted. The essay is not an appropriate link as it contains one editor's interpretation of multiple sources as meaning three sources when other editors believe the interpretation is two good in-depth sources, so it is not an appropriate link to one interpretation when there are others, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
The essay doesn't say anything about two references. It just says that 3 good references that are independent of each other is a threshold that is difficult to challenge from a notability point of view. Banana Republic (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Added to the essay that in some cases two references can be used to establish notability. Banana Republic (talk) 17:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • What they said. You can't link an essay you wrote four days ago saying what you personally feel "Wikipedia community norms" are as if it were part of policy; it gives the misleading impression to good-faith newcomers that if there are three adequate sources a topic is automatically notable, which is just going to confuse and upset good-faith newcomers when they see their work deleted. Having multiple sources is important, but it's not the be-all and end-all of notability. ‑ Iridescent 22:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
The essay does not say anything is automatic. It just says that when you have three good references that are independent of each other, it's pretty hard to challenge notability. Banana Republic (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I wrote the essay 4 days ago, but that does not mean that the essay cannot be updated and improved. If you can think of ways to expand and improve the essay, please go ahead and do it. I do not own that essay. Banana Republic (talk) 23:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The point of the essay is to provide some guideline on "what does multiple sources" means. It does not say that three references is a Wikipedia stamp of approval. Banana Republic (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

  • The essay is nothing like in line with the actual consensus on sourcing. The concentration on newspaper sources is highly misleading. Many articles are about things that are not in the news, screw for instance. For many technical or scientific articles it would be highly inappropriate to use newspaper sources at all, Einstein field equations for instance. The idea that three sources from different time periods are needed might be appropriate for an event if WP:SUSTAINED is an issue, but in general all the sources coming from the same time period may be perfectly ok. SpinningSpark 23:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
I guess the essay could be improved to better clarify that the different time periods is only for news stories. I thought it was clear when I wrote "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" and "In order to show that a subject covered in many news reports is notable". But it can certainly be improved to add clarity. Banana Republic (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
I have put the issue of newspapers in a specific section about news events. Banana Republic (talk) 17:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I have made some updates to the essay based on concerns raised above. Are there still objections to including a link to provide a more in-depth discussion on the meaning "multiple sources"? The term is purposefully vague, so I think it's helpful to provide additional details on what "multiple sources" could mean. Banana Republic (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I still find that it is indirectly affirming that 2 or 3 sources is sufficient, which I know isn't the intent, but as soon as you drop numbers into that, people will game it left and right. I think this is a situation where editors need to watch and learn what is generally acceptable, rather than write to any specific guidance. --Masem (t) 00:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
The whole point of this project page is to provide guidance, hence the {{subcat guideline}} template at the top of the page. Since we are not talking about dropping numbers directly into this guideline, but rather add supplemental discussion, I don't think that it's a guarantee that 2 or 3 sources is sufficient. It just says this is what is normally acceptable within this project.
This is a situation where editors need to watch and learn what is generally acceptable.
This sentence is a head-scratcher. The whole point of having a guideline is to help editors learn without having to go through the pain of trial and error. Banana Republic (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
I guess I am old school from way back in the USENET days where lurk and learn was the mantra. I am just very concerned from past discussions that as soon as you give a hint of a number in a guideline like notability, people will use that as the absolute. We had the same problem with the non-free content policy, where people wanted to know how many non-frees an article can have, and found cases of people gaming "one is generally okay". Maybe I'm being overly cautious here. I'd really like to see discussion that the number of sources is directly related to the depth of coverage, the quality /independence of the source, and some other factors. For example, I would wholly support that notability is met if a well-respected journalist wrote a lengthy book biography of a person, and that was the only source used at the time on the article about that person. On the opposite site, a situation we often encounter in the video games area are crappy "top 10 lists" articles that give minimal context, and people using 5 or 6 of these to try to justify notability. More to the point, "more than 1 source" is generally important, but its not only that when it comes to GNG/AFD review. --Masem (t) 01:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the multiple non-free image issue you brought up, so I don't know whether it is relevant to this discussion.
I think it's good to give more insight into what exactly is the expectation behind "multiple sources". This would benefit both editors defending notability, as well as editors challenging notability. Editors defending notability would know that if they can find 3 in-depth independent references it is highly unlikely that the notability will be challenged, and if they cannot find 3 in-depth independent references, they can expect a challenge on notability. On the flip side, editors challenging notability would know that demanding 5 in-depth references is unreasonable.
My recommendation would be to have a link to the essay, and improve the essay such that it gives the best possible guidance to editors — both those defending a challenge of notability and those challenging notability. After all, that's the point of the essay, and the link just helps editors to more easily find the essay. Banana Republic (talk) 05:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
I'd really like to see discussion that the number of sources is directly related to the depth of coverage, the quality /independence of the source, and some other factors.
I have added a discussion on quality of references. Banana Republic (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
I have now added a section on applicability to address concerns about misusing the guidelines. Banana Republic (talk) 15:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

