Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 75
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Notability. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 70 | ← | Archive 73 | Archive 74 | Archive 75 | Archive 76 | Archive 77 | → | Archive 80 |
pointless essay linked to by its creator
[1] Banana Republic added in a link to an essay he made. I just removed it. That's an essay, not approved as part of Wikipedia's rules. Also it contradicts itself. Multiple is defined is more than one. The essay links to someone else's often misquoted personal essay people often link to and never read User:RoySmith/Three best sources. That says listing a lot of references doesn't matter, he will only look at the first three. It does not say there should be three sources to prove notability. Two has always been enough. Dream Focus 06:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- I see the first time Banana Republic added it, it was reverted three times by three different editors [2] [3] [4] then a discussion was had at Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_65#Link_for_multiple_sources against it. The editor then snuck it back in on 19:41, 11 July 2020, and it removed sometime after that. On 12 March 2022 they added it in yet again and I reverted it when I noticed. [5] There was never any consensus to add it to begin with, the only discussion I see people were against it being there. Dream Focus 02:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Two isn't enough; we need three to comply with NPOV. This is an important point to clarify, which the essay does, but there may be better ways to clarify it - I note one of the main objections in the discussion you linked was that editors might interpret it to mean that three examples of WP:SIGCOV are sufficient to keep the article, when in some cases we might need more than that. BilledMammal (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Two has always been enough. All discussions in the past have been that "multiple" means more than one, as every dictionary clearly defines it. Neutral Point of View has absolutely nothing to do with this. Dream Focus 02:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- There is no minimum limit because it can be gamed. We want multiple sources, but what is sufficient depends on how much significant coverage they provide. Two might do it, three might be needed, ten may be needed in some cases. We don't include any number purposely in WP:N because of this game-ability. --Masem (t) 02:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, it is gamed anyway, with "multiple" being strictly interpreted as "two" by some editors. I think we need to do something to address that. BilledMammal (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- The requirement is "significant coverage", not the number of sources. Its why we have avoided the mention of any type of quantity of sources in WP:N because it gives the wrong impression about counting sources when you have to look at what information each source produce. --Masem (t) 02:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Can you give me an example of an article that would require ten? Also if this is the case, then it means that no matter how many sources are found, someone can just say they don't like that type of article and demand more in the AFD. Dream Focus 02:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- A biography may require that many to cover a person's overall career if there is no signular article that covers it all, for example. --Masem (t) 02:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, it is gamed anyway, with "multiple" being strictly interpreted as "two" by some editors. I think we need to do something to address that. BilledMammal (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- There is no minimum limit because it can be gamed. We want multiple sources, but what is sufficient depends on how much significant coverage they provide. Two might do it, three might be needed, ten may be needed in some cases. We don't include any number purposely in WP:N because of this game-ability. --Masem (t) 02:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Two has always been enough. All discussions in the past have been that "multiple" means more than one, as every dictionary clearly defines it. Neutral Point of View has absolutely nothing to do with this. Dream Focus 02:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- remove link sometimes two is enough, sometimes three or more is not enough, and sometimes one high-quality source with a depth of coverage does the work essentially on its own. The essay elucidates nothing, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 02:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- One is never enough; it violates WP:NPOV as it presents only one POV. It also raises the possibility of plagiarism and copyvio issues. (Two is also not enough, for NPOV reasons - we can't determine which views are minority views, and which views are minority views, with just two sources). BilledMammal (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keeping in mind that the GNG itself is a presumption of notability, one high quality source like a full biography from a reputable author/publisher could be sufficient to keep an article. We'd expect there would be more sources that could be found from that work, for example, but it is providing clearly the significant coverage from a reliable secondary source that we want. Of course, if that happens to ever be the only source possible, then by the presumption of notability, it can be deleted under NPOV. --Masem (t) 02:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- You're assuming the article is about a person, which means it is automatically about a complex and multifaceted subject. How many "points of view" really exist about subjects like Granite? One decent university-level textbook is all you need to write a neutral article for some subjects. That said, I think BilledMammal is correct that for many subjects, one source can present a neutrality challenge. GNG only cares about independent sources, though, so "one source" for GNG purposes in a BLP often means "one independent source plus at least one non-independent source". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Exactly this. Newimpartial (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- You're assuming the article is about a person, which means it is automatically about a complex and multifaceted subject. How many "points of view" really exist about subjects like Granite? One decent university-level textbook is all you need to write a neutral article for some subjects. That said, I think BilledMammal is correct that for many subjects, one source can present a neutrality challenge. GNG only cares about independent sources, though, so "one source" for GNG purposes in a BLP often means "one independent source plus at least one non-independent source". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Is there any basis in policy for the idea that it is easier to plagiarize one source than multiple sources, BilledMammal? The view that three sources are needed to triangulate POV is also ungrounded, I believe, but at least it has the merit of being subtlely hilarious. Newimpartial (talk) 02:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- WP:PLAGIARISM - it is much harder to avoid sticking too closely to a specific source when that source is the only source. BilledMammal (talk) 02:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I don't see anything to that effect in the guideline. Is this a WP:VAGUEWAVE? Newimpartial (talk) 03:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- The guideline tells us not to stick too closely to a source, and
it is much harder to avoid sticking too closely to a specific source when that source is the only source.
BilledMammal (talk) 03:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)- However, if that single source is a 400 page book from which write a 1500 word article, it is very unlikely of any actual close paraphrasing will be happening. --Masem (t) 04:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for confirming the VAGUEWAVE, BilledMammal. I expect that I can use that example in an essay, sometime. :). Newimpartial (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Newimpartial: Rather than your own vaguewave at WP:VAGUEWAVE, could you explain why you disagree with me? Why you believe that it is not
much harder to avoid sticking too closely to a specific source when that source is the only source
? - Of course, this won't always apply, but very few sources used are as significant as the one in Masem's example. BilledMammal (talk) 10:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- The situation under discussion is one in which a single source offers such depth of coverage that it clearly and decisively satisfies all elements of SIGCOV to such an extent that an encyclopaedic article could (not should necessarily, but could) be written without citing other sources. In such a case (typically a published scholarly monograph focused on the topic), the scale appropriate for Wikipedia for the presentation of the material would be so much smaller that I see little opportunity, much less motivation, for close paraphrase/plagiarism. As I see it, the latter typically occurs where the amount of on-topic information in a source more nearly approaches the amount of information appropriate for the WP article, so that the path of least resistance becomes a close paraphrase. Newimpartial (talk) 10:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- That may have been the situation you were discussing, but it was not the one I was referring to when I said
It also raises the possibility of plagiarism and copyvio issues.
BilledMammal (talk) 10:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)- Well, you were replying to me, so I can't help it if you choose to discuss some other topic in the guise of a reply. I said that
sometimes one high-quality source with a depth of coverage does the work essentially on its own
- which is exactly the scenario I just elaborated on. In that situation, your unilateral declaration thatOne is never enough
and your VAGUEWAVE towards plagiarism issues are simply not applicable; they are neither relevant to WP policy nor are they rational or logical concerns to have (much less to repeat, gnomically). Newimpartial (talk) 11:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)- I said one is never enough because
it violates WP:NPOV as it presents only one POV.
I addedIt also raises the possibility of plagiarism and copyvio issues
because it does raise the possibility, but it isn't the reason one is never enough. BilledMammal (talk) 11:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- I said one is never enough because
- Well, you were replying to me, so I can't help it if you choose to discuss some other topic in the guise of a reply. I said that
- That may have been the situation you were discussing, but it was not the one I was referring to when I said
- The situation under discussion is one in which a single source offers such depth of coverage that it clearly and decisively satisfies all elements of SIGCOV to such an extent that an encyclopaedic article could (not should necessarily, but could) be written without citing other sources. In such a case (typically a published scholarly monograph focused on the topic), the scale appropriate for Wikipedia for the presentation of the material would be so much smaller that I see little opportunity, much less motivation, for close paraphrase/plagiarism. As I see it, the latter typically occurs where the amount of on-topic information in a source more nearly approaches the amount of information appropriate for the WP article, so that the path of least resistance becomes a close paraphrase. Newimpartial (talk) 10:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Newimpartial: Rather than your own vaguewave at WP:VAGUEWAVE, could you explain why you disagree with me? Why you believe that it is not
- The guideline tells us not to stick too closely to a source, and
- I'm afraid I don't see anything to that effect in the guideline. Is this a WP:VAGUEWAVE? Newimpartial (talk) 03:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- WP:PLAGIARISM - it is much harder to avoid sticking too closely to a specific source when that source is the only source. BilledMammal (talk) 02:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keeping in mind that the GNG itself is a presumption of notability, one high quality source like a full biography from a reputable author/publisher could be sufficient to keep an article. We'd expect there would be more sources that could be found from that work, for example, but it is providing clearly the significant coverage from a reliable secondary source that we want. Of course, if that happens to ever be the only source possible, then by the presumption of notability, it can be deleted under NPOV. --Masem (t) 02:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- One is never enough; it violates WP:NPOV as it presents only one POV. It also raises the possibility of plagiarism and copyvio issues. (Two is also not enough, for NPOV reasons - we can't determine which views are minority views, and which views are minority views, with just two sources). BilledMammal (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
It may be worth pointing out that you haven't substantiated your argument about NPOV, either - that concern does not really apply in the situation I was actually discussing. Newimpartial (talk) 11:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- I did; a single source only presents one point of view. However, this discussion does not feel productive so I will step back from it. BilledMammal (talk) 11:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Re:
a single source only presents one point of view
- this is, at best, unproven, and is not at all true of the class of sources I was discussing. Newimpartial (talk) 12:45, 8 May 2022 (UTC)- It depends on the source. @BilledMammal, I think you're wrong about the plagiarism and copyvio complaint. Working from a single source might make it easier for the rest of us to spot these problems, but if someone's approach to writing is to copy whole sentences or paragraphs, then it doesn't matter whether they're copying from one source or a dozen; it's still wrong.
- For subjects like Algebra or Index (publishing), it's difficult to imagine more than one significant point of view existing. I think that a good Wikipedian could write at least a short NPOV-compliant article on that latter subject just from the single book Index, A History of the. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:39, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Re:
Either way, an in-line internal link is a very strong invoking of an essay, IMO something that should not be done. North8000 (talk) 04:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Remove link, there is not a finite number as shown in this discussion. Personally my view is two pieces of significant coverage can be enough (often with a mixture of less significant coverage ). Plagiarism is a seperate issue as is neutral point of view when the topic is uncontroversial, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 04:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Maintain the link -- there definitely should be a link to an in-depth discussion about what "multiple sources" means, because the policy is intentionally kept vague with use of the word "multiple". If there are issues with the essay, the essay could be fixed. The fact that the essay has not been heavily edited in the three years that it has been up suggests to me that if there are issues with the essay, the issues are not glaring. The essay does not guarantee that 3 sources is enough. It just says that with 3 sources it is hard to challenge the notability of the subject. It does not say that 3 sources are required. The digression above about plagiarism is off topic, and constitutes a red herring for the purpose of this discussion. Banana Republic (talk) 04:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- What's all this worry about That's an essay, not approved as part of Wikipedia's rules. and invoking of an essay, IMO something that should not be done? How many policies have you read recently? All of them link to essays. Usually, the first link to a "mere essay" is right inside the {{Policy}} template itself. Have a look at some policies. With the exception of IAR itself, which is a mere 12 words long, I don't think we have a single policy that doesn't link to essays or similar non-guideline/non-policy pages inline. Seriously, have a look and see how common this is. Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines itself links to essays inline in the lead. Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Content says that you can and should link to "policies, guidelines, essays, and articles" when clarification is needed.
- I've seen this claim raised on several policy and guideline pages recently. Does anyone know where this rumor about it being illicit to link to essays got started? Or is "essay" just a smear word now, and what we really mean is "page whose contents I disagree with"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Having one person make an essay, then link to it, and re-adding it even after multiple people were against it and removed it, is the issue here. Elsewhere you had discussions, multiple people working on things, and a consensus formed.
- This doesn't add any clarity to the issue, just muddles it up more. When the notability guideline was first created, it is unfortunately they didn't give a specific number, just assumed everyone knew what the word "multiple" meant or would look it up in a dictionary to know it means more than one. Dream Focus 05:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if the person who started the page is the person who linked it. That's normal, common, and acceptable.
- It does matter if (a) anyone is edit warring and/or (b) people disagree that the link is helpful, appropriate, relevant, etc. This conversation looks set to determine that latter point decisively.
- The point that interests me is why you thought that it matters that it's an essay. If it wasn't just a momentary lapse of attention (if I'm rushing to head off a potentially serious edit war, I don't always consider every word carefully, and I assume that's true for most editors), maybe you could help me understand your thinking. (It's fine with me if you'd rather move that conversation to my talk page.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- An edit war? I removed something re-added not long ago, then someone else reverted me claiming "this has been stable for over 2 years" I then reverted them with the edit summary "It was added recently by the editor who made the essay. Please discuss having it on the talk page before trying to readd it". So they reverted me because they mistakenly believed it was 2 years old instead of less than two months ago. There is no edit war here. Dream Focus 15:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- And the reason that there's no edit war may well be because you came straight to the talk page to start a discussion. "Head off" = "prevent before it even starts". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- The reason people are suspicious of essays being linked to is because they don't have consensus, and most have not been through a process of refinement by talk page discussions. People are often reluctant to edit essays or raise issues on talk. Many of them would never achieve consensus in anything like their present form. Johnbod (talk) 03:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Who says that essays "don't have consensus"? Some of them do, some of them don't. For example, WP:TPG#YES links to Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read. TLDR is "just" an essay. Do you think that's a page that doesn't have consensus, or that editors should be suspicious about?
- I think the problem here is not "it's an essay, and you shouldn't link essays in guidelines (even though we do that all the time)", but instead "this specific page is inappropriate in this specific place due to disagreements about its contents". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- The reason people are suspicious of essays being linked to is because they don't have consensus, and most have not been through a process of refinement by talk page discussions. People are often reluctant to edit essays or raise issues on talk. Many of them would never achieve consensus in anything like their present form. Johnbod (talk) 03:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- And the reason that there's no edit war may well be because you came straight to the talk page to start a discussion. "Head off" = "prevent before it even starts". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- An edit war? I removed something re-added not long ago, then someone else reverted me claiming "this has been stable for over 2 years" I then reverted them with the edit summary "It was added recently by the editor who made the essay. Please discuss having it on the talk page before trying to readd it". So they reverted me because they mistakenly believed it was 2 years old instead of less than two months ago. There is no edit war here. Dream Focus 15:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Dream Focus there actually is a number specified in this guidance at WP:WHYN where it states:
We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with Wikipedia:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources.
So, it appears that all the users including @Masem, @Newimpartial, and @WhatamIdoing who are saying it is possible for an article to exist by only one single source have their concepts backed up by the existing guidance. Huggums537 (talk) 07:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC) - However, that being said, I would say the person who interpreted the guidance most correctly was @WhatamIdoing when she suggested a minimum of two sources are required because the very next part of WP:WHYN says
We require multiple sources so that we can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, rather than representing only one author's point of view.
This also coincides with what @BilledMammal was saying, but it does not by any means suggest 3 sources are needed, only two. The quoted statement in the previous comment tells us one of the sources must be a secondary source to avoid original research, and another (presumably) secondary source (not specified) must be added to represent NPOV according to the quote in this comment. There is a reason people think the minimum is two sources. It is because it adds up when you look at the guidance. The nonsense about plagiarism issues is a wild stab in the dark. Huggums537 (talk) 08:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC) - I've been thinking about this for a while now, and I have a new theory. I must retract my previous comment saying a minimum of 2 sources is required. Even though BilledMammal is technically right more than one source is needed to satisfy NPOV, (it says so in the quote above) I think a very compelling (but not so obvious) argument can be made to support the idea that both Newimpartial and Masem had about the possibility of one good secondary source with sufficient significant coverage being enough to support an article, and also be enough to satisfy NPOV. How is this possible with just one secondary source you ask? The answer isn't obvious as I said before. Many editors (even experienced ones) will look in the reference section of an article, and if they don't see any sources there, will mark the article for deletion, and what they sometimes incorrectly say as part of their rationale is the article is unsourced, but this technically isn't true in most cases because the topic of most articles functions as the primary source for itself while also representing its own unique point of view about itself. This is not obvious to most people because they don't see it in the reference section, but if you point it out to them, it does become clear whether it's actually been cited or not. If you combine this fact with the fact that a single secondary source offers an alternative viewpoint to the viewpoint offered by the primary source itself, then you are able to satisfy both npov and notability with a single secondary source. This is why I think it is so important that users like WhatamIdoing are working to make sure we keep the wording at No Original Research that says you don't have to cite every single little thing such as the fact that topics of articles are usually also being the primary source themselves. Huggums537 (talk) 01:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Another thing I think relevant to this discussion is that some people might argue a primary source isn't as good to represent a point of view as a secondary source is, but even if that were true, then you would still have to contend with the fact that if we had two secondary sources representing Npov as well as notability, then the source count would add up to three total sources including the primary source that represents the verifiability of the subject simply because of the mere fact that it does exist, and the proponents of this essay do not seem to recognize that fact.
- Remove link and don't reinstate until consensus for its inclusion has been achieved. The repeated attempts to sledgehammer it into the page is quite distasteful and borderline disruptive. I don't have an objection in principle to linking to essays that are explanatory of policy and reflect consensus, but this isn't it. In discussion of sources it seems to badly confuse notability and reliability of sources. Whether or not the author has a Wikipedia article is neither here not there. It is whether the author is authoritive in the field they are being cited for that is important. The claim that references are not necessarily needed to establish notability is just so far from consensus as to directly contradict the guideline it is supposed to be clarifying. Even accepting that SNGs can be used as alternatives to GNG (which is at the very least controversial, except for NACADEMIC) one still needs to provide sources verifying that the subject has actually met the requirements of the SNG. SpinningSpark 07:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Remove / keep out link In this particular case the link is in-line and in a context/ position which would give the linked essay near-policy status in that area. And further, the linked essay conflicts with a heavily established consensus in the policy where it enumerates something that consensus deliberately decided to not enumerate. North8000 (talk) 13:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- It's interesting that you think any page linked in a guideline could, through the mere fact of being linked there, achieve near-policy status. I disagree.
- I also think this link should be removed for the time being. I think that a more useful page to link would be one that explains all the different True™ Answers from "multiple sometimes means one" to "multiple means at least three", and definitely including "we're afraid to give a number because then somebody might be able to get an article on a subject we think will sully Wikipedia's encyclopedic nature". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- On your first item, I think you missed the context aspect of what I said plus I used a wrong word. Rather than go aback to all that, I'll just restate. The usage / context matters. If Rule #1 says "No big dogs allowed, and big dogs links to an essay that says "any dog over 60 pounds is a big dog" we have basically made "60 lbs" a part of Rule #1. By North8000
- Remove link. Disregarding the history of how this essay became linked in the first place, linking it in this context gives it the greater force of a guideline, inappropriate for something that is clearly an essay and that clearly does not have enough consensus behind it to be upgraded to a guideline. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Remove - I don't think it adds that much, and I'd be lying if I said I wasn't put off by the long-term edit war by its creator to force it in. I have no objection to someone boldly adding a link to an essay they wrote, but if it's challenged, you need to find consensus before restoring, even if it's the best, most insightful essay around. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Remove In this particular context, a link should point to something that clarifies the situation and has a good consensus behind it. Neither is true for the essay linked here. XOR'easter (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Remove. This essay does not represent consensus. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:09, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Remove. Linking an essay which neither reflects Wikipedia policy nor Wikipedia practice is actively misleading. Yes, it's (correctly) flagged as an essay, but because WP:N is generally one of the first pages new editors read they'll likely be unaware of our internal conventions and assume that this is some kind of policy rather than the personal opinions of a single editor, leading to the high potential for good-faith new editors to get themselves in trouble trying to enforce a non-existent policy. ‑ Iridescent 02:56, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Remove per Iri and others above, and because there is clearly a consensus against inclusion. Johnbod (talk) 03:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Remove because I agree with others it lacks harmony with policy in the current form. As the author suggests, it needs to be fixed if anybody cares to bother with it. Huggums537 (talk) 07:58, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- I've removed this again. This thread has been open for a week and the link has gained no support whatsoever. The consensus is obvious enough that this does not need a formal close. SpinningSpark 11:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- I agree. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
How to get consensus for the essay?
Title of this discussion notwithstanding, there is a point to the essay, and that is to give a more in-depth discussion on just what does the (purposefully) vague requirement for "multiple sources" mean. Is there any way that the essay could be improved? The only thing I got from the above discussion is that because the essay was primarily written by only a single editor, then it therefore does not represent consensus, so it should not be linked.
That does not give a direction for improvement. In fact, it tells me that I shouldn't waste any time on the essay because as long as there is only one main author for the essay, the essay is not eligible to get linked from this page. --Banana Republic (talk) 05:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- Did you read what everyone had to say? Its inaccurate and pointless. Nothing was made purposefully vague, that makes no sense at all. The word "multiple" has always meant more than one, the dictionary clearly defines it. Just some people got confused somehow. You could search the history and find when it was first added and ask the editor who put it there, and see what discussions happened around that time. Dream Focus 08:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- If there was a desire to be clear, instead of using the word "multiple", this policy guideline would have said "at least two sources", or alternatively "more than one". The essay says that the way "multiple" has been interpreted on Wikipedia is that with 3 references it is highly unlikely for articles to get deleted in an AfD. I think that's very accurate, and it's a good point to make in an essay. Banana Republic (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- I've seen many AFDs where people link to the essay WP:THREE without actually reading/understanding what it says. Most people know what the word "multiple" means. AFDs only need to find two reliable sources giving significant coverage to something to have the article kept. Many articles only have two things in them. Multiple has always meant more than one, never has anyone changed the definition of the word to mean anything else. I guess we can change the wording since some people get confused. It currently reads: "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. So it doesn't say "required" only "generally" expected. Also the part about "no fixed number of sources required". So even one is fine sometimes, but multiple(as in more than one) are generally expected. Dream Focus 13:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think that last sentence you wrote, "
even one is fine sometimes
" contradicts everything else you wrote (not to mention that it contradicts the notability guideline requiring multiple references), and it absolutely drives home the point why the essay WP:3REFS is needed. - I have asked the author of WP:THREE about moving their essay to the Wikipedia domain, rather than the user domain, but they chose not to. Hence, I started the essay WP:3REFS. Banana Republic (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think that last sentence you wrote, "
- Some editors are concerned that if we write "at least two", then other people will interpret that as meaning that an article citing three independent reliable sources should never be deleted. It's usually framed as "gaming the system": If we tell people and businesses what they actual rules really are, then they will "game the system" by saying things like, "Oh, look at that! I/my business/my book/my dog/whatever actually do qualify for a separate, stand-alone article according to the rules", or maybe even say something like "Oh, I get it. You need independent sources that actually talk about me, and it's not good enough to suggest that you just copy stuff off my website. Okay, I'll hire one of those publicists that works on all those movies you write about, and I'll check back next year with (I hope) a list of independent magazines that decided to write about me of their own free will after my publicist brought my existence to their attention", and editors who think that subject is inherently unworthy will have a harder time getting the article deleted.
- The story here is that by being non-transparent, editors can get The Right™ Result without having to make any awkward explanations to anyone upset about the deletion that the real answer is that I don't think we should have articles about frivolous or unimportant things, even if there are enough independent sources to write an actual encyclopedia article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think it's a good idea to intentionally provide vague guidelines without providing additional insights (in your words "
being non-transparent
". There is nothing to game here. Since references must be independent of the subject article, it is not possible to get 3 references independent of the subject, and independent of each other, to write in-depth articles about a specific subject. Banana Republic (talk) 00:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)- Not only is it "possible", it's done all the time. That's what the field of public relations exists for. That's why people contact journalists. Have you ever talked to a reporter for a small newspaper? They don't magically know that the Local Women's Club is hosting a tea to support the animal shelter. Someone tells the reporter that it's happening. When you deliberately contact journalists to tell them something you hope they'll be interested in putting in the paper, it's called a "press release". A press release is not some strange dark art with a required format (despite what our article implies). If you ever need to do it, you find the e-mail address on the paper's website and send them a nice, short, clear note. If they're lucky, you will even give them a subject line that says something like "Local Women's Club fundraiser June 12th for animal shelter" instead of the generic (and skippable) "Press release". Everything you send to a journalist is a press release; they don't need to be told that's your message is a press release. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- The essay already states that the references have to be independent of each other. Obviously, if three references print the same press release, that's not independent. But to your point, if, as you stated, the result of a public relations campaign is to get multiple sources to publish in-depth articles about whatever the campaign was about, and the articles are all different and independent, then by Wikipedia definition that satisfies the criteria of notability. That's not gaming any system. That's what notability is. --Banana Republic (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Sources don't have to be independent of each other; they have to be "independent of the subject".
- Mind the gap between "printing a press release" and "writing a newspaper/magazine article yourself about a subject you happened to learn about via a press release". But, yes, I agree with you that this shouldn't be considered gaming the system; I'm only telling you that if you put something like
gaming the systeminto the search box above for the archives of this page, you will find evidence that some editors make this claim. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- The essay already states that the references have to be independent of each other. Obviously, if three references print the same press release, that's not independent. But to your point, if, as you stated, the result of a public relations campaign is to get multiple sources to publish in-depth articles about whatever the campaign was about, and the articles are all different and independent, then by Wikipedia definition that satisfies the criteria of notability. That's not gaming any system. That's what notability is. --Banana Republic (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Not only is it "possible", it's done all the time. That's what the field of public relations exists for. That's why people contact journalists. Have you ever talked to a reporter for a small newspaper? They don't magically know that the Local Women's Club is hosting a tea to support the animal shelter. Someone tells the reporter that it's happening. When you deliberately contact journalists to tell them something you hope they'll be interested in putting in the paper, it's called a "press release". A press release is not some strange dark art with a required format (despite what our article implies). If you ever need to do it, you find the e-mail address on the paper's website and send them a nice, short, clear note. If they're lucky, you will even give them a subject line that says something like "Local Women's Club fundraiser June 12th for animal shelter" instead of the generic (and skippable) "Press release". Everything you send to a journalist is a press release; they don't need to be told that's your message is a press release. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think it's a good idea to intentionally provide vague guidelines without providing additional insights (in your words "
- I've seen many AFDs where people link to the essay WP:THREE without actually reading/understanding what it says. Most people know what the word "multiple" means. AFDs only need to find two reliable sources giving significant coverage to something to have the article kept. Many articles only have two things in them. Multiple has always meant more than one, never has anyone changed the definition of the word to mean anything else. I guess we can change the wording since some people get confused. It currently reads: "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. So it doesn't say "required" only "generally" expected. Also the part about "no fixed number of sources required". So even one is fine sometimes, but multiple(as in more than one) are generally expected. Dream Focus 13:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- If there was a desire to be clear, instead of using the word "multiple", this policy guideline would have said "at least two sources", or alternatively "more than one". The essay says that the way "multiple" has been interpreted on Wikipedia is that with 3 references it is highly unlikely for articles to get deleted in an AfD. I think that's very accurate, and it's a good point to make in an essay. Banana Republic (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- The essay does not represent consensus because, simply, there is no consensus for it, not because it was only written by one editor. Having at least two reliable sources is a necessary, but not sufficient, requirement to have a separate article that depends on the WP:GNG. Sufficiency does not just depend on the number of sources, but also on their nature. The answer to the question posed in the title of this subsection is simply that you shouldn't try to get consensus for something that has been shown not to have consensus. WP:THREE is totally irrelevent because it deals with too many sources being cited, not too few. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your work and efforts. Based on the discussion above, IMHO the answer is that you can't get consensus for it.Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- I don't buy that it's impossible to form a consensus on what the word "multiple" means. While there was no consensus to link to the essay, I take the fact that the essay has been up for close to 3 years and only slightly edited (not to mention survived an MfD) as a sign that there is a consensus that this is the de-facto interpretation for multiple sources within the Wikipedia community: Three references are not required, but are virtually an assurance that the article will survive an AfD challenge. And the way to use the essay in an AfD discussion would be heck -- the article has three good sources, what else is needed to establish notability? Banana Republic (talk) 00:26, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think you are inferring far to much from silence. I disagree with quite a lot of what's in that essay, but I didn't know it existed until this discussion started, so I didn't previously object to its existence. As one (of multiple possible) examples, this is wrong: When considering the quality of the sources, it is helpful, but not mandatory, if the authors and/or publications of the references are notable and have Wikipedia articles. It's not "helpful" in terms of justifying notability at all. A source from many blue-linked notable publications (e.g., Daily Mail, Medical Hypotheses, anything from a predatory journal) tends to argue against notability. By contrast, a paper by a younger academic (likely to be doing good work – in the sciences, most ground-breaking work happens before middle age – but unlikely to meet NPROF yet, as the standards are biased towards older academics), in a scholarly journal too respectable to attract attention from Wikipedia editors, is an excellent source. Similarly, we don't have articles about most journalists or most regular newspapers, but those, too, are generally excellent sources despite not having attracted the attention of a Wikipedia editor. Contrast that with some of the people we do have articles about, like Tucker Carlson and Jayson Blair, both of whom have publicly admitted to lying to the public. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- I don't want to go too deep into the contents of the essay, since that's a topic more appropriate for the talk page for the essay, but suffice it to say that it does not appear that your point of view is contradictory to the sentence you quoted from the essay. We can have a more in-depth discussion at the essay's talk page, if you wish. --Banana Republic (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Well ... I don't myself buy that it's impossible for you to gain consensus for your essay. I doubt its most virulent opponents would claim as much. But the simple fact on the ground is that you do not have consensus for it to be anything more than an essay ... and come now. Are you really suggesting that essays should automatically be promoted to guidelines if enough time goes by without a groundswell of objections? (If so, huzzah, because I wrote an essay myself thirteen years ago.) Ravenswing 19:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think you are inferring far to much from silence. I disagree with quite a lot of what's in that essay, but I didn't know it existed until this discussion started, so I didn't previously object to its existence. As one (of multiple possible) examples, this is wrong: When considering the quality of the sources, it is helpful, but not mandatory, if the authors and/or publications of the references are notable and have Wikipedia articles. It's not "helpful" in terms of justifying notability at all. A source from many blue-linked notable publications (e.g., Daily Mail, Medical Hypotheses, anything from a predatory journal) tends to argue against notability. By contrast, a paper by a younger academic (likely to be doing good work – in the sciences, most ground-breaking work happens before middle age – but unlikely to meet NPROF yet, as the standards are biased towards older academics), in a scholarly journal too respectable to attract attention from Wikipedia editors, is an excellent source. Similarly, we don't have articles about most journalists or most regular newspapers, but those, too, are generally excellent sources despite not having attracted the attention of a Wikipedia editor. Contrast that with some of the people we do have articles about, like Tucker Carlson and Jayson Blair, both of whom have publicly admitted to lying to the public. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- I don't buy that it's impossible to form a consensus on what the word "multiple" means. While there was no consensus to link to the essay, I take the fact that the essay has been up for close to 3 years and only slightly edited (not to mention survived an MfD) as a sign that there is a consensus that this is the de-facto interpretation for multiple sources within the Wikipedia community: Three references are not required, but are virtually an assurance that the article will survive an AfD challenge. And the way to use the essay in an AfD discussion would be heck -- the article has three good sources, what else is needed to establish notability? Banana Republic (talk) 00:26, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Relationship to Copyvio
- This discussion prompted me to ask Wikipedia talk:Copyright violations/Archive_2#Summary of one source? because I think ultimately, multiple sources is a copyright requirement. Levivich 19:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thats definitely not the case if we are summarizing a very small portion of the work. Fair use does come into play when we use sources, and since we are writing for academic purposes, that helps. Of course if we are writing an article that has 500 words, taken from a source that has only 1500 words, that questionable, but the cases where one source could be sufficient would almost be limited to books of hundreds of pages and well over 10,000 words, so a 500 word article is definitely respecting fair use. --Masem (t) 19:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- (I think the WT:COPYVIO thread is a better place to discuss this than here, but you've raised a different point there than here, so I'll reply here.)
- Assuming what you said is true, and we have this hypothetical Wikipedia article that has only one source, and that source is a book, and the Wikipedia article is a summary of the book, and assuming that it's fair use... if our entire Wikipedia article is fair use, doesn't that mean we can't relicense it CC-BY-SA? We occasonally publish fair use or non-free content as parts of articles (e.g., a fair use image), but here we're talking about an entire article that would be non-free content. Levivich 20:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- See for example this post at CC that says the CC licenses allow for inclusion of material that falls under copyright exceptions, like fair use, though that does not protect you from someone stating that thinks you've exceeded fair use. Hence why we still avoid excessively long quotes, plagiarism, excessively long plot summaries, and that we are rigorous on file NFCC in case of any questions there where fair use has been crossed. --Masem (t) 21:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thats definitely not the case if we are summarizing a very small portion of the work. Fair use does come into play when we use sources, and since we are writing for academic purposes, that helps. Of course if we are writing an article that has 500 words, taken from a source that has only 1500 words, that questionable, but the cases where one source could be sufficient would almost be limited to books of hundreds of pages and well over 10,000 words, so a 500 word article is definitely respecting fair use. --Masem (t) 19:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Notability of television episodes
Recently I went through redirecting a bunch of Heroes (American TV series) episodes because they were composed almost entirely of fancruft. Dream Focus (talk · contribs) undid most of the redirects, saying that reviews from IGN and AV Club made the episodes notable.
My read of WP:NEPISODE is that just a review or two isn't enough. Dream Focus says it is. Is this down to just personal opinion, or is an episode not notable unless there is coverage beyond just a couple of reviews? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- As I pointed out, if multiple independent reliable sources give it significant coverage, it passes the notability guidelines. We follow the notability guidelines, not an essay. Dream Focus 06:14, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- It has multiple, independent RS'es covering the topic in depth. WP:NEPISODEs attempt to set a higher bar is out of step with the GNG. The fact that this is an essay, not an SNG, demonstrates that it should be adjusted to align with the GNG, rather than the opinions of those who favor a higher bar to notability not supported in policy or guideline. Jclemens (talk) 06:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- I have repaired WP:NEPISODE to remove inapplicable references, statements at odds with the GNG, and statements which simply repeat what is true of notability in general. Jclemens (talk) 06:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- A common problem with post 21st century television is that each episode of a series gets routine reviews and viewership but nothing that can readily expand the article beyond the plot summary and a couple of reviews. That's not helpful to Wikipedia, so it is fair that NEPISODE can demand more required coverage than what the GNG would allow knowing the situation around television show coverage. --Masem (t) 16:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- How is something helpful to Wikipedia? Its not a living entity. Its helpful to the readers to have content they want to read, not other things most will simply ignore, they only here to read the plot summary. Trying to get around the general notability guidelines because you don't like something, is wrong no matter how you try to justify it. Dream Focus 16:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- "Post 21st century television"? What else can you tell us about life after the 21st century? 🤣🤣🤣
- Ahem. Anyway: I agree. I was thinking about this in the same way as bands. If a traveling band is written up in coming attractions lists or reviews in local entertainment websites and columns in connection with their upcoming or just-finished performances at a local venue, and only in such reviews; if, beyond those reviews, it's out of sight, out of mind as far as reliable sources are concerned; then those reviews are really about current events in the local entertainment scene or at the particular venue, they aren't an indication that any special note is being given to the band. It's WP:ROUTINE coverage. So a band that is written up only in such places, and only in connection with their immediate local appearance, isn't going to meet WP:GNG.