"Wikipedia's notability policy" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia's notability policy. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 17:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Meta Working Group Notability Recommendation

Those interested in notability and reliable sources should take a look at the Diversity Working Group's suggested change:

"In order to encourage such changes, we propose to either develop more flexible and context-sensitive interpretations of notability policies (in order to include missing or suppressed voices and bridge gaps in content, reach, and users (in terms of both access and contributions) or to create alternative platforms."

Nosebagbear (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and "Q8b. Who needs to make a decision on this Recommendation? Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, in conjunction with affiliates, and other stakeholders." See the sandbag swing! Johnbod (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the purpose of these working groups. GMGtalk 20:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I expect it's to exempt any minority group claiming to be unrepresented on Wikipedia from notability criteria. Ravenswing 21:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Seconded. North8000 (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
What is it that you are seconding? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC).

I suspect that this one is going to end up causing a rift in the community. We take our notability criteria very seriously here at WP.en, and will resist attempts to water it down. Blueboar (talk) 02:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  • The thing is, I'm not entirely sure there is even an actual proposal in there anywhere. It is an awful lot of words, but all I really see is "we should increase diversity by changing our policies in such a way that increases diversity". ...Okaaay... That's not really a proposal is it?
They mostly seem to be attacking policies that don't exist, at least not here. As far as I am aware, we don't actually have a policy that discounts local, non-Western or non-English sources. That's not to say that people don't make arguments at AfD all the time that are based more on intuition than they are on policy. But that's an organizational culture problem, and not a policy problem, that can be solved by changing policy, as if vague hand-waving about nebulous policy changes meant anything anyway.
All-in-all, these working groups come off a lot like a 173-slide mandatory Army briefing on sexual assault. No reason whatsoever to think that it in any way actually helps to solve the problem, but it does mean we're doing a thing, and clearly doing a thing is better than doing no thing, because apparently no one has heard of opportunity cost, and the real possibility that comissively doing something that accomplishes nothing, may actually be worse than omissively doing nothing that also accomplishes nothing. GMGtalk 13:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
At least, the only way that that working group can influence en.wiki is if those suggestions are codified in a WMF resolution (which I doubt will happen). GMG is right in that we already have policies that deal with the "western" issue (in that we do not reject foreign sources for notability/verifyability) and we had a recent discussion on the "male" issue, or more specifically underpresented groups like women and so on, and know that's an issue due to lack of sourcing (not just reliable). If they really want to address the issue, they need to look at the pool of volunteers, which most are from the West. We don't *have* access to sources that would be needed to expand diversity in the way they discuss because those are local, print sources in the underrepresented regions. --Masem (t) 13:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
That is exactly why they want to change our notability and verifiability policies. Make no mistake, this is all about getting the "history of the tribe", as told by the tribe, on WP, or, as Plan B, "to create alternative platforms", which I favour. Johnbod (talk) 14:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
In terms of actual proposals I still favor my own suggestion to simply pay companies to mass translate promoted content across projects, and brute force incubate small projects to the point of building a self-sustaining community. Other than that, every time this comes up I can't help but dig out the innards of my thoughts until I reach the point of "if you want to fix under-representation of sources on minority topics, then put your money where your mouth is an open a WMF publishing house", specifically to encourage post-docs and the like to publish secondary sources in these areas. This would not be unlike the way that state historical societies and public universities operate publishing houses to encourage publishing of content in their fields to fulfill their mandates. GMGtalk 13:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
To be fair I have seen just that argument, and related ones (such as but its an X (as in race, creed or nationality) source and is thus not admissible). But I do not see any concrete suggestions, just a vague "THERE IS AN ISSUE, LETS DEAL WITH IT", for all it says the intent could be "I think my mum is the best cook in the world, and I am RS for that view". What we need is to know what is being suggested, no one should ever sign blank cheuqes.Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Slatersteven - a statement of intent is not useful. Agreeing to a future (as yet unspecified) plan is not wise. KillerChihuahua 14:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Notability help at AFD?