- Likewise, if an episode is written up only in listings that cover every episode the same way, then it only shows that the show is notable. For WP:GNG to be met, episodes themselves would have to be selected on a case-by-case basis for coverage. There's have to be episodes that have no coverage by particular sources for us to conclude that others are being given more than perfunctory attention by those same sources. Largoplazo (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- The coverage may not be significant relative to other episodes, but it is significant relative to other episodes. For instance, there could easily be dozens of new television episodes broadcast/released on a given day, and only a few of those will receive reviews from The A.V. Club, IGN, etc., so those episodes are significant relative to episodes in general. This seems to be the interpretation that has been used for a long time; plenty of shows have episode-by-episode coverage based on reviews alone. Our policies should reflect general standards on the wiki, and given that there is no consensus to change those standards (see last year's failed RfC to make WP:NEPISODE an SNG), we should follow the status quo. As to the band analogy, there's a difference between local and national coverage that should contribute to notability (national coverage is more significant). RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- It also might be worth comparing this to WP:BOOKCRIT #1, which is an SNG and clearly allows articles on books to exist based solely on reviews. I don't see any reason why episodes should be treated differently. Yes, it is preferable for episode articles to discuss production or have more significant reviews, just as it would be preferable for book articles to discuss the writing and publication history, but that doesn't mean articles missing those sections shouldn't be allowed to exist. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- If an episode has 10 million viewers, then those who review episodes will take the time to review it. They know enough people are interested enough to read their review to make it worth doing. If a show has low ratings, no one will bother reviewing every episode, there no point to it. Dream Focus 17:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Television critics are far more interested in covering the more serious dramas which get very low viewership, while the highly popular shows like many sitcoms and reality TV shows go unreviewed. So no, viewership is not a metric if notabiloty. --Masem (t) 17:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Right, exactly. Critics can have very eclectic tastes and can ignore other series, probably because they have certain "beats" in a sense. However, some are broader in their reviews, like when it comes to anime, with Anime News Network reviewing all new anime series that come up, and often doing episode-by-episode reviews. But, when it comes to shows outside of that, I can't think of any sites which regularly do episode-by-episode reviews on a regular basis. Historyday01 (talk) 01:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Television critics are far more interested in covering the more serious dramas which get very low viewership, while the highly popular shows like many sitcoms and reality TV shows go unreviewed. So no, viewership is not a metric if notabiloty. --Masem (t) 17:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- There's a systemic bias in our episode articles, probably owing to the paucity of RS producing episode reviews. For instance, while Miami Vice is far better known and has had an incomparably bigger cultural impact than Gotham (TV series), the latter gets episode articles -- one could say, because that is what The A.V. Club has got around to. I don't think the solution is to have fewer articles than we have now, but this is clearly a problem. Daß Wölf 22:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- I can agree. This tends to be a problem, for sure. I watch shows like The Owl House and even though it is a relatively popular show from what I am aware, there aren't as many who review specific episodes in depth, and only rarely do so. Historyday01 (talk) 00:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- In current AFDs for popular television episodes that get reviews, such as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four Months Later... some mention WP:NOTPLOT as a reason to delete these articles. So even if the general notability guidelines are met, some use this as an excuse to delete something. Dream Focus 00:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Restating what I just said at WT:TV: : The quality of reviews matters – this is why WP:NFILM includes
"The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics."
The "nationally known critics" is to weed out using minor internet-only reviews to try to qualify a minor film for an article. WP:NTV should mirror that, to keep out using garbage like AV Club (which has internet randos reviewing everything). IOW, if it's not getting reviewed in Variety/Entertainment Weekly/LA Times/etc, the review is likely minor and doesn't meaningfully contribute to the "significant coverage in reliable sources" benchmark. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)- For what it's worth, Metacritic (which limits reviews much more than Rotten Tomatoes to focus on quality reviews) uses "garbage" like The A.V. Club in TV reviews all of the time (link), and WP:RSP considers it a reliable source for TV reviews. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:49, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Which is why most of us don't allow Metacritic aggregates to be included unless they have at least a dozen reviews, as then you can at least be sure that there are some real reviews to balance out the garbage... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- So the standard is the same for everything: the GNG. You're just arguing that, for example, the AV Club is not an RS. Whoops, sorry, WP:RSP happens to disagree with you. If you want to challenge that longstanding consensus, it looks like it's been a while since someone did. Jclemens (talk) 03:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm arguing that AV Club is a lesser source, for all of the reasons outlined above, certainly in comparison to something like Variety. Are we seriously pretending that all sources have the same weight?! If so, we might as well not even bothering having this conversation. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- There's essentially independent reliable sources, and everything else. The former satisfy V and N (if 2+), the latter may count for V but certainly not for N. If you're trying to argue that there's a quality gradient among independent reliable secondary sources, where some count for notability while others don't or only do so to a lesser extent, then you would need to propose alterations to policy for that to be normative. I mean, sure, aesthetically, there are better sources and not quite so good sources. But two that nose over the line make something notable for Wikipedia purposes; that expectation's been unchanged in well over a decade and a half. Jclemens (talk) 06:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm arguing that AV Club is a lesser source, for all of the reasons outlined above, certainly in comparison to something like Variety. Are we seriously pretending that all sources have the same weight?! If so, we might as well not even bothering having this conversation. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, Metacritic (which limits reviews much more than Rotten Tomatoes to focus on quality reviews) uses "garbage" like The A.V. Club in TV reviews all of the time (link), and WP:RSP considers it a reliable source for TV reviews. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:49, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Some reliable sources review every movie that gets to the theater. Some review every video game that comes out from a major studio, or that has high enough sales to get noticed. Some review every episode from a popular television show that has millions of people watching it. Some review every bestselling book of a genre they normally review. Age of the internet means no limits as it was done in olden days, when they could only have so much stuff fit on their newspaper or magazine, or limited time to talk about things on their television or radio show. The rules of Wikipedia are clear. Multiple- which the the dictionary defines is more than one- reliable sources -as determined by discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard- give something significant coverage. Can't claim a reliable source doesn't count because someone doesn't like them, or sees them as inferior to something else, or they publish on the internet so can review more of something than others can. Dream Focus 04:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think I agree with Masem and Largoplazo et al here. What makes an episode encyclopedic? The fact that a couple places that contemporaneously review every episode of every primetime series can provide a plot summary and perhaps their personal opinion on it? How is that any different than the hundreds of independent recaps that get written for every routine pro or college sports event? If we can recognize the latter as run-of-the-mill coverage and so reserve articles on individual games only for those that receive extraordinary media attention, it seems reasonable to treat unremarkable responses to other scheduled entertainment similarly. JoelleJay (talk) 05:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- You are welcome to try and change the GNG, but I don't think it's advisable. I mean, this whole line of reasoning runs counter to WP:NOTPAPER and smacks a bit of elitism. Wikipedia is supposed to be anti-elitist: we cover what others cover, with no firm storage limit. Absent images, Wikipedia's entire corpus is trivial in size compared to modern storage capacities. "Run of the mill" becomes simply a dog whistle for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The nice thing about the GNG is that it expands as Internet sourcing does: more sources on more topics, means more things covered in Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 05:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- I also agree with Masem and Largoplazo et al here. I think this is partially covered by WP:NOTPLOT already but additional clarification through an SNG is a good idea. There are also two current AFD's that are relevant to this discussion; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four Months Later... and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dying of the Light (Heroes) BilledMammal (talk) 06:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- "Encyclopedic" and "not encyclopedic" are entirely subjective categories, which is precisely why we have notability guidelines. If an episode has been reviewed enough times for us to write an article about it, it's notable. Maybe if all those articles are short you could argue for them being merged into a list (per WP:NOPAGE), but otherwise this is a fundamental principle that you can't just cast aside because... actually, I don't understand the objection here? You don't like having having lots of articles on one TV series? – Joe (talk) 08:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- That was a great point my friend. Huggums537 (talk) 11:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Some degree of selectivity is an inherent (unwritten) objective of the wp:notability/wp:not ecosystem. And with dispersal of the "TV show" selectivity/concept into zillions of web venues including many obscure ones, this will become more important here. As others have noted, many different wiki-places sort of say to be selective here and you could say that what's reflected is trying to push the envelope towards inclusion into every possible "gray area" on those. There are several ways to look at existing guidelines and wp:not that weigh in towards keep the bar a bit higher in gray areas. To say that something that is primarily a plot summary is excluded by wp:not. Another is that having merely a plot summary and a couple of factoids in a place that does so for every episode is basically/ more akin to a database or directory entry rather than GNG coverage. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Just to add more, what I do tend to see are episode articles that are all plot summary, then a reception section that is: the RT or MC score if there is one, one or two reviews which tend to exhause the reliable pool of reviews, and then viewership numbers, and that's it. Is that an article that passes the GNG? Sure, but remember that the GNG itself is a presumption of notability and that itself can be challenged. If that article cannot be expanded further - and a BEFORE when talking modern television is easily done through online searching - then deletion of an article of that little coverage is a step that can be made. We desire to have television episode articles that get into the details of production and far more in depth reception, or otherwise amass that into season and/or series coverage. There's no issue with the GNG here keeping in mind that it is not a guarentee that the article will not be challenged later. --Masem (t) 12:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Who is this "we?" You desire that, not everyone. Some desire a lot more, others don't read those parts anyway and only desire the plot summaries. Saying you can ignore an article that passes the general notability guidelines and delete it anyway if the small number of random people that notice and show up to vote don't like it, means a large number of articles will be destroyed. Is Wikipedia somehow better off without these articles in it? Dream Focus 12:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia collectively. WP:NOTPLOT requires us to treat creative works in an encyclopedic manner,
discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works.
An article consisting only of a summary of the plot and a brief reception section clearly fails that, and is a summary-only description of the work. - Unless you believe there is no longer a consensus for WP:NOTPLOT - in which case an RFC proposing its removal is required - then we should ensure that our notability guidelines are worded to prevent WP:NOT violations. BilledMammal (talk) 13:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- There is nothing there that says an article has to have all these sections, or that the reception section has to be more than "brief". If an article on a TV episode contains a reception section at all it's, by definition, not a "summary-only description". I'm pretty sure WP:NOTPLOT dates to the pre-Wikia days when we'd have people trying to write articles that were purely plot summaries sourced to the work itself. That's not what we're talking about here. – Joe (talk) 13:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- For example, we have an article consisting of 900 words of plot summary and thirty words saying
On the episode's original airdate, Heroes attracted 16.97 million viewers. Sean O'Neal of The A.V. Club gave the episode a B. Robert Canning of IGN scored the episode 7.8 out of 10.
- This is a summary-only description of the work, and it is clearly not treating it in an
encyclopedic manner
as required by WP:NOTPLOT. - Further, WP:NOTPLOT uses the word "and", not "or". BilledMammal (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- If your concern is that the plot summary is too long and the reception section is too short, that's a problem with article quality, not notability. The plot summary should be shortened to under 400 words per MOS:TVPLOT, and the reception should be expanded with a few sentences to summarize the key talking points of each review, not just the review grade. As to "and" instead of "or", I think that's a bit of a stretch – as has been noted elsewhere, NFILM allows reviews alone to cover notability and does not require additional sections. In my interpretation, an article needs to have at least one of the sections noted in NOTPLOT, but not necessarily every section. RunningTiger123 (talk) 14:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes,but... a lot of how tv episode articles were built extend from before we had notability in place, and there is a perception that a simple reception section is sufficient. Remember that notability is not about the number of sources but the significant coverage, and since we know that this can't go into production details or serious analysis, a barely passing reception section section (if that is all that can ve written if a topic).won't cut it. --Masem (t) 13:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, sorry, I get that you don't like and/or don't think such articles are "encyclopaedic", but so far all that's been said in this thread is just that: an expression of opinion. Clearly others do like and do consider those sort of articles encyclopaedic, because they keep writing, reading, and keeping them at AfD. – Joe (talk) 13:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Then we need a broader discussion, to determine what the consensus of the community is. I think we should work out a proposal with three options; one to modify WP:NOTPLOT to make it clear that such articles are acceptable, one to modify WP:RPRGM to make it clear that such articles are not acceptable, and one to leave the status quo. Once we work out the proposal, I think WP:VPP would be the appropriate location to discuss it. BilledMammal (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- NEPISODE already has consensus from the WP:TV project, and captures what we are saying here. It falls well in line with the GNG looking for significant coverage, not just two or so sources. Ergo, the consensus is already there and nothing needs to be done save to act on it like the OP had started. --Masem (t) 14:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree with the assertion that NEPISODE has consensus. The RfC to adopt the essay as a guideline explicitly failed because there was no consensus; see Wikipedia talk:Notability (television)#Request for comment to establish this notability guideline as an SNG. RunningTiger123 (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- It may not be an SNG (Nor framed as one), but it gives guidance of what the TV project is looking for in episode articles and thus is a reasonable basis that "simple" episode articles aren't sufficient. The RFC didn't seem to have an issue of that aspect but more how the page was set up as an SNG. --Masem (t) 14:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Just because a few people hang out on a Wikiproject and write out what they want things to be in an essay, doesn't mean they can ignore the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 14:44, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- And as pointed out as the GNG requires significant coverage, NEPISODE is absolutely within scope of the GNG. --Masem (t) 14:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Just because a few people hang out on a Wikiproject and write out what they want things to be in an essay, doesn't mean they can ignore the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 14:44, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- It may not be an SNG (Nor framed as one), but it gives guidance of what the TV project is looking for in episode articles and thus is a reasonable basis that "simple" episode articles aren't sufficient. The RFC didn't seem to have an issue of that aspect but more how the page was set up as an SNG. --Masem (t) 14:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree with the assertion that NEPISODE has consensus. The RfC to adopt the essay as a guideline explicitly failed because there was no consensus; see Wikipedia talk:Notability (television)#Request for comment to establish this notability guideline as an SNG. RunningTiger123 (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- NEPISODE already has consensus from the WP:TV project, and captures what we are saying here. It falls well in line with the GNG looking for significant coverage, not just two or so sources. Ergo, the consensus is already there and nothing needs to be done save to act on it like the OP had started. --Masem (t) 14:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Then we need a broader discussion, to determine what the consensus of the community is. I think we should work out a proposal with three options; one to modify WP:NOTPLOT to make it clear that such articles are acceptable, one to modify WP:RPRGM to make it clear that such articles are not acceptable, and one to leave the status quo. Once we work out the proposal, I think WP:VPP would be the appropriate location to discuss it. BilledMammal (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, sorry, I get that you don't like and/or don't think such articles are "encyclopaedic", but so far all that's been said in this thread is just that: an expression of opinion. Clearly others do like and do consider those sort of articles encyclopaedic, because they keep writing, reading, and keeping them at AfD. – Joe (talk) 13:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- For example, we have an article consisting of 900 words of plot summary and thirty words saying
- There is nothing there that says an article has to have all these sections, or that the reception section has to be more than "brief". If an article on a TV episode contains a reception section at all it's, by definition, not a "summary-only description". I'm pretty sure WP:NOTPLOT dates to the pre-Wikia days when we'd have people trying to write articles that were purely plot summaries sourced to the work itself. That's not what we're talking about here. – Joe (talk) 13:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia collectively. WP:NOTPLOT requires us to treat creative works in an encyclopedic manner,
- Who is this "we?" You desire that, not everyone. Some desire a lot more, others don't read those parts anyway and only desire the plot summaries. Saying you can ignore an article that passes the general notability guidelines and delete it anyway if the small number of random people that notice and show up to vote don't like it, means a large number of articles will be destroyed. Is Wikipedia somehow better off without these articles in it? Dream Focus 12:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Just for context, since NEPISODE has come up a lot and not everyone may be familiar with it, here's a direct quote from that essay as it pertains to reviews and notability (emphasis mine):
Multiple reviews or other reliable, independent, non-trivial commentary demonstrate notability for a television episode. […] The scope of reviews should extend beyond recaps and simple review aggregator coverage, such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic.
RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)- I'll also note that the above quote is relatively recent; earlier versions of the essay used different language, such as:
Having a significant number of reviews or other independently published commentary contributes to considering a television episode notable.
RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'll also note that the above quote is relatively recent; earlier versions of the essay used different language, such as:
- Multiple substantive reviews that go beyond rehashing the plot has always been the standard applied to books/films; I'm not sure why television episodes should be subjected to a higher bar? Despite the "and" I don't read "Wikipedia treats creative works ... in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works" as requiring all those elements, merely at least one (usually met by reviews), in addition to the (concise) plot summary. I think the list was intended as a set of examples of content that an ideal article would contain, rather than a minimum requirement for an acceptable standalone article. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- In the AV and IGN reviews I've read (which is not many), much of the "analysis" of or "commentary" on an episode is restricted to in-universe musings (like "I'm glad [character A] finally stood up to [character B], he was such a jerk") and other personal, contemporaneous thoughts of the author ("I ate a whole bag of popcorn during [scene]"), rather than the type of distanced critical treatment I would expect from a quality book or film review. IMO there is a significant difference in encyclopedic value between discussing the themes of a creative work in the context of the real world and just...blogging about your feelings while you watched a show. If all we can add from a review is the author's grade of the episode, I don't think it's accurate to call it SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 02:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- An article about a TV episode is a WP:SPINOUT/WP:SPINOFF of the article about the TV show. If it's all or almost all plot summary, it runs afoul of the policy WP:NOTPLOT, regardless of whether it meets the guideline WP:GNG. Thus, in order to have a policy- and guideline-complaint article about a TV episode, there must be reliable secondary independent sources that provide significant coverage of aspects of the TV show other than the plot, such as production and reception. Some TV show episodes will have such sourcing (like the series finale of The Sopranos), but episode recaps are not such sources (regardless of whether they're called "recaps" or "reviews"). Levivich 04:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, how do you distinguish between a recap that doesn't contribute to notability and a proper review that does contribute? I think the general consensus is that a recap only covers plot details while a review includes analysis and commentary, but your last line seems to imply that isn't how you distinguish between the two, and I just want to understand what you meant. RunningTiger123 (talk) 12:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- A review should talk about aspects of the show other than the plot. Commentary and analysis of the plot isn't enough in my view; a proper review talks about the acting, directing, writing, cinematography, music, lighting, casting (that's casting, not just who the cast is), makeup, wardrobe, set design, etc. Sometimes recaps are labeled "reviews" but they're not proper reviews. The bottom line is that the Wikipedia article, and it's sources, have to talk about something other than just the plot. It should be a review of a TV show, not a retelling of the TV show. I think this is basically what WP:NEPISODE says more or less:
It is preferred to have reliable sources discussing production aspects of the episode in question, such as its development and writing; the casting of specific actors; design elements; filming or animation; post-production work; or music, rather than simply recounting the plot.