I wonder if it would be possible to get some more opinions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magdalen_Berns. This article is for a young woman who's recently died, who ran a controversial Youtube channel, and has garnered minor mentions in the press because prominent people (e.g. J.K. Rowling) followed her on Twitter, or talked about her on Twitter. This has culminated in a wave of obituaries in reliable sources, which obviously are hugely positive and describe her work in loving detail.

Meanwhile, because Magdalen was barely notable in life, there are *no* reliable sources providing criticism of her work - which took the form of, for instance, describing trans women as "blackface actors". I'm concerned that this is a situation where while the page may meet WP:N and WP:V, it cannot possibly meet WP:NPOV, as there's no way to provide, from reliable secondary sources, a complete picture of Magdalen's work.

If she's notable, she's notable; if we stick with what's verifiable even if that results in hagiography, then we do. But I feel like there needs to be a lot more eyes on this. Vashti (talk) 12:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

There you have your answer "barely notable in life".Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
People are making a concerted effort to insist that she was notable in life, and that because of the previous coverage of "is J.K Rowling a transphobe" and "is Rachel MacKinnon awful to dying women", she doesn't meet WP:BIO1E. Vashti (talk) 12:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Her death seems to have attracted some attention. As such she may well be notable, but its also clear that she was not all that notable until she died.Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
So what would the best approach be, in order to balance the article? We can't cite the tweets, blog posts and Youtube videos of random citizens. TBH I feel the existing sources describing her as e.g. a TERF and a transphobe are incredibly poor ("some random on Twitter called her hateful and aggressive"), but taking them out would remove *any* criticism from the article - assuming that namecalling can be taken as criticism at all. It's all a bit WP:FALSEBALANCEy, not to mention the WP:WEIGHT issues. Vashti (talk) 12:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
We do not have to have false balance (especially as it is not a BLP). We cite what RS say, if RS are universally negative so are we. If RS do not mention it nor do we. But by the same token if they are not negative neither should we be.Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
So we can have a positive article, replete with uncontradicted praise, on someone who's so unnotable that nobody has bothered to publish criticism of her virulently transphobic work? Vashti (talk) 12:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
People saying nasty things about you is not a criteria at wp:n.Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
No, but in a case like this, doesn't a lack of criticism suggest a lack of notability? Should I ask at WP:NPOV? Vashti (talk) 12:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
No, notability is that people have notices you (and her death has received some degree of notice). If people do not think the fact she did not own a plush Cthulu is not notable neither do we.Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
So she's notable, and gets an article in which her commentary is set out uncontradicted, even though it's impossible for the article to be neutral or to set her in context. That's depressing, but that's life, I guess. Thanks for your time! Vashti (talk) 12:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
If you want more eyes on something you should post a neutral notification linking to the discussion, without including your own opinion. This is a violation of WP:CANVASS. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:00, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't aware of that guideline. I'm genuinely interested in the implications of this case, so I figured it wouldn't be an issue to set out the questions I have. Vashti (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_65&oldid=1137428901"