I think it's consensus in fact; I would change "preferred" in that sentence to "required". Levivich 13:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)- I certainly don't agree with changing "preferred" to "required". Fundamentally television episodes are works of art/literature. They are generally notable because of what they are, not because of how they were made. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- A television series is generally notable for this. But a series and moreso an episode are less so individually notable as artistic works separate from the main show itself, and more frequently subject to routine coverage, including for lack of a better way to describe it, "routine reviews" that really don't get into any real deep coverage of the episode that how it separates itself from all other episodes of that show or other television works. I know that seems a bit harsh but thats very true and why there is a problem with low-hanging fruit televisin episodes that only have sourcing to a couple of these types of reviews. It doesn't help us encyclopedically to explain why the episode is revelant to the rest of the world and only exists to satisfy those interested in the series itself, in that manner. --Masem (t) 23:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- I certainly don't agree with changing "preferred" to "required". Fundamentally television episodes are works of art/literature. They are generally notable because of what they are, not because of how they were made. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- That's simply not true; grading RS'es as acceptable or not based on what they cover violates NPOV. We should really look at NOT and consider revising it appropriately: If RSes only cover plot and have GNG-appropriate coverage, then why does NOT#PLOT govern? Obviously, we don't want to see articles dominated by non-RS'ed plot coverage, but NOT#PLOT is being used here as a weapon to prohibit our typical deference to the proportion and emphasis of coverage seen in RS'es. Jclemens (talk) 17:15, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Many of the "routine" reviews of TV episodes today only are recaps with maybe a paragraph or two of actual review. That is not much "significant coverage" considering we're looking for secondary material (the recap being primary content). And simple reporting of RT's and rating is key data but not really significant coverage. So that's usually the end problem is that we're missing the deep significant coverage of many episodes that is beyond routine. This is not true of highlight priased shows like Better Call Saul where while there are recap coverage, there's deep analysis of the events each episode plus details of production etc. --Masem (t) 17:30, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- There's actually a substantial amount of coverage of a wide range of modern television in media studies academic sources, if one goes digging in the right (generally paywalled) sources. Not all episodes will be covered, of course, but significant character and plot developments are likely to be readily sourceable. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Which generally speaks to having character articles and, in the series articles, details on themes and other aspects that can't be attributed to individual episodes. --Masem (t) 21:24, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- There's actually a substantial amount of coverage of a wide range of modern television in media studies academic sources, if one goes digging in the right (generally paywalled) sources. Not all episodes will be covered, of course, but significant character and plot developments are likely to be readily sourceable. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Many of the "routine" reviews of TV episodes today only are recaps with maybe a paragraph or two of actual review. That is not much "significant coverage" considering we're looking for secondary material (the recap being primary content). And simple reporting of RT's and rating is key data but not really significant coverage. So that's usually the end problem is that we're missing the deep significant coverage of many episodes that is beyond routine. This is not true of highlight priased shows like Better Call Saul where while there are recap coverage, there's deep analysis of the events each episode plus details of production etc. --Masem (t) 17:30, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- A review should talk about aspects of the show other than the plot. Commentary and analysis of the plot isn't enough in my view; a proper review talks about the acting, directing, writing, cinematography, music, lighting, casting (that's casting, not just who the cast is), makeup, wardrobe, set design, etc. Sometimes recaps are labeled "reviews" but they're not proper reviews. The bottom line is that the Wikipedia article, and it's sources, have to talk about something other than just the plot. It should be a review of a TV show, not a retelling of the TV show. I think this is basically what WP:NEPISODE says more or less:
- Just to clarify, how do you distinguish between a recap that doesn't contribute to notability and a proper review that does contribute? I think the general consensus is that a recap only covers plot details while a review includes analysis and commentary, but your last line seems to imply that isn't how you distinguish between the two, and I just want to understand what you meant. RunningTiger123 (talk) 12:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- There are a few related things here. Personally, I'd like to see three things:
- A concerted effort from WikiProject Television (and anyone interested) to cultivate a list of sources which are ideal for TV episodes, with the various limitations and other considerations. We have several listings in RSP
- A concerted effort from WikiProject Television (and anyone interested) to articulate what is expected in terms of the content of a review. I know this kind of thing already exists in a few places, but one specific to television might be good.
- For our default, when individual episodes of a program regularly get some press attention, to be covering them as part of a season or list article. Most season articles are just plot summaries plus a few data points (writers, viewership, etc.), but it doesn't have to be that way. Two-four paragraphs per episode combining plot, production, and reception sounds manageable. Then, at some point (perhaps one week after the end of the season), assess which should be developed as stand-alone articles, if any. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:46, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- There has been quite a lot of discussion here that I am finding difficult to parse, but I wanted to bring up the recent edits at WP:NEPISODE that were made as part of this discussion to remove "statements at odds with the GNG". I don't believe this is true for the main information that was removed, which is basically an explanation that run-of-the-mill content is not enough to justify an episode article, and significant information does not necessarily need an episode article if it can be covered fine in a season or series article. These do not contradict WP:GNG, they provide episode-specific content to the vague guidelines at GNG. They have also been discussed multiple times before and are good guidelines to discourage unnecessary episode articles from being created. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Correct, but the changes you mention have been left in place for several days and several major contributors to that page haven't sought to revert the edits, as discussed here. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- I started that discussion you linked to, and there has been no progress there because this discussion was already underway which is why I have now brought my concerns here. No one reverting a change for several days during the week when there is already a discussion ongoing doesn't indicate anything. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Correct, but the changes you mention have been left in place for several days and several major contributors to that page haven't sought to revert the edits, as discussed here. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- They do contradict the general notability guidelines, as many people have stated. You can't decide to just go through and delete thousands of episode articles because you don't like them, because you believe they should have more sections in them, or because you don't like what others have already verified are reliable sources that cover them. If an episode has millions of viewers, then anywhere that reviews episodes is going to write a review for it, provided it is the type of show they write reviews for. It is not Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill, that not a valid argument here. This isn't some local newspaper that reviews every single restaurant in town. They do not review every single show that exist, nor do they review every episode of a show that has its ratings go down so much that no one cares anymore. If something passes the GNG, then it gets an article. The rules of WP:NOTABILITY clearly state a subject is notable enough for a Wikipedia article if it passes the general notability guidelines OR any of the subject specific guidelines, it has never had to pass both. Dream Focus 04:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- If something passes the GNG, it is presumed to merit a standalone article, but that can still be challenged. The GNG is not an absolute assurance, its only an indicator that notability may be there. And as WP matures, how we have approached what is deemed notable has changed too. --Masem (t) 05:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- People who never liked certain things, have from the beginning argued relentless for the right to ignore the agreed upon rules and delete things they want to destroy. If the handful of people that show up to comment at any AFD can decide to ignore the GNG and delete something they don't like anyway, then the notability guidelines become useless. Dream Focus 05:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- The opposite - people deciding to keep an article that fails WP:GNG - has always been more of a problem. Further, editors shouldn't be ignoring WP:NOT to !vote "keep" at AFD. However, I don't think this discussion is progressing; I think an RFC is needed, in line with what I proposed above. BilledMammal (talk) 08:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Editors aren't ignoring WP:NOT (and you ought to be more specific about which part of NOT you're referring to). Presuming you're referring to WP:NOTPLOT, the presence of a "Critical Reception" section in the AfDs you cited above mean NOTPLOT isn't violated. NemesisAT (talk) 09:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- NOTPLOT is about being mostly plot summary. Just having a plain utilitarian reception section with basic RT and ratings is not helping to show there is more that can be written beyond the plot summary. --Masem (t) 12:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Editors aren't ignoring WP:NOT (and you ought to be more specific about which part of NOT you're referring to). Presuming you're referring to WP:NOTPLOT, the presence of a "Critical Reception" section in the AfDs you cited above mean NOTPLOT isn't violated. NemesisAT (talk) 09:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- The opposite - people deciding to keep an article that fails WP:GNG - has always been more of a problem. Further, editors shouldn't be ignoring WP:NOT to !vote "keep" at AFD. However, I don't think this discussion is progressing; I think an RFC is needed, in line with what I proposed above. BilledMammal (talk) 08:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER. If something passes WP:GNG, and there is enough information available to write an article on it, I see no reason why there shouldn't be a standalone article. Especially in the case of episodes where the result of merging them into one would be a very long unwieldy series article. NemesisAT (talk) 09:48, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- GNG specifically says it is not a guarantee of an article, and sometimes it better to have topics that barely pass the GNG merged into topics that combined clearly pass it or provide more comprehensive coverage overall. --Masem (t) 12:40, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- People who never liked certain things, have from the beginning argued relentless for the right to ignore the agreed upon rules and delete things they want to destroy. If the handful of people that show up to comment at any AFD can decide to ignore the GNG and delete something they don't like anyway, then the notability guidelines become useless. Dream Focus 05:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- If something passes the GNG, it is presumed to merit a standalone article, but that can still be challenged. The GNG is not an absolute assurance, its only an indicator that notability may be there. And as WP matures, how we have approached what is deemed notable has changed too. --Masem (t) 05:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Not every episode of television series warrant articles, especially if all the article has is plot, a few reviews, and ratings info. Plot is covered at the season/list of episodes article in the table, as are ratings info. And in a 22-24 episode season (thinking more to television series up to the past decade, not so much current programming), is the reviews of the 8th episode, when most larger publications have ceased covering the series, notable? I'd strongly argue they aren't nor do they help bring it to pass GNG. That's why the various discussions that were held at WT:TV and then WT:NTV for what became WP:NTV were in consensus that there should be some other material in the article (ie episode-specific production material) to help support the "run of the mill" content and help those episodes meet GNG. This discussion started regarding episodes of Heroes. Looking at one that was redirect, [Line], as this was before redirection, all this article was was a way too long plot, ratings info that wasn't even source, and two reviews that gave the bare minimum. So again, for this episode, not only was GNG very much not met, plot and ratings was covered in the episode table, and the reviews, if anything "monumental" occurred, could have been discussed at the season article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Episodes should also be thought of in the same context as songs on an album, and WP:NSONG. Not all songs are going to meet notability requirements to warrant articles, and in the case of some series, not all episodes will either. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- There certainty is a problem with television episode articles. One group of articles (as an example) which I found very bad were Desperate Housewives episodes (such as You Could Drive a Person Crazy) which are all plot and semi-trivial information with zero sources. On the other hand, the recent MCU episode articles are a good example of articles which are worked on as drafts and only published when there really is enough information. Another point I'd like to make sure gets added to any future guideline or AfC discussion - if a page gets deleted, a redirect should be left behind which redirects to the table entry of the season or list of episodes table. This is a pain to manually fix each time. Gonnym (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oh wow, You Could Drive a Person Crazy is a perfect example of what WP:NEPISODE is trying to avoid. And I'm sure basically virtually every other one of those episode articles are just like that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- What "You Could Drive a Person Crazy" looked like before redirection can be seen here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- That article (now redirect) is an extreme example – it literally had zero reviews. I don't think anyone here has argued that such an article should exist, assuming there are no better sources to add. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oh wow, You Could Drive a Person Crazy is a perfect example of what WP:NEPISODE is trying to avoid. And I'm sure basically virtually every other one of those episode articles are just like that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
RFC draft
I propose the following options to allow us to resolve this disagreement. We need to work out which guideline option A would fit in, and we need an introductory statement to explain the disagreement to uninvolved editors. I believe the best location to hold this discussion is WP:VPP, as this will affect multiple guidelines.
- A: In ?, add the line
Episodes of a TV show are presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article they have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Reviews that are primarily recaps of the episode are not considered to be significant coverage.
- B: In WP:NOTPLOT, add the line
This criteria does not apply if there is any coverage beyond information about the plot in reliable and independent sources.
- C: No change.
BilledMammal (talk) 10:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- "Reviews that are primarily recaps of the episode are not considered to be significant coverage." That is too vague. They never just do a recap, they give details, post a review of how they feel about various parts of it. Since they do recap the entire story, some might say these reviews are "primarily recaps". Also list exactly which guidelines would be changed and where. Dream Focus 12:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Are you referring to reviews like this? If you are, then the intent is to exclude those as primarily recaps that provide little information that can be included to expand the article beyond a plot summary.
- I don't know which guideline this would fit into yet; do you have a suggestion? BilledMammal (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Any reviews for anything are like this. The general notability guidelines exist to show that reliable sources believe something is notable enough to talk about, so Wikipedia should have an article for it. And having articles people might want to actually read, is always better than having nothing there at all. There is no limit to space. Dream Focus 13:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- The GNG says that there needs to be significant coverage to presume that an article can be made, not just because something was written about. And we can always redirect to a list of episodes when a standalone episode article doesn't work. --Masem (t) 13:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- All rules are useless if the small number of people that show up to an AFD can say "I don't like it" and delete it anyway. Dream Focus 08:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- The GNG says that there needs to be significant coverage to presume that an article can be made, not just because something was written about. And we can always redirect to a list of episodes when a standalone episode article doesn't work. --Masem (t) 13:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Any reviews for anything are like this. The general notability guidelines exist to show that reliable sources believe something is notable enough to talk about, so Wikipedia should have an article for it. And having articles people might want to actually read, is always better than having nothing there at all. There is no limit to space. Dream Focus 13:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Agree with Dream Focus. The way these choices are worded seems more like an ultimatum than true options to choose from. Huggums537 (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think Masem is hitting on the right language. I can understand how "we don't want primarily a recap" would be confusing for some editors. More clear would be to say "we do want significant coverage outside of a plot recap" (e.g.: analysis, criticism, comparison, etc.) That mimics the language at WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:SIGCOV and WP:WAF. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think the agreement is that there needs to be significant coverage outside of plot summaries, as established at the links you provided; the issue at hand is what specifically constitutes significant coverage. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think editors will use that language to argue that reviews like this still count towards notability (
They never just do a recap, they give details, post a review of how they feel about various parts of it.
) something that the goal of that option is to prevent. BilledMammal (talk) 03:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I agree with Dream Focus's concern that the current wording is very vague; what exactly distinguishes a review from "primarily" a recap? I could argue that any review that includes personal analysis and commentary is no longer a recap, while other people may demand much more extensive commentary; both views could be reasonably supported by that wording, and we'll end up right back where we started. I also think we're getting too hung up on terminology; for instance, this review of "Janet(s)" brands itself as a recap, but since it includes analysis, is from a nationally known critic, and is from a well-known magazine that does relatively few episode reviews, I don't think it's the type of source we're trying to eliminate. I would suggest amending option A to say
Reviews must provide commentary beyond a simple plot summary to be considered significant coverage.
Other amendments to that line are welcome, I just don't think the existing wording is clear enough. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)- There is a style of review based on the defunct website Television Without Pity that introduced this idea of snark into recaps; the AV Club recaps then to be that. Snark can be opinionated, but its meant to be more sarcastic rather than intended as serious criticism. We shouldn't be using that type of snark as part of our critical review. That said, you then get Rolling Stone's Alan Sepinwall who's recaps have a smattering of snark but tend to be more serious at times and are appropriate forms of criticms. There's a type of line that we want to try to use. --Masem (t) 03:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think we're hitting on similar points — "recap" is a term with varying definition depending on the website, so I don't think we should base the proposed changes off of that terminology, and we should be more explicit about what reviews would have to contain to be notable. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- There is a style of review based on the defunct website Television Without Pity that introduced this idea of snark into recaps; the AV Club recaps then to be that. Snark can be opinionated, but its meant to be more sarcastic rather than intended as serious criticism. We shouldn't be using that type of snark as part of our critical review. That said, you then get Rolling Stone's Alan Sepinwall who's recaps have a smattering of snark but tend to be more serious at times and are appropriate forms of criticms. There's a type of line that we want to try to use. --Masem (t) 03:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think we can find some useful terminology from related policies that represent a consensus of best practices, the same way we import some of the language of WP:V and WP:RS in this guideline. On this topic, WP:NOT is a policy that says "Wikipedia treats creative works ... in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works."" Without completely duplicating WP:NOT, maybe some of this terminology is useful. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- As an alternative proposal for the text of the RFC, since there doesn't appear to be an appropriate location for A:
- A In WP:NOTPLOT, add the bolded line:
Wikipedia treats creative works (including, for example, works of art or fiction, video games, documentaries, research books or papers, and religious texts) in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works. Articles that consist of summary-only descriptions of the work and biased statements of opinion also fail this requirement.
- B In WP:NOTPLOT, add the bolded line:
Wikipedia treats creative works (including, for example, works of art or fiction, video games, documentaries, research books or papers, and religious texts) in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works. This criteria does not apply if there is any coverage beyond information about the plot in reliable and independent sources.
- C: No change.
- I believe A should address this issue; if all we can say about an creative work is that John Doe liked it, or John Doe gave it 2/10, then we cannot treat the work in an encyclopedic manner, and we shouldn't have an article on it. BilledMammal (talk) 02:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- A problem with option "A" is that it does not specify exclusively that articles solely based on summary-only descriptions of the work fail the requirement. Rather, the wording "articles that consist of" is being used, which could easily be interpreted as simply meaning "articles that contain". Also, the way it is combined with the "and" conjunction makes it appear both X and Y must be present for Z to fail.
- Option B is just a restatement of the unbolded text right before it since it is already obvious from that text that this criteria does not apply to articles that discuss the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works. Also, the way it is worded makes it appear like it is requiring that plot sections must have coverage beyond the plot in secondary sources, but this goes against both MOS:PLOT where it says
Because works of fiction are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source.
and Wikipedia:When to cite#When a source or citation may not be needed where it saysIf the subject of the article is a book or film or other artistic work, it is unnecessary to cite a source in describing events or other details.
- Furthermore, the first draft looks more like subject specific guidance that probably belongs somewhere else besides here like make TV or Plot guidance, and these new options now have problems of their own. Huggums537 (talk) 04:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option A presents some massive issues. The note that
biased statements of opinion
fail to demonstrate notability is intended to prevent reviews from establishing notability, but this is clearly out of line with existing guidelines for other forms of media. By making this change at NOTPLOT, we would be forcing all works of fiction to change notability guidelines. For instance, WP:NBOOKS clearly allows reviews to establish notability, as does WP:NFILM. WP:NVG is less explicit, but I think a reasonable reading of that SNG would allow reviews as well. However, this proposed new guideline would directly contradict those well-established criteria. I think this change is far too sweeping for the issues being discussed here. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Local coverage
An editor has initiated a deletion discussion that hinges on the premise that local coverage is insufficient to prove notability. Specifically, the editor appears to apply a standard of "three articles...two need to be outside his local area AND outside industry niche publication." Is that correct? I am involved here as a COI editor and I am fully committed to adhering to the rules; really trying to understand what they are. I value the input of the wider editing community and would appreciate the involvement of veteran editors in the deletion discussion there as well. Sheena 2022 (talk) 23:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, in general, we DO want more than just local coverage or industry niche sourcing. Blueboar (talk) 01:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Also, as a business related article, WP:NCORP also needs to be taken into account. --Masem (t) 01:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Also, as a further matter of principle, I tend to automatically discount objections to an AfD raised by a paid editor defending his or her own work; that's the very definition of COI. Ravenswing 04:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- The general GNG notability standards do not explicitly depend on locality, but this is a business-related article where the stricter standards of NCORP, and particularly WP:AUD, are relevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:45, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- WP:NCORP doesn't apply here; it applies to companies, corporations, organizations, groups, products, and services, but not individuals. However, I would agree that the restrictions on local coverage should be applied to biographies generally, particularly for BLP's. BilledMammal (talk) 04:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- There is definitely an overlap on NCORP's AUD section related to people that are primarily business leaders, because there is a lot of promotional fluff out there. (eg trade magazines that you can pay to get an article about yourself into). And particular at local figures, if the coverage is strictly only local, that's not really appropriate for a global encyclopedia. Local coverage can augment one or two broader sources, but should not be the only type of sources present. --Masem (t) 05:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing that application of WP:AUD - although we don't need WP:NCORP to prevent the trade magazines counting towards notability, as they are not independent, and promotional fluff isn't only an issue with business leaders, but with everyone who benefits from increased coverage. I agree with everything else you said though. BilledMammal (talk) 05:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm with BilledMammal on two counts: 1.) "WP:NCORP doesn't apply here; it applies to companies, corporations, organizations, groups, products, and services, but not individuals." and 2.) "we don't need WP:NCORP to prevent the trade magazines counting towards notability, as they are not independent, and promotional fluff isn't only an issue with business leaders, but with everyone who benefits from increased coverage.", but I vehemently disagree with any restrictions on local coverage to biographies. Huggums537 (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing that application of WP:AUD - although we don't need WP:NCORP to prevent the trade magazines counting towards notability, as they are not independent, and promotional fluff isn't only an issue with business leaders, but with everyone who benefits from increased coverage. I agree with everything else you said though. BilledMammal (talk) 05:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- There is definitely an overlap on NCORP's AUD section related to people that are primarily business leaders, because there is a lot of promotional fluff out there. (eg trade magazines that you can pay to get an article about yourself into). And particular at local figures, if the coverage is strictly only local, that's not really appropriate for a global encyclopedia. Local coverage can augment one or two broader sources, but should not be the only type of sources present. --Masem (t) 05:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- There is no guideline limiting use of local coverage to establish notability in a biography article. There have been multiple proposals over the years to impose such a rule, but those proposals have failed to gain consensus -- with limited exceptions such as NCORP where special concerns over commercial promotion led to the addition of WP:AUD. That said, my view has always been that there is local coverage and there is "hyper" local coverage. Respected metropolitan newspapers are reliable, independent sources. However, small-town newspapers are less-so. There is a wide spectrum between the Dallas Morning News or The Seattle Times, on one end, and the Podunk News, on the other hand. My view is that, if the only available coverage is in the Podunk News about a local person from Podunk, I'm skeptical about the notability. Of course, the "multiple" source rule addresses this, such that coverage only in one's home-town newspaper (and in no other reliable sources) won't push the subject over the GNG bar. Cbl62 (talk) 12:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Ultimately, this kind of thing depends on consensus opinions, and not on some objective standard. Every wikipedian has their own lines they draw based on GNG, and so the "height" of the GNG bar varies some from one Wikipedian to another, even though all are working from the same set of standards; it's a matter of how much and what kinds of coverage qualifies as "significant". There is not (nor should there be) a rigid measure that one must qualify for to pass that bar; it depends (rightly) on a disparate group of people looking over the source text and deciding if there is enough of high quality and reliable sources to justify having a stand-alone article on a topic, where "enough" and "high quality" are deliberately vague. It is an "I know it when I see it" situation. --Jayron32 14:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- A dash of subjectivity is a good thing, but there is and ought to be an objective core to a GNG analysis. Cbl62 (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- Ultimately, this kind of thing depends on consensus opinions, and not on some objective standard. Every wikipedian has their own lines they draw based on GNG, and so the "height" of the GNG bar varies some from one Wikipedian to another, even though all are working from the same set of standards; it's a matter of how much and what kinds of coverage qualifies as "significant". There is not (nor should there be) a rigid measure that one must qualify for to pass that bar; it depends (rightly) on a disparate group of people looking over the source text and deciding if there is enough of high quality and reliable sources to justify having a stand-alone article on a topic, where "enough" and "high quality" are deliberately vague. It is an "I know it when I see it" situation. --Jayron32 14:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Coverage should be non-promotional. Local and industry periodicals often provide promotional coverage based on the desires of their audience. (Local restaurant reviews is a typical example.) Thus when evaluating the suitability of coverage, this factor has to be taken into consideration. isaacl (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- I would also suggest that coverage should not consist primarily of reprints of press releases. - Enos733 (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes; this falls under promotional coverage. isaacl (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Except, almost all sources invariably provide some form of coverage based on the desires of their audience. (Either your local high school, or national sports news is a typical example). Thus, if they aren't promoting the material they are covering, then they are promoting themselves or their audience instead. Huggums537 (talk) 21:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- The problem with local news is that it is far too easy to claim they are promoting the material if they are covering the local high school sports because they have a closer connection to it, but that doesn't mean that national news can't also be promoting themselves, their audience, or even the material they are covering for that matter. Let us remember they earn hefty amounts of advertising for this coverage. Almost nobody is in the business of providing unpromoted coverage for their audience without benefit to themselves. Huggums537 (talk) 21:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, all sources are providing coverage based on what benefits them and the audience they target. This does not mean that all coverage from all sources is promotional, as the business model can be to provide neutral coverage. This can differ within one publication. (The New York Times has plenty of local coverage which is tuned for its local market and is promotional in nature. Its travel section is often highly promotional.) The intent of the coverage is one factor to consider when weighing the suitability of a source. isaacl (talk) 00:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Well, I'm glad you brought that point up. It is very interesting to take note The New York Times is listed as a reliable source at WP:RSP, and I highly doubt anyone would have a problem with it being used based on being too promotional. My whole point for even mentioning this about all sources is that most experienced Wikipedians have become so Wikipedified with this Law of the instrument type of thinking that if they have the hammer of WP:CoI guidance, then suddenly every paid editor and article appears to be a nail that needs to be pounded. My hope about mentioning that all sources are promotional is to try to get these law of the instrument Wikipedified editors to see that perhaps they do all look like nails, but maybe they really aren't. Huggums537 (talk) 13:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- It's been a while since I read the New York Times on paper, but as I recall, it covers outstanding local high school students. Like many newspapers, it has local restaurant reviews. The New York Times is a reliable source, but that doesn't mean all of its coverage is suitable for meeting English Wikipedia's standards for having an article. isaacl (talk) 00:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well, I'm glad you brought that point up. It is very interesting to take note The New York Times is listed as a reliable source at WP:RSP, and I highly doubt anyone would have a problem with it being used based on being too promotional. My whole point for even mentioning this about all sources is that most experienced Wikipedians have become so Wikipedified with this Law of the instrument type of thinking that if they have the hammer of WP:CoI guidance, then suddenly every paid editor and article appears to be a nail that needs to be pounded. My hope about mentioning that all sources are promotional is to try to get these law of the instrument Wikipedified editors to see that perhaps they do all look like nails, but maybe they really aren't. Huggums537 (talk) 13:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, all sources are providing coverage based on what benefits them and the audience they target. This does not mean that all coverage from all sources is promotional, as the business model can be to provide neutral coverage. This can differ within one publication. (The New York Times has plenty of local coverage which is tuned for its local market and is promotional in nature. Its travel section is often highly promotional.) The intent of the coverage is one factor to consider when weighing the suitability of a source. isaacl (talk) 00:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- I would also suggest that coverage should not consist primarily of reprints of press releases. - Enos733 (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
The best thing and also the norm isn't explicitly defined in policies/guidelines which is weighing multiple factors. If it's about a living person or business that is likely to benefit financially from the existence of the article, and thus also likely that the sourcing as been searched, maxed out and wiki-optimized by a wiki-expert, then the bar gets raised, including discounting local coverage. North8000 (talk) 16:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- This. --Jayron32 17:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- I like the above point about bar-raising, because it centers the question on the health and purpose of the project. Wikipedia should aspire to a high level of local (encyclopedic) coverage, but only if it can do so without jeopardizing its encyclopedic mission. And at their best, the notability guidelines are a bulwark against forms of manipulation that can damage the encyclopedia. From that standpoint it does make sense to be disproportionately skeptical of local news (even where the local news outlet has reasonable editorial controls and oversight), to the extent that such coverage is disproportionately likely to be manipulated and used in turn to manipulate Wikipedia. But it also follows from this that the skepticism should be situational: there should be heightened skepticism only to the extent that such manipulation can be reasonably suspected (a reasonable default suspicion for companies and BLPs, but not necessarily for other topics). -- Visviva (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- I want to thank OP User:Sheena 2022 for a posting which raised this entertaining and enlightening discussion on this very worthy topic. As the pedia gets bigger, wikipedians do need to consider the value of listening to and accepting the specialized knowledge and views of connected or conflicted editors like the OP, especially when they choose to demonstrate their willingness to accept the five pillars and work inside our policies and guidelines. BusterD (talk) 05:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- I really think we need to evaluate carefully all news coverage. The starting point is WP:NOT#NEWS, which eliminates all mentions of an article subject in the news, but previous attempts to enforce it properly have failed. There are differences between local and national news coverage in different countries. There is a very clear distinction between them in the market with which I am most familiar, the UK, but I realise that the equivalents of our national press are mostly regional in the US. Here, and in my understanding in the US, the local news is very easily manipulated. For example many of the football matches that my son was involved in in the junior age groups were covered by the local paper, which had a catchment area of about 200,000 population, simply because the coach of his team sent in match reports. My daughter had a picture of the back of her head (while she was playing the double bass) covering almost the whole of the same newspaper's front page because it was the best picture that the photographer got at a concert in the Albert Hall by the local youth orchestra. There are a few other instances of such coverage of them, and my parents when they were alive (I even featured myself in the main story on the front page once because of a letter I wrote), but it would be laughable to say that any of them are suitable subjects for encyclopedia articles because of that. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- As others have noted, there is no general hard-and-fast rule about local coverage. Nor is there agreement about what counts as "local". If a newspaper covers one city, is it local? What if that city has a population in the millions? Or is any coverage by newspaper in a given nation "local"? Local coverage is often discounted by some amount when determining notability. And to some extent that's fine--especially with hyper-local coverage. But then we get to questions like "what about publications that are specialized in something other than a geographic area?" Should we only be using general/mainstream publications and ignore/discount coverage because it's coming from a niche source? And the answer is, "it depends". When it comes to inclusion, we tend to give more weight to sources that have less focus (geographic or otherwise). A paragraph in "USA today" about a video game is probably as helpful (IMO) when determining notability as a half-page article in a gaming magazine. So, as others have noted "it depends". But anyone claiming there is a general consensus, let alone a hard-and-fast rule like "three articles...two need to be outside his local area AND outside industry niche publication" is just making stuff up... Hobit (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Individual local elections
During NPP work I took an example of a routine local election with a "stats only" type article, went into extra detail at the AFD nomination and asked for a thorough review with the thought that the result might help provide guidance on these. Input is requested. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1996 Chorley Borough Council election North8000 (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- I wrote this in the discussion (slightly edited): Elections for executives, upper chambers in a national bicameral legislature are notable. Election to a lower chambers in a national bicameral legislature or for state/provincial legislatures may be grouped together (such as in France, Idaho, or Virginia). Other elections, including local elections, may be notable when there are secondary and retrospective sources that illustrate how the election as noteworthy or is the first election for a president, prime minister, or similar political figure, where the election article is a spinoff. In any case, the article about the election should consist of significant prose that describes the context and outcome(s) of the election. --Enos733 (talk) 14:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Template:Sources exist nominated for deletion
Please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 June 28#Template:Sources exist. – Joe (talk) 14:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
An old-timer is concerned
Hello talkpage. I've been seen editor for some time and have tried to be a good editor down all the years. But I'm worried by what I have seen recently, what I might call "notability idealism". I see it with the railway station discussion above and last week with local council election articles.
Part of me wonders if we're going down too "pure" a path. I created dozens of railway station articles very early on in Wikipedia's history, working with other editors to effectively create the template for all UK railway station articles. We're exceptionally proud of the work we did, very early on, to create a corner of Wikipedia that has proven of great use and interest.
I'm wary of WP:OWN concerns, because I'm aware that feeling sad about losing years of work can create feelings that cross into that territory. But my overriding concern is that we're about to delete, even purge, articles about facts and physical objects with only rules and regulations to defend that action, ignoring that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
Anyway, just a few thoughts. Let's try and not use so many rules and procedures that we end up destroying what we love. doktorb wordsdeeds 19:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- It really is disappointing. We have stricter rules on biographies of living people due to the risk of harm to these people. We have stricter policies on business articles due to the risk of using Wikipedia as a promotional tool. There is no need to be strict on inclusion of railway station articles. They require minimal maintenance. How does arguing over the notability of thousands of station articles benefit Wikipedia's readers? All it does is waste volunteer time. NemesisAT (talk) 21:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Debates between “inclusionists” and “deletionists” are as old as Wikipedia itself. They are nothing new… It’s just that, this time, the debate involves your little corner of WP. To play “devils advocate” (and present the “deletionist” view): we are not suddenly inventing stricter rules for your project, we are finally realizing that your project hasn’t been applying the existing rules (that we have had in place for years) and calling you to task for that. Blueboar (talk) 22:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- That reply just demonstrates one of the problems that we have. There are many editors here (and they seem to hang out in Wikipedia space most of the time) who seem to think that the point of this project is to catch out people who don't dot all the "i"s and cross all the "t"s contained in the all-important rules, rather than to produce an encyclopedia. Notability guidelines are just that, guides for how to write good encyclopedic content for our readers, not some god-given rules that must always be obeyed without thought. And an old-timer at 42? Whippersnapper! Phil Bridger (talk) 23:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's not really about how to write good content, but a fuzzy line to say what content is appropriate for WP as an extension of WP:NOT. Yes, we are not paper, but we've clearly come to a place that we aren't going to cover every possible topic under the sun, and are using sourced-based metrics for the most part to make the first-pass cut of when a topic should be included. Masem (t) 12:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- It seems reasonable to point out that "we've clearly come to a place that we aren't going to cover every possible topic" in no small part as a result of notability and the associated AFD toxicity driving contributors off the site. Rewarding work on Wikipedia means working on closed sets of articles, and if you can't be sure that some random subset of articles aren't going to be AFD-bombed based on someone's tendentious reading of the GNG, that work swiftly becomes a lot less rewarding. Viewed from the standpoint of WP:PRIME, or even from the standpoint of just keeping the dust off of our existing coverage, the policy changes since circa 2006 have, in the aggregate, been a colossal failure. If we want the project to thrive, as I'm sure we all do, it makes far more sense to revisit those decisions than to keep doubling down on them year after year as each successive tightening of the knots further deprives the project of its most essential nutrient: lots of contributors making lots of iterative contributions. -- Visviva (talk) 04:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- This feels a tangent from the current debate. Nobody has proposed not covering the topic of railway stations. The discussion is about how it should be covered, with many of the option 3 and option 4 opinions actually being quite similar. There is nothing above that would stop interested editors from beavering away. CMD (talk) 04:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- The early days of Wikipedia were very much "wild west" in terms of any type of quality aspects because editors were writing about anything they wanted. As both with the age of WP, and with the changes in the Internet at large, we want quality over quantity, and we need to avoid those looking to use WP as a cheap way to get indexed in Google. Thus our notability guidelines are there to make sure that when we are creating standalone pages, they are based on clear significant coverage in secondary sources as to be able to write a quality article to the general reader. Yes, this approach does likely scare away potential editors that just want to write what they know about without any sourcing, but that type of thinking that might have been fine in 2006 is no longer appropriate for how important WP is.
- And if a standalone can't be made, we can still have a redirect to a more comprehensive article on the topic. So we can still cover the same vast swaths of info, just not through individual dedicated pages. Masem (t) 04:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
we need to avoid those looking to use WP as a cheap way to get indexed in Google.
I agree in terms of business and biography articles, but this isn't applicable to railway stations that are typically subsidised or even nationalised.Yes, this approach does likely scare away potential editors that just want to write what they know about without any sourcing
Am happy to be corrected but I don't think even the most extreme inclusionists here are advocating for standalone articles for stations that fail WP:V. I still feel standalone articles are beneficial. Nobody has offered a consistent way to merge railway station content. NemesisAT (talk) 06:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- It seems reasonable to point out that "we've clearly come to a place that we aren't going to cover every possible topic" in no small part as a result of notability and the associated AFD toxicity driving contributors off the site. Rewarding work on Wikipedia means working on closed sets of articles, and if you can't be sure that some random subset of articles aren't going to be AFD-bombed based on someone's tendentious reading of the GNG, that work swiftly becomes a lot less rewarding. Viewed from the standpoint of WP:PRIME, or even from the standpoint of just keeping the dust off of our existing coverage, the policy changes since circa 2006 have, in the aggregate, been a colossal failure. If we want the project to thrive, as I'm sure we all do, it makes far more sense to revisit those decisions than to keep doubling down on them year after year as each successive tightening of the knots further deprives the project of its most essential nutrient: lots of contributors making lots of iterative contributions. -- Visviva (talk) 04:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's not really about how to write good content, but a fuzzy line to say what content is appropriate for WP as an extension of WP:NOT. Yes, we are not paper, but we've clearly come to a place that we aren't going to cover every possible topic under the sun, and are using sourced-based metrics for the most part to make the first-pass cut of when a topic should be included. Masem (t) 12:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Well that puts me in my place. I hope we can be closer in attitude and stance than your response suggests. I'll say this: I've always had an issue with WP:PLOT, for as long as I've been here. Entire shot-by-shot, page-by-page descriptions of every last minor detail written out in longform against all guidance and rules. But they remain. Pick a show, pick a film, pick a comic, PLOT is regularly ignored. I'd suggest we're better off as a community asking ourselves why Wikipedia is happy to delete entire articles on strict adherence to the rules, while ignoring pop culture and movie articles which consistently breech the rules. One point on deletionism, and this is perhaps ironic, is that I'm often accused of being a deletionist because of the significant number of political party AfDs I've created and led to successful conclusions. I do understand your concerns over notability (in general). I just happen to believe that railway stations are significant parts of local communities and national transport models and have a greater claim to remaining as articles than your stance would initially suggest. Maybe a compromise can be found in time. doktorb wordsdeeds 03:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- We definitely have problems with pages on characters or similar articles where the essence of PLOT is ignored, but I do know that the film, TV, and video game areas at least work to make sure the main film/etc. pages meet smaller word counts. The articles beyond those are generally more difficult to clean up to meet PLOT due to one needing knowledge of the work as to know what should be scrubbed and what should be left, but we know that this is a problem and one that doesn't have an easy solution. Masem (t) 12:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- That reply just demonstrates one of the problems that we have. There are many editors here (and they seem to hang out in Wikipedia space most of the time) who seem to think that the point of this project is to catch out people who don't dot all the "i"s and cross all the "t"s contained in the all-important rules, rather than to produce an encyclopedia. Notability guidelines are just that, guides for how to write good encyclopedic content for our readers, not some god-given rules that must always be obeyed without thought. And an old-timer at 42? Whippersnapper! Phil Bridger (talk) 23:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Doktorbuk, I don't think that this is as bad as you think it is. The specific RFC is on a very narrow "inherent notability" question triggered by some contentious discussions triggered by such a claim. That aside, probably the main open mainstream question is whether it is best to handle the the bulk of these via a separate article for each vs a section in an article or a row in a table in an article with some of them covered also by separate articles. There also some (myself included, especially when trying to figure out what to do with them in NPP) who would like to get this area with widely varying views on what the guidance given by Wikipedia is clarified. That pretty well sums it up and I see very little of the things that you described/ are concerned about. North8000 (talk) 23:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- See, you call this "narrow" and then immediately say this
...probably the main open mainstream question is whether it is best to handle the the bulk of these via a separate article for each vs a section in an article or a row in a table in an article.
(emphasis added). That doesn't sound narrow. Mackensen (talk) 23:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)- Two different things. My "narrow" was referring to the question in the RFC which is whether "inherent notability of train stations" exists. The point I made after that is not the subject of the RFC. And that my main point after that was that the other question that came up is where the info goes, not whether or not to include it in Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- If this was supposed to be a reassuring reply it failed in that objective. Mackensen (talk) 00:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't mean that it was reassuring in every possible way, just on the specific concerns raised by Doktorbuk. For anybody who is 100% dug in one way or the other, just opening a discussion that might find some middle ground might be considered to be un-assuring. North8000 (talk) 00:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- If this was supposed to be a reassuring reply it failed in that objective. Mackensen (talk) 00:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Two different things. My "narrow" was referring to the question in the RFC which is whether "inherent notability of train stations" exists. The point I made after that is not the subject of the RFC. And that my main point after that was that the other question that came up is where the info goes, not whether or not to include it in Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Doktorbuk, as another "old timer", I completely agree with you. It is frustrating to me, as someone who has helped to build this encyclopaedia from its fairly early days, that there seems to be an increasing number of editors who obsess over applying "rules" to the notability of articles and cannot conceive of why something might be notable just because it is clearly notable. They seem to lose sight of the concept of an encyclopaedia in favour of their desire to police and enforce notability guidelines as though they were strict rules that must be adhered to or else. We even have a policy to cover this, WP:IAR, but any mention of that is mocked and denigrated by these editors, as such a lack of rules appears to makes them uncomfortable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe review WP:WHYN? Further, the inclusion/deletion argument is generally a misnomer. Some think anything other having than a standalone article means deletion, but inclusion can mean merge/redirect. Invoking IAR needs good reason, and a desire to keep every one sentence/short paragraph stub related to your hobby topic is not one. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Which is why almost all UK railway station articles are full pages, as we planned them to be over a decade ago. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- My take is I would rather we have one good article that gives an overview than have to wade through 15 articles to get the same overview. An encyclopedia should be a repository of all knowledge, but it has to be navigatable as well. I want it to replace having to look through 15 books, not to have it duplicate it.
- That is the problem with stubs "And XYZ is an ABC" is not really useful, it is not enclopedic, it is a directory entry. I have no issue with that, but then let's have it in a list of ABC's so I can see them all in one place. Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- What do you think one article about fifteen railway stations, located on the same line but in different localities with different histories, will get you over fifteen articles about fifteen stations? What problem would be solved here? Who does the work? Who benefits? Mackensen (talk) 11:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think that this is a general question, as we are discussing railway stations above in the RFC, we do not need to discuss that specific case. I think we have way too many one-line stubs because a subject passes an SNG. I use Wikipedia for quick easy research where detail and 100% accuracy are not issues. I do not want to have to spend over much time wading through tons of stubs when one list will do the same job. Nor did I say "we should have fifteen articles on 15 subjects", in fact I said the opposite. We should not have 15 stubs when one list will do the same job. Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- As to “who benefits?”… the reader benefits, by having the information located on one page rather than spread over 15. Blueboar (talk) 11:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Such also plainly shows the relationship between them (e.g. on the rail line), which is always useful for train stations North8000 (talk) 11:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- And as I've explained above, that question is thorny when there are multiple possible groupings--different lines, different services. Editors came to a different conclusion about how to best organize that information for reasons that seemed good to them. In the absence of reader feedback, you're just speculating that they'd prefer it to be done a different way. Given that the names of railroad lines are often unknown to the general public, I suspect organizing information in that way would decrease rather than increase usability, no matter how many redirects are used. Mackensen (talk) 11:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- No I am saying as a reader what I would prefer given what I use Wikipedia for. Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- And as I've explained above, that question is thorny when there are multiple possible groupings--different lines, different services. Editors came to a different conclusion about how to best organize that information for reasons that seemed good to them. In the absence of reader feedback, you're just speculating that they'd prefer it to be done a different way. Given that the names of railroad lines are often unknown to the general public, I suspect organizing information in that way would decrease rather than increase usability, no matter how many redirects are used. Mackensen (talk) 11:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Arguably if you have a state that has a dense history section, it likely will pass the GNG. What we don't want are articles where, besides stating what line it is one, saying something like "The station opened in YYYY. In 2020 it served so-many passengers." if that's all that can be pulled from sourcing, as that doesn't meant the GNG. Masem (t) 11:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think that this is a general question, as we are discussing railway stations above in the RFC, we do not need to discuss that specific case. I think we have way too many one-line stubs because a subject passes an SNG. I use Wikipedia for quick easy research where detail and 100% accuracy are not issues. I do not want to have to spend over much time wading through tons of stubs when one list will do the same job. Nor did I say "we should have fifteen articles on 15 subjects", in fact I said the opposite. We should not have 15 stubs when one list will do the same job. Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- What do you think one article about fifteen railway stations, located on the same line but in different localities with different histories, will get you over fifteen articles about fifteen stations? What problem would be solved here? Who does the work? Who benefits? Mackensen (talk) 11:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Let me give a perspective as a relative new-timer (3.5yrs): a long time ago, in Wikipedia's early days, before people really knew what they were doing here or how to do it, many early adopters used Wikipedia to write up coverage of their favorite topics: trains, yes, but also athletes, movie stars, video games, Pokémon, and a million other things. At that point, everyone was so focused on just growing the number of pages, that people didn't really care what you wrote about. They didn't even care about citations or references. Two decades later, we have over 6 million standalone articles, and a huge quantity of them--millions--are under sourced and never read. What's also changed is that Wikipedia is now at the top of Google search results and is pretty much the entire internet-connected, English-speaking world's first stop for information. The world relies on Wikipedia now, so things like citations and references are of paramount importance. But while the number of articles has doubled and tripled, the number of active editors has not. We no longer have enough people to maintain all these articles, and haven't for a long time. As a result, today's editors put more importance on accuracy than quantity. We don't care if there is an article about every train station; we care that every article about a train station be reliable. That means if it doesn't meet GNG, we don't waste space on a standalone article about it. Even if it's somebody's love or favorite hobby or whatever. The big change over the last 20 years is that 20 years ago, editors cared more about other editors, whereas today, we just care about the reader. It literally doesn't matter how much work an editor put in to something, or how much an editor loves the topic, if we can't sunmarize reliable, independent, in-depth secondary sourcing about the topic for the reader, then we don't have a standalone article about it. Period. This is not backsliding, this is progress. Levivich[block] 15:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- You see, this is exactly what I think is missing from current discussions about notability. In the least five or so years we've gone from being relatively pragmatic and sensitive to context (i.e., giving primacy to SNGs) to relying exclusively on the 350-word GNG to categorise literally all of human knowledge into "worthy" and "unworthy" of inclusion. It's crazy. And it stops us from considering things like reliability, quality, maintainability, and impact when we're setting the bar for inclusion on individual topics. We could—and in the good old days often did—decide that something like train station articles (or athletes, TV episodes, etc.) are generally easily written, easily verified, and generally low-risk, so we'll set the bar a little lower. Or, conversely, that something like BLPs or corporations are harder to write, more open to abuse, and have more real-world consequences, so we'll set the bar a little higher. Now we have to treat everything with the same universal yardstick, and it makes it harder to ensure quality and reliability, not easier. – Joe (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- The problem with that view is that it treats SNGs as inclusion guidelines, but that is explicitly not what we use. The SNGs are generally there to say that if a topic met certain criteria then it would likely have sourcing for a sufficient article. That criteria should be merit or accomplished-based rather than mere existence. (Eg NSPORT recently removed the criteria that was based on playing a single pro game). Masem (t) 17:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that it is a fair assessment of how they're viewed now, in talk page discussions like this. But I think that is the result of a rather recent, rather abstract push to "rationalise" our notability policies (pushed not least by you yourself). I don't agree that that's what they were originally intended to be or even how they're used in practice now. I also don't see how it's ipso facto a problem to use SNGs as inclusion guidelines. – Joe (talk) 13:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- The "SNG are not inclusion guidelines" has been around for a long time, that's not new. Except in rare cases of core topics like chemical elements, world nations, etc. we don't automatically include every member of a given class as a standalone topic, but instead we want each item to show that it has significant coverage or the likelihood of that coverage existing. In some cases, it does appear that every member of a given class could reach that metric, but that's still not creating articles per an inclusion metric, just that the class excels at having good coverage for every member. Its probably likely that every passenger rail line or system is of this sort where they all can be sufficiently documented, so we have an article on each for that reason, not because the community said "we need an article on every passenger rail line/system". Its why the SNGs are worded as presumptions of notability and not inclusion guidelines, since even meeting an SNG can be challenged if there's no further sourcing forthcoming. Masem (t) 11:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that it is a fair assessment of how they're viewed now, in talk page discussions like this. But I think that is the result of a rather recent, rather abstract push to "rationalise" our notability policies (pushed not least by you yourself). I don't agree that that's what they were originally intended to be or even how they're used in practice now. I also don't see how it's ipso facto a problem to use SNGs as inclusion guidelines. – Joe (talk) 13:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
categorise literally all of human knowledge into "worthy" and "unworthy" of inclusion.
That's coming from the perspective that standalone articles are the only ways information can be "included" in an encyclopedia. Relying on what a few editors happen to think is a reasonable notability threshold for their particular interest is exactly why we have hundreds of thousands of stubs on non-notable athletes, TV episodes, etc. that clog up available pagenames, make categories so expansive as to be unusable for readers wanting to learn about a handful of the most important subjects, and massively increase bias. It also actively interferes with any attempt to enforce higher standards for BLPs, companies, etc. since readers will be exposed to way more articles on the less-strict topics, assume they reflect the benchmarks for inclusion, and create BLPs on local HS football coaches or whatever that we now have to delete.- Setting a universal threshold that demands something approaching objective criteria -- or at least requires multiple layers of subjective criteria -- is the best thing we can do to make WP resemble an encyclopedia rather than an uneven and inconsistent compendium of whichever niche interests are best represented among editors. JoelleJay (talk) 18:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Let's be real. Despite what people claim to want in discussions like this, 99% of time notability is used as a criterion for deleting articles, not merging them. And those discussions are never about the kind of practical questions you bring up here: what topics are important, what do readers want to read about, and how is the best way to present it? I think that part of the discussion is missing precisely because we insist on pretending that notability is an objective quality, rather than what it is: an arbitrary yardstick, made no more or less arbitrary if it's designed by a handful of policy wonk editors instead of a handful of subject expert editors. – Joe (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Joe Roe: I would fully support a discussion of the N and other notability guidelines with an eye to reviewing them to determine what articles we should and shouldn't have, considering things like
reliability, quality, maintainability, and impact
, as well as benefit to the reader. However, I am not convinced the result will be as you seem to think; I suspect it will result in less articles, not more. For example, we have 150,000 biographies related to the Olympics. These are generally low quality, low impact, individually of little benefit to the reader, and collectively unmaintainable - but under the current guidelines I expect around three quarters of them to be eligible for articles. Instead, I think we should be saying that the half that scrape by the GNG do not justify a standalone article and should be condensed into group articles with the quarter that don't pass the GNG. These would cover similar athletes, with redirects from the individual names - British Gymnasts at the 1908 Olympics, for example - and will increase the quality, impact, benefit, and maintainability. BilledMammal (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)- Yes, I think that's a fair point and it could well go that way in some areas. Though I'd say that currently, WP:NOPAGE and WP:NLISTITEM do a decent job of allowing for that kind of thing now. – Joe (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- The problem with that view is that it treats SNGs as inclusion guidelines, but that is explicitly not what we use. The SNGs are generally there to say that if a topic met certain criteria then it would likely have sourcing for a sufficient article. That criteria should be merit or accomplished-based rather than mere existence. (Eg NSPORT recently removed the criteria that was based on playing a single pro game). Masem (t) 17:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think all people saying that the reader will benefit from a bunch of listicles should be obliged to show their work. Mackensen (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- As both an "old-timer" and someone who also almost exclusively interacted with Wikipedia as a reader from ~2011/2014 to 2020, I can say I most definitely found zero utility in stub articles and in fact was immensely frustrated with them. I was using author categories to find the most preeminent writers within a group, which I would determine by how much was said in their bios and how many of their works were bluelinked (with the reasoning that the most important people would've been covered in depth by now, and I didn't want to waste time doing my own research to figure out whether bios that weren't comprehensive were actually on truly impactful people). It was so irritating having to wade through like 10 stubs for every genuinely-notable-seeming article (I didn't have or know about the various tools one could use to generate previews) I eventually switched over to Brittanica and encyclopedia.com. A list where only the people with fleshed-out biographies were bluelinked would've been so much more useful. Do with that anecdatum what you will. JoelleJay (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I can show you this: we will get nowhere near consensus if people who disagree with other people characterize those other people's arguments as "the reader will benefit from a bunch of listicles". Dismissing arguments we disagree with does not help us arrive at agreement, whereas understanding the arguments we disagree with will help us arrive at agreement. Levivich[block] 18:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Dismissing arguments we disagree with does not help us arrive at agreement, whereas understanding the arguments we disagree with will help us arrive at agreement.
Forgive me for being blunt, but you first. I've spent several frustrating days trying to explain the perspective of trains editors. Why a list article has challenges, why individual articles are preferable, why stubs are not necessarily a problem, why different types of station articles can and should be treated differently. I have been met with varying degrees of silence and outright hostility, right up to claims that train stations are somehow tantamount to unreferenced BLPs and so forth. It's a bit wearying to suddenly find that I'm considered actively harmful.- @JoelleJay
It was so irritating having to wade through like 10 stubs for every genuinely-notable-seeming article (I didn't have or know about the various tools one could use to generate previews) I eventually switched over to Brittanica and encyclopedia.com
This was no doubt a very frustrating experience for you and I'm sorry for that, but do you think your experience is applicable to train station articles? Mackensen (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)...why different types of station articles can and should be treated differently.
But somehow you're not perceiving that, like, everyone agrees with you about that. That's what "Option 4" is. You're misinterpreting Option 4 as "delete all train articles" or "merge all train articles", but nobody is actually advocating for that. Nobody. Similar is your focus on lists. Yes, some people suggested that some train stations should be included on lists... but that doesn't support your characterization that what we want to do is merge all train articles into lists (or, your word, "listicles" -- by the way, "I think all people saying that the reader will benefit from a bunch of listicles should be obliged to show their work" is confrontational and hostile, in my opinion, mildly so, but still).- "Inherently notable" means "every train station should have a stand-alone". "Not inherently notable" means "not every train station should have a stand-alone", it does not mean "no train station should have a stand-alone".
- We're all in a place of agreement here: different types of station articles can and should be treated differently. Some in stand-alone articles, yes some in lists, some in articles about lines, some in articles about municipalities, etc. It all depends.
- People disagree with you that
individual articles are preferable
overall. The consensus is -- and it's always shown that this is the case -- that individual articles are sometimes preferable and sometimes not preferable. Similarly,stubs are not necessarily a problem
. No one says stubs are necessarily a problem. The consensus is -- and always has been and always will be -- that stubs are sometimes a problem, and sometimes not a problem. It's always "it depends". It's never "one rule for all". - But the topic being discussed here is about inherent notability, and the clear consensus is that they're not inherently notable. That doesn't answer the question of whether they should or shouldn't be on a stand-alone page (or when they should be stand-alone and when merged); what it does answer is that it's not the case that they should always be stand-alone. That's the consensus: not always stand-alone. And that's what I mean about understanding or engaging the opposing argument. If you think they should always be stand-alone, you should recognize that the vast majority of your colleagues does not agree. That does not mean everyone wants to merge everything into a list. It just means not always stand-alone. Levivich[block] 19:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't realize your statement applied only to train stations, but I do think my experience is broadly transferable to that of the general reader, including someone looking at a subcategory or list of train stations who might want to learn about the ones that are in the encyclopedia for being historically notable rather than just existing. JoelleJay (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- You see, this is exactly what I think is missing from current discussions about notability. In the least five or so years we've gone from being relatively pragmatic and sensitive to context (i.e., giving primacy to SNGs) to relying exclusively on the 350-word GNG to categorise literally all of human knowledge into "worthy" and "unworthy" of inclusion. It's crazy. And it stops us from considering things like reliability, quality, maintainability, and impact when we're setting the bar for inclusion on individual topics. We could—and in the good old days often did—decide that something like train station articles (or athletes, TV episodes, etc.) are generally easily written, easily verified, and generally low-risk, so we'll set the bar a little lower. Or, conversely, that something like BLPs or corporations are harder to write, more open to abuse, and have more real-world consequences, so we'll set the bar a little higher. Now we have to treat everything with the same universal yardstick, and it makes it harder to ensure quality and reliability, not easier. – Joe (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I want to encourage people towards the "merge" position. Leaving policy out of it for a second, I personally believe there is a lot of merit to documenting entire railway systems around the world. Bringing policy back into it, it's really hard to know if any of it is reliable when there are no sources, or when we transcribe information found on press releases and self-published material. We also run into massive problems with WP:WEIGHT where we have no idea if editors are cherrypicking details that are irrelevant, let alone pushing an agenda. The reason that we have the WP:GNG (and its sources -- WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT) isn't to punish anyone, but to guarantee that Wikipedia articles have a minimum level of quality and reliability. We'll find that the sources are a lot more generous when you aggregate subtopics together into a broader main topic, and the guidelines are accordingly easier to meet. There is a way to WP:PRESERVE genuinely good work. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with this. We focus so much on should this page be deleted?, but what we all should be focusing on instead is what is the best page for this content?. Levivich[block] 18:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I wholeheartedly agree, and have seen this attempted middle way referred to as 'mergeist,' while I prefer 'curationist.' Jclemens (talk) 18:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, there are evidently some who still view this eventuality as deletion. wjematherplease leave a message... 18:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I've proposed this (merger) in the past for train stations and been told "It's still deletion because the page won't be there anymore" which makes no sense but people are entitled to their opinions. And that's why we are here. Because every attempt to merge a train station will be hotly contested until we get a consensus such an action isn't committing some sort of sin against Wikipedia. I've been accused of being partisan in bringing this RfC, but I've been far more open to compromise and hearing others' points of view than those who refuse to entertain the idea of ever merging a single train station article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- It is definitely wrong to equate mergers to deletions. Mergers should leave behind redirects, and barring WP:TNT scenarios, the original content can stY behind the redirect and expanded later without admin intervention if new material appears. This is otherwise a poor "chicken little" situation to try to keep content at AFD. Masem (t) 21:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I've proposed this (merger) in the past for train stations and been told "It's still deletion because the page won't be there anymore" which makes no sense but people are entitled to their opinions. And that's why we are here. Because every attempt to merge a train station will be hotly contested until we get a consensus such an action isn't committing some sort of sin against Wikipedia. I've been accused of being partisan in bringing this RfC, but I've been far more open to compromise and hearing others' points of view than those who refuse to entertain the idea of ever merging a single train station article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, there are evidently some who still view this eventuality as deletion. wjematherplease leave a message... 18:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I wholeheartedly agree, and have seen this attempted middle way referred to as 'mergeist,' while I prefer 'curationist.' Jclemens (talk) 18:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree. In this area I think that process questions tend to overshadow this. I don't think that anybody here advocates leaving out or deleting the content that is in these type of articles.North8000 (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- If I agreed with you I'd feel a lot better. The frankly hostile and confrontational attitude taken by many users above leaves me in real doubt of that. Mackensen (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Why, then, do so many people nominate such articles for deletion, and get support for their position? Deletion means deletion, not merging, which is incompatible. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't think that anybody here advocates leaving out or deleting the content that is in these type of articles
I've long argued that the content should be merged not deleted, and my analysis of AfDs shows that complete deletion is almost never the consensus position, but there are people above (e.g. Atsme) who are (or seem to be) arguing for large-scale deletion of content. Thryduulf (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)- I personally think we should encourage "merge" as an option at AFD. But I see a fair bit of WikiLawyering on this -- people who look to procedurally close a deletion discussion if merger is suggested, or who will refuse to build a consensus with other editors in hopes that we can just revert to the status quo. In my experience, the more discussions that end with a lack of improvement, the more likely that the next discussion will hit a breaking point and say "no improvement is coming, just delete it".
- I am not familiar with the topic area the OP is suggesting, but I have seen the same pattern often enough to guess what is happening. If the only two options are to preserve a broken article in its current state, or delete it, then it will eventually be deleted. I'm actually optimistic that you could take a questionable category of articles to RFC, and it would produce some kind of consensus to re-organize / curate / merge it into a better form. But that only works if people can start from the premise that the articles are untenable in their current state, instead of an all-or-nothing winner-take-all WP:BATTLEGROUND. That's been my observation. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
people who look to procedurally close a deletion discussion if merger is suggested
The issue is that AfD is explicitly not for proposing mergers, it is only for nominating articles for deletion - if you do not want the article deleted completely (i.e. not merged, not redirected) then you should not be at AfD. If you believe an article should be merged then you should propose a merger. Merge and redirect are valid outcomes at AfD but only as alternatives to deletion, nominations at AfD seeking something other than deletion should be speedily kept. Thryduulf (talk) 21:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)- I don't disagree, and you won't find me in the practice of taking a merger discussion to AFD. But I'm pointing something else out here. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and "a procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request". We can't technically stop someone from making procedural objections to stop things they don't like. But I'm pointing out that it's contrary to Wikipedia's fundamental principles, and this obstinate approach eventually backfires. The overriding principle for everything on Wikipedia is to look for common ground and build a consensus. A wide consensus will always endure better than trying to eek out a procedural victory in the WP:BATTLEGROUND. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Speedily keeping a requested merge made at AfD is not rejecting the request, it is moving it to the correct process - which is exactly the sort of fixing others' mistakes that wikis are about, and while you might not use AfD in this way North8000 below explicitly notes that they do it intentionally. Thryduulf (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- The reason that we want AFD to stay AFDeletion is that it is meant to be closed by an admin that, if deletion is the result, requires that admin's action to finish. Merges don't require any admin intervention outside of assessing consensus. And given how backlogged most other process pages are for admin needs, we probably don't want to add merges to this. That said, as Shooterwalker states, it doesn't make sense to auto-close an AFD that seeks a merge, if that's only a one-off from a newer editor. (Repeated asks for a merge from the same editor at AFD becomes a behavior problem). Masem (t) 12:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't disagree, and you won't find me in the practice of taking a merger discussion to AFD. But I'm pointing something else out here. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and "a procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request". We can't technically stop someone from making procedural objections to stop things they don't like. But I'm pointing out that it's contrary to Wikipedia's fundamental principles, and this obstinate approach eventually backfires. The overriding principle for everything on Wikipedia is to look for common ground and build a consensus. A wide consensus will always endure better than trying to eek out a procedural victory in the WP:BATTLEGROUND. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with this. We focus so much on should this page be deleted?, but what we all should be focusing on instead is what is the best page for this content?. Levivich[block] 18:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Combining two responses into one, I think that a review of this page results in a wp:snow conclusion that there is zero or near zero sentiment for deletion of the type of material and that just ain't going to happen. Now, of the "process obscuring things" and "why AFD's". Here's a real world example. The active NPP's each need complete on average 50 reviews per day in their available wiki-minutes to keep NPP from collapsing. I looked at a clearly non-notable train station stub article and also noted that it would make great content in a section on the train line article. So I carefully did that merge, moving 100% of the material over plus the image into a nice section on the train line article. I get reverted with the "all train stations are inherently wp:notable" claim. So I take it to AFD, and suggest that outcome knowing that a common outcome there would be merge, and to make a finding on the wp:notability claim. Any other option (including tagging or leaving it with a proposed merge) would be defacto putting an non wp:notable article permanently into Wikipedia, violating the job that I'm supposed to be doing. North8000 (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Putting a proposed merge tag on an article is not
putting an non wp:notable article permanently into Wikipedia
, it's following WP:BRD - your bold edit was reverted (whether for a good reason or not is irrelevant) so you should discuss that content. If consensus agrees with you it will be merged, if consensus disagrees with you it will remain. This is how Wikipedia is supposed to work. You might not like that someone disagrees with you that a station is "clearly non-notable" or that AfD is quicker than PAM but not liking something is not a reason to ignore it. Thryduulf (talk) 00:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)- This is disingenuous. The example given clearly involved a situation where the merge already attempted was disputed. Putting a proposed merge tag on, after that happens, is a statement of defeat and spite: "I know this non-notable topic is going to continue to have a standalone article but I'm going to decorate it with a cleanup banner that will never result in any cleanup to make sure the authors and readers learn of my opinion on its non-notability." After the attempted merge failed, the correct responses are either to leave it as an article or take it to AfD, not to put a spite banner on it. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf: I don't think that you understood my main point. It's not about me caring about my non-notability assessment prevailing. The reality is that tagging it, marking it as NPP reviewed and moving on is tantamount to passing it to stay in Wikipedia with no further review. AFD means notability will be evaluated, and with "merge" being a common decision. North8000 (talk) 11:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- @North8000 @David Eppstein I honestly don't understand where you are coming from? One person thinks it should be merged, one person doesn't, nobody thinks the content should be deleted - this is exactly the situation WP:PAM was designed for. It's not "admitting defeat", notability for a standalone article will be evaluated by those commenting on the proposed merge, articles do get merged when there is a consensus to merge them. It seems your entire argument is that you dislike not getting your own way regarding a stand-alone article and think that AfD will be more likely to give you the result you want (or at least more quickly) and that is a very clear abuse of process. Thryduulf (talk) 11:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- In the scenario in question, it is already clear that there is not a consensus to merge. So asking to merge anyway is at best time-wasting bureaucracy. —David Eppstein (talk) 11:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
In the scenario in question, it is already clear that there is not a consensus to merge.
There is one person in favour and one person opposed, so unless you are proposing a merge on completely specious grounds there is no consensus either way. Thryduulf (talk) 11:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)- I think that you are getting sidetracked by defining this whole thing by the (merge by me) alternate to AFD which I attempted because that's all that it was.North8000 (talk) 12:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- If you think the content shouldn't be in Wikipedia at all, either speedy delete it or send it to AfD straight away. If you perform a bold merge then you clearly think the content belongs on Wikipedia, just not in a standalone article. If someone reverts your bold move, the correct solution according to all the instructions I've ever seen anywhere, is to either leave it or discuss it. If you want to discuss it then WP:PAM is the correct way to do so. Nominating it at AfD for any reason other than deletion (as distinct from merging and redirecting, because that's the D in AfD explicitly means) is never correct. Part of the reason AfD is so overloaded is people abusing it like this. Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think that you are getting sidetracked by defining this whole thing by the (merge by me) alternate to AFD which I attempted because that's all that it was.North8000 (talk) 12:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thryduulf, you keep mis-stating my motivations even though I have clearly stated what they are. To put it even briefer, I don't give a shit whether my non-notability assessment prevails or not, I'm just trying to do my NPP job properly. If I tag and mark it as reviewed it goes into Wikipedia and wp:notability never gets reviewed. If I take it to AFD, it gets reviewed by others. North8000 (talk) 11:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Merge tags do get resolved eventually, it just takes longer. What harm does a railway station article that might not be notable do anyway if it remains in mainspace a bit longer than you'd like? I presume you would immediately send to AfD anything that failed WP:V. NemesisAT (talk) 11:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- It won't get "resolved" it will get removed. And it's nothing to do with what "I'd like" so quit making up such motivations, doubly so when I just said what my actual motivation is. Finally, content fails WP:V, articles don't. North8000 (talk) 11:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- The only reason merge tags should be removed from an article without a merge taking place are 1. no discussion was started within a reasonable amount of time; 2. discussion has concluded that there is either no consensus for or a consensus against the merge. Anything else should be reverted as clearly out of process. Despite your protestations that this is not about what you like or don't like, I'm struggling to comprehend any other reason why you seem so opposed to proposing a merge rather than abusing AfD? Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Merges rarely get reviewed by uninvolved editors, and as such it is a flawed system. In addition, it often takes over a year for the discussion to be closed; by that time, which means I've forgotten the details of what I was proposing and need to do the work again to actually implement the merge. If you want the merge system to be used more it needs to be fixed - or as an alternative, merged into WP:RM. BilledMammal (talk) 12:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thryduulf it's fine that you don't understand, but you should not be making up false accusations about me and my motivations based on that. I think that your misunderstanding comes from defining the overall situation around the merge-by-me resolution I attempted rather than the overall situation which was a NPP review. Also by not noting that "deletion" at AFD has two different meanings. On the latter point a decision at AFD to merge is "deletion" as a stand alone article and a common outcome there. This is different from a technical deletion where there is nothing left (not even a redirect) at the title, and you seem to mistakenly believe that that only legit reason to go to AFD is when specifically asking for the latter type. Now, to state this in a way that is not so centric on the attempted alternate, a NPP'er makes a preliminary assessment that the article is not wp:notable. As an alternative to AFD, I tried a merge-by me, which failed, so I no longer had that alternate available and had to do my job properly. And then my assessment will get reviewed and decided on by others at AFD. North8000 (talk) 12:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Also by not noting that "deletion" at AFD has two different meanings. On the latter point a decision at AFD to merge is "deletion" as a stand alone article and a common outcome there. This is different from a technical deletion where there is nothing left (not even a redirect) at the title, and you seem to mistakenly believe that that only legit reason to go to AFD is when specifically asking for the latter type.
- No, you are the mistaken one here. "Deletion" always means "nothing left", if you want something left you say and mean "merge" and/or "redirect". It's not me that says AfD should only be used when you want to delete (as in leave nothing) it's all over the instructions for AfD, but particularly see WP:BEFORE section C.
- Merge by you is not the only alternative to AfD and it is completely disingenuous of you to say so given that you know WP:PAM exists and is intended for this exact scenario. There is nothing special about NPP, it grants no extra authority - it's one editor's opinion that the subject is or is not notable, if another editor disagrees then they either discuss or revert. If they revert then your choice is to either leave it or discuss it in the appropriate place. The appropriate place, if you don't want to delete it (meaning delete in the way almost everybody other than you uses the term) is not AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 12:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Rather than saying "all over" or pointing me to a giant section, why not just give me the one sentence that states that restriction. (And a statement of the main use is not that) On another note I think that a structural note from a NPP standpoint on articles marked as reviewed is useful. A redirect (as in merged or draftify) means that it will get reviewed by a NPP'er if converted back into a mainspace article. AFD structurally means that somebody else is going to decide. (speedied & proded tagged articles would not get marked as reviewed) Any other resolution is basically sending it into Wikipeda, not slated for any further review. In that framework, in your view which of those should have been done with that article? North8000 (talk) 13:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- If you are unwilling to read policy and process pages please hand in you advanced user rights forthwith as you are not fit to hold them. As an NPP you should be intimately familiar deletion policy already. It is not my job to educate you in what you should already know.
- If you think that the content belongs in Wikipedia somewhere then why does it need further review? And anyway, it will get a review of notability for a standalone article from everyone who opines on the proposed merge. Thryduulf (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- While the article talk page and proposed merge processes may be preferred,
"AFD may be an appropriate venue"
(see BEFORE C4); the assertion that it is not is mistaken. wjematherplease leave a message... 14:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC) - Thryduulf, anybody can be mistaken, and Before C4 says you are. But building all of that nasty wording upon that is not good, if I was into such I could say the same about an admin citing a rule that they can't/won't specifically show me and which conflicts with C4 and using that as a basis for the nastiness. I've said my opinions and because this is getting too heated I'm not continuing on this subthread. The heat aside, I wish you the best. North8000 (talk) 15:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- While the article talk page and proposed merge processes may be preferred,
- Rather than saying "all over" or pointing me to a giant section, why not just give me the one sentence that states that restriction. (And a statement of the main use is not that) On another note I think that a structural note from a NPP standpoint on articles marked as reviewed is useful. A redirect (as in merged or draftify) means that it will get reviewed by a NPP'er if converted back into a mainspace article. AFD structurally means that somebody else is going to decide. (speedied & proded tagged articles would not get marked as reviewed) Any other resolution is basically sending it into Wikipeda, not slated for any further review. In that framework, in your view which of those should have been done with that article? North8000 (talk) 13:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- The only reason merge tags should be removed from an article without a merge taking place are 1. no discussion was started within a reasonable amount of time; 2. discussion has concluded that there is either no consensus for or a consensus against the merge. Anything else should be reverted as clearly out of process. Despite your protestations that this is not about what you like or don't like, I'm struggling to comprehend any other reason why you seem so opposed to proposing a merge rather than abusing AfD? Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- It won't get "resolved" it will get removed. And it's nothing to do with what "I'd like" so quit making up such motivations, doubly so when I just said what my actual motivation is. Finally, content fails WP:V, articles don't. North8000 (talk) 11:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Merge tags do get resolved eventually, it just takes longer. What harm does a railway station article that might not be notable do anyway if it remains in mainspace a bit longer than you'd like? I presume you would immediately send to AfD anything that failed WP:V. NemesisAT (talk) 11:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- In the scenario in question, it is already clear that there is not a consensus to merge. So asking to merge anyway is at best time-wasting bureaucracy. —David Eppstein (talk) 11:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- @North8000 @David Eppstein I honestly don't understand where you are coming from? One person thinks it should be merged, one person doesn't, nobody thinks the content should be deleted - this is exactly the situation WP:PAM was designed for. It's not "admitting defeat", notability for a standalone article will be evaluated by those commenting on the proposed merge, articles do get merged when there is a consensus to merge them. It seems your entire argument is that you dislike not getting your own way regarding a stand-alone article and think that AfD will be more likely to give you the result you want (or at least more quickly) and that is a very clear abuse of process. Thryduulf (talk) 11:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Another “process” that can be used if you think merger is a better option than deletion: WP:RFC. Blueboar (talk) 13:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Blueboar: RfC is not for proposing merges. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- If there was a large-scale merge operation that could affect more than few dozen articles, an RFC on the mass merge operation is absolutely appropriate. I wouldn't do it for a single or smaller-scale merge, but WP:FAIT would definitely apply if you try to merge hundreds of articles without some type of consensus agreement from the community. Masem (t) 01:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Alternatively, maybe there should be some process for seeking community feedback on a contested merge. We already have that for contested moves, so I don't see why one for merges couldn't be workable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Seraphimblade: There is, but it's broken; it rarely gets attention from anyone not already involved with the article. I have been wondering if we should merge it into WP:RM. BilledMammal (talk) 06:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Alternatively, maybe there should be some process for seeking community feedback on a contested merge. We already have that for contested moves, so I don't see why one for merges couldn't be workable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- If there was a large-scale merge operation that could affect more than few dozen articles, an RFC on the mass merge operation is absolutely appropriate. I wouldn't do it for a single or smaller-scale merge, but WP:FAIT would definitely apply if you try to merge hundreds of articles without some type of consensus agreement from the community. Masem (t) 01:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Blueboar: RfC is not for proposing merges. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Disagree that inaccurate and poorly/non-existently-sourced Geostubs (of which railway stations are a subset) are without potential to cause harm. Wiki data gets used to populate Google Maps, so if we list somewhere as a populated location/railway station and it's not, there's at least a plausible potential for harm for people who try to go there. There's also the inevitable citogenesis that comes from such stubs polluting the information environment.
- I'm concerned, as someone who has been active on this here Wiki not a short time, that some editors have gotten so completely out of control creating stubs unchecked and creating massive clean-up tasks for other editors. FOARP (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Inherent notability
The RFC above focuses on the inherent notability of train stations; but I feel that we might want to address the concept more broadly. WP:GNG is the core baseline for notability, and while more specific notability guidelines might discuss different sorts of sourcing guidelines or ways to collect them, ultimately notability depends on sources - never solely on the article's topic. Some topics can generally be presumed to have sources, but those sources must exist and must ultimately at some point be added to the article - there is no subject, fullstop, that is notable completely without regard for sources. In other words, I don't think "inherent notability" is a thing, and I feel we should have an up-or-down RFC with the goal of completely eliminating the concept - declaring unambiguously that no subjects or articles have inherent notability. More specifically, the idea would be to establish that arguments that do not rely on at least notional sources are never valid for establishing notability - the precise guidelines and thresholds might differ, but notability is ultimately about the sources. I feel like part of the reason some of the deletion battleground wars have erupted is because we've drifted away from the centrality of the WP:GNG and its focus on sourcing; thoroughly staking the concept of inherent notability in the heart and making clear it is never valid in any context would help move back towards that. (Note that this would still allow people to say "this sort of article is so important that sources obviously exist"; the point is that you still have to at least gesture towards sources somewhere along the line, and ultimately be able to produce them if challenged.) --Aquillion (talk) 00:27, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think that is an overreach. The problem with sourcing-based notability criteria is that it confuses two different issues: is this subject *important* enough to write about, and are we *capable* of writing about it? By measuring importance only by the existence of sourcing, it makes the encyclopedia vulnerable to hype, media campaigns, and paid source placement. In response, we have made some of our notability criteria stricter (see e.g. the requirement of non-local sourcing in WP:NORG) but that only goes so far. Basing notability on sourcing also causes problematic behavior in which editors on AfDs insist that obvious non-trivial sourcing that clearly meets the wording of WP:GNG doesn't count because it is "routine", code for the subject not being sufficiently important in their opinion. Instead, importance-based notability criteria like WP:NPOL allow us to set objective and honest standards for inclusion that are less vulnerable to hype and to opinion-based distortions of our guidelines. To keep an article that passes NPOL, we also need enough sources for WP:V, but that is a verifiability issue, not a notability issue, and these sources generally exist (even though they may be the same sources that would be claimed as "routine" and "not enough" for losing political candidates). I think we should have more such guidelines, not fewer. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree strongly with your points, and would add two more considerations against replacing the entirety of the existing notability ecosystem with the GNG (as I understand the OP to propose).
- First, subject-specific criteria are good for editors: the GNG is deliberately vague and subjective, and leaves article creators guessing as to whether any particular (non-)random sample of AFDers will deem their sourcing adequate. (Is this unimpeachable source's coverage "significant" enough? Is this reliable but local or otherwise-specialized source "independent" enough? Only the black box of AFD can tell!) This guessing game is so exhausting, and the consequences of guessing wrong so severe, that it has driven countless people from the project. In contrast, it is usually quite straightforward to determine whether, for example, a particular person has been a member of a state or national legislature. This clarity is helpful to the project because it reduces uncertainty, which makes editing more rewarding, which results in more editors making more iterative improvements on one another's work, which makes Wikipedia better and stronger. I would therefore suggest that objective notability might be a more descriptive term than "inherent" notability.
- Second, subject-specific criteria are good for readers: articles can (and a very great number of our existing articles do) provide abundant value to the reader even if they lack either GNG-level sourcing or the actual comprehensive coverage that such sourcing makes potentially possible. There are many sets (settlements in region X, holders of notable government office Y, etc. etc.) for which we serve the reader well by providing consistent coverage of the full set regardless of whether each individual article/topic "passes" the GNG (or would be subjectively considered to do so by any random Wikipedian). In sum, since objective, subject-specific criteria are good for both editors and readers, we should have as many of them as possible. -- Visviva (talk) 02:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think there is a broad consensus against this position; the consensus is instead that these sets benefit the reader more as a combined list article, rather than forcing readers to look through dozens of microstubs. See the current train station RfC for an example of this. BilledMammal (talk) 03:27, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
By measuring importance only by the existence of sourcing, it makes the encyclopedia vulnerable to hype, media campaigns, and paid source placement.
And basing notability on what some group of editors has decided is "important enough" for an encyclopedia irrespective of independent secondary SIGCOV is how we get more and more project-level topic-specific notability "guidelines" developed by a small number of enthusiasts that end up filling Wikipedia with hundreds of thousands of cricketers and porn stars. It makes us more vulnerable to RGW and agenda-based article creation, since anyone can argue some achievement is extremely remarkable for an obscure subfield and therefore everyone achieving it merits a standalone (this already happens with ANYBIO -- see assertions that "Tuvalu football player of the year" is a prominent well-known award when in fact it was the product of a one-off anonymous Twitter poll run by the Tuvalu football club). If unaffiliated people from reliable publishers haven't bothered to discuss how and why a subject is exceptionally noteworthy, in broad enough detail and in their own words, then how can we possibly argue it belongs as an independent entry in an encyclopedia? JoelleJay (talk) 05:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- I am pretty sure we have had an RFC that says no topic is inherently notable. It may be one that dealt with SNGs. We clearly have presumed notability. Masem (t) 02:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- There is no such thing as "inherent notabilty", and the only proof of notability is to furnish evidence that the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources. The planets of our solar system are not inherently notable. They are notable because reliable sources cover them. The presidents of the United States and kings and queens of England/the UK are not inherently notable. They are notable because reliable sources cover them. And so on. The purpose of special notability guidelines is to identify topics that are highly likely to be notable, so that deletion discussions can focus on unambiguous and borderline cases. A useful notability guideline will be accurate in the vast majority of cases. When it has been proven that notability guidelines are too lenient, whether it concerns athletes or porn stars or any other topic area, we correctly abandon such guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 02:53, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. I do think that the SNGs do provide guidance of objective notability as well ("Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing" - Jimmy Wales) - Enos733 (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- It seems worth noting that the GNG is also a mere presumption of notability (and an expressly non-exclusive one -- an "if" and not an "only if"), so that isn't really a distinction between the SNGs and the GNG. -- Visviva (talk) 02:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- There is no such thing as "inherent notabilty", and the only proof of notability is to furnish evidence that the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources. The planets of our solar system are not inherently notable. They are notable because reliable sources cover them. The presidents of the United States and kings and queens of England/the UK are not inherently notable. They are notable because reliable sources cover them. And so on. The purpose of special notability guidelines is to identify topics that are highly likely to be notable, so that deletion discussions can focus on unambiguous and borderline cases. A useful notability guideline will be accurate in the vast majority of cases. When it has been proven that notability guidelines are too lenient, whether it concerns athletes or porn stars or any other topic area, we correctly abandon such guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 02:53, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with all of the above posts. "Inherently notable" in essence says some invisible golden key overrides the need to satisfy notability requirement which is a ridiculous concept. My "grand unification theory" of how the fuzzy wp:notability system operates ( Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works ) says that the system does give some consideration to the importance/prominence/impact of the topic, but that even then the sourcing GNG is a one of the main gauges of that, which is a second use of the sourcing-GNG. North8000 (talk) 03:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that there should be no concept of inherent notability. Either notability is demonstrated by sources, or it is not. That isn't to say we can't keep articles based on the presumption that suitable sources exist per WP:NPOSSIBLE, but we can't keep them indefinitely. This is also where SNG's come in; they adjust whether it is reasonable to keep an article temporarily based on this presumption, reflecting whether it has been found to be more or less likely that coverage exists for articles related to a given topic than for articles in general. BilledMammal (talk) 03:27, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Really this is circular reasoning. You are defining notability by existence of sources and then saying that by definition we have to keep only the articles that meet that definition. No. That definition is an arbitrary human construct. It was not handed down from above on tablets on Mount Sinai. It is also not what actually happens in AfDs. Most participants make opinions on topics based on their perception of the significance of the topic and then warp their description of how well the sources satisfy GNG to match that perceived significance. We need to move away from blind worship of GNG (and then doing something else in AfDs, only to claim that what we are doing is based on GNG). Instead we should think more carefully about what we are really trying to accomplish with a notability guideline and whether our current guidelines accomplish what we want or could be adjusted to be more accurate. It is just not the case that we want to include all topics about which there is independent reliable depth of coverage; otherwise we would have articles about every local restaurant based on local-newspaper reviews, and every losing political candidate based on pre-election descriptions of their positions. GNG is too blunt an instrument to use to filter out those kinds of articles that we don't want, and yet to filter in articles that we have determined we do want on obscure plant species and the like. We need subject-specific guidelines, not merely to give us a quick heuristic on whether GNG would be satisfied, but because GNG does not work well when applied blindly to all topics. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:27, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Exactly. XOR'easter (talk) 05:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that meeting GNG shouldn't be the only consideration but it should set a minimum bar; if GNG is not met, then for purely practical reasons we shouldn't have an article on the subject. For example, the genus Cylindrostoma and its family Cylindrostomidae - is there any benefit to having those articles, or would the reader be better served by merging the content into Prolecithophora where it will be more accessible? For another example, this time an obscure plant species; would the reader be better served if Aa colombiana existed as part of Aa (plant)?
- We can then add additional barriers to exclude minor restaurants and losing political candidates, but those restrictions should be on top of GNG, not instead of it.
- When you say
we should think more carefully about what we are really trying to accomplish with a notability guideline
I agree, and one of the things that we should be trying to achieve is ensuring that new articles are only created when readers would benefit more from the creation of the article rather than the incorporation of the content into an existing article. A strict requirement to meet GNG wouldn't solve the problem of articles being created in contravention of this, but it would reduce the scale of the problem. BilledMammal (talk) 05:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)- No, it wouldn't, because "meeting GNG" is subjective, endlessly wiki-lawyerable, bias-justified-in-retrospect puffery. XOR'easter (talk) 06:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- The minimum bar is not notability (should we have an article) but verifiability (can we have an article). All articles must meet WP:V regardless of whether they also pass a subject notability guideline. But it's a low bar, and many topics that would pass WP:V do not (and should not) have articles. We need notability guidelines that more accurately reflect what we should have articles on, not merely what we can. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Two of you made the point that real word notability matters, as does being a subject that is useful for. IMO the big fuzzy wikipedia notability ecosystem does do that, with wp:notability playing 2 roles in helping measure that. In that fuzzy ecosystem, SNGs also play a bit of a role / have a bit of influence in the direction of importance of the topic, (beyond their ostensible "merely a predictor of GNG) and wp:not also influences notability decisions a bit to incorporate the degree of enclyclopecic-ness of the topic. North8000 (talk) 11:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- The minimum bar is not notability (should we have an article) but verifiability (can we have an article). All articles must meet WP:V regardless of whether they also pass a subject notability guideline. But it's a low bar, and many topics that would pass WP:V do not (and should not) have articles. We need notability guidelines that more accurately reflect what we should have articles on, not merely what we can. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, it wouldn't, because "meeting GNG" is subjective, endlessly wiki-lawyerable, bias-justified-in-retrospect puffery. XOR'easter (talk) 06:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Really this is circular reasoning. You are defining notability by existence of sources and then saying that by definition we have to keep only the articles that meet that definition. No. That definition is an arbitrary human construct. It was not handed down from above on tablets on Mount Sinai. It is also not what actually happens in AfDs. Most participants make opinions on topics based on their perception of the significance of the topic and then warp their description of how well the sources satisfy GNG to match that perceived significance. We need to move away from blind worship of GNG (and then doing something else in AfDs, only to claim that what we are doing is based on GNG). Instead we should think more carefully about what we are really trying to accomplish with a notability guideline and whether our current guidelines accomplish what we want or could be adjusted to be more accurate. It is just not the case that we want to include all topics about which there is independent reliable depth of coverage; otherwise we would have articles about every local restaurant based on local-newspaper reviews, and every losing political candidate based on pre-election descriptions of their positions. GNG is too blunt an instrument to use to filter out those kinds of articles that we don't want, and yet to filter in articles that we have determined we do want on obscure plant species and the like. We need subject-specific guidelines, not merely to give us a quick heuristic on whether GNG would be satisfied, but because GNG does not work well when applied blindly to all topics. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:27, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Support no topic, or article-type, being presumed inherently notable - SNGs that assume inherent notability in a particular type of article have led to the mass-creation of hundreds of thousands of very-low-quality, single-or-no-source, guideline-failing articles that are typically severely inaccurate or not clearly about something that exists as described in the article (the creations based on Olympedia, GNIS, and Geonet Names Server being particularly bad examples). They are ultimately just an excuse to import databases to Wikipedia, making Wikipedia something that it is explicitly not - a database. Moreover they are divisive and non-neutral, elevating a particular kind of subject matter above others. This is very different to the SNGs v GNG discussion and does not affect the existence of SNGs per se. FOARP (talk) 07:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Please note that WP:NRV already says: No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally. So our overarching guidelines already affirm that the inherent notability is not a thing. The questions raised above in the train station RfC are apparently a clumsy attempt to provide for "presumed notability", a concept which suggests that subjects be given the benefit of the doubt in terms of notability, but not that all doubt shall be removed. This current wording actually accounts for all of David's concerns. Paid coverage, if properly identified, would not count as independent at any rate. I fully endorse JoelleJay's views as expressed above. Small groups of fans should not be allowed to unilaterally dominate the inclusion criteria on a general interest encyclopedia. Those of us at the MilHist project had the presence of mind to deprecate WP:NSOLDIER, our essay-attempt at an SNG, last year, because we realized how pitifully awful it was at predicting SIGCOV or otherwise practically unworkable in efficient implementation and only encouraged the creation of stubs of pencil-pushing generals in administrative roles who've never appeared in anything but official gazettes denoting transfers. The porn people also came around to a moment of self-reflection. Why can't anyone else? -Indy beetle (talk) 09:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- My impression of the MilHist project is that there is a lot more focus on quality rather than quantity, which may explain why it was so willing to deprecate NSOLDIER; it might be relevant to consider how MilHist gained this focus, and whether the same techniques can be applied to other topic areas. BilledMammal (talk) 11:12, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- I've been a member of the project since I joined in 2016 and a coord since 2020. By my fuzzy memory, it was series of AfDs in 2020 and early 2021 of increasingly paltry articles that failed GNG but were defended ardently with "meets NSOLDIER" (even if citing essays is improper form at AfD) that made more users realize it just wasn't working. I think a lot of MilHist editors, myself included, entered with more a lax fanboy mentality towards content creation and over time were guided by the older guard towards aspirations for quality, particularly with our robust inhouse A-class system. The 2018 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort in my view also shifted the culture of our project, amid much bitterness at the time. For better or for worse, it humbled us a bit and made us more mindful of the fact that WikiProjects do not have any special privileges and more careful to ensure that we were responsible for following the same rules as everyone else (it made us hesitant to make a target of ourselves going forward by asking for special criteria for articles in our domain). The overall context of the German war effort case also involved many edit conflicts over WWII-era German soldiers, especially air and tank aces, articles which were somewhat uncritical of the fact that many of these stories were lionized and popularized by Nazi propaganda and vanity publishers deliberately blind to the social and political realities of the war and relevant war crimes. Air and tank ace articles were a classic focus of fanboys, and since these articles caused us so much trouble, we lost our stomach for aligning ourselves with the fanboy enthusiasm. In the aftermath of that case we strengthened our A-class review process and have been more skeptical as a group of editors going forward. We take sourcing much more seriously now. -Indy beetle (talk) 12:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- My impression of the MilHist project is that there is a lot more focus on quality rather than quantity, which may explain why it was so willing to deprecate NSOLDIER; it might be relevant to consider how MilHist gained this focus, and whether the same techniques can be applied to other topic areas. BilledMammal (talk) 11:12, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Presumed notability should be more a guide towards searching for sources and roughly assessing topic coverage than creating articles. A topic that is presumably notable presumably has sources that could be found. If these sources do not exist, it does not seem like a good idea if a concept of inherent notability nonetheless prompts for the creation of an article on the topic. There's also WP:V and information quality considerations; if a topic isn't covered by enough sources to meet GNG, it's going to be represented by a poor and likely inadequate article. CMD (talk) 10:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- We could resolve this with a very simple change of one word in WP:N … from “GNG or SNG” to “GNG and SNG”. The GNG tells us that we need sources… the SNGs tell us what those sources should cover. Blueboar (talk) 11:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- We had the large RFC from a few years back to define the purpose of SNG and there, they always arent providing sourcing information, so thus wont work. Masem (t) 11:56, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose WP:NPROF and WP:GEOLAND deliberately have slacker requirements than GNG and in my opinion this isn't a problem. NemesisAT (talk) 12:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Support no topic, or article-type, being presumed inherently notable, as with some of the above, we have thousands of one-line directory entry stubs, that serve no encyclopedic purpose. These could all be merged, which would make it more convenient than having to wade through tons of links and pages. Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Start a new RfC for this As the author of this RfC, I really don't think we should be conflating two different topics here. This RfC was launched with a specific, relatively narrow focus. It's not fair to shoehorn in another question about presumed notability across the entirety of Wikipedia within it. I actually don't support presumed notability for most topics, but please, start a fresh RfC just on that question. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's been long enough that we could have another RFC on this issue, but I think I want to see more discussion first. I think both sides are talking passed each other, and haven't considered the consequences of "inherent notability" versus the consequences of transforming a 15 year precedent. Even if I'm sympathetic to the goals of WP:NGEO, no one has ever been able to explain how to write an encyclopedic article about these locations without reliable third party sources. In practice, there are literally thousands of two line geography stubs, and they look to be in a state of permanent failure (and that's just the one topic area). I often wonder how we might improve coverage of these unsourced stubs by merging them into some sort of broad concept article. Would these geographic locations make more sense in context with each other, and provide more value to our readers? I'm not being rhetorical, because I honestly don't know. I do see how WP:NGEO is holding up the intuitiveness of one unique article for each search term, and it might be less intuitive to organize several non-notable locations into a list. I do think something would be lost if they were all deleted. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Strong oppose. This would devastate our coverage of natural species, academic biography, and third-world populated places, and open the floodgates to hype-based notability instead of achievement-based notability in our coverage of politicians, businessmen, and businesses. No benefit to this proposal has been put forward, only blind worship of a simplistic ideal. One size fits all does not work. Ask Procrustes. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Strong oppose For everything said by David Eppstein. I feel that there are two related questions that are included in this discussion (even if it is not explicit) - 1) whether there are too many stub articles in this project (I don't see stubs with references problematic) and 2) whether "sources" meeting GNG only come from secondary sources (which is not what GNG says). --Enos733 (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
"Sources" should be secondary sources
. ? JoelleJay (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Enos733 -
"This would devastate our coverage of natural species, academic biography, and third-world populated places"
- natural species almost always have multiple sources reliable, independent sources for them if they're actually real. Academic biographies are done under NPROF which does not automatically assume notability and is pretty close to GNG anyway. "Third-world populated places" is just another way of saying all those micro-stubs that Mr. Blofeld created with an algorithm based on (extremely faulty and unreliable) GNS data until the community told him to stop, and even he greatly regrets making and wishes to redirect/merge/delete. Alternatively they are those microstubs that Carlossuarez46 created based on Iranian census data that he clearly did not understand and refused to listen when angry Iranians came to him telling him he was writing thousands and thousands of articles about "villages" that were actually pumps, factories, farms, or individual houses. It is the worst kind of first-world assumption to think that what people in developing countries want is hundreds of thousands of such articles rather than actual content. FOARP (talk) 22:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)- No, I do not mean all of those bad sub-stubs about someone's farm or water tank or abandoned railway platform. Those have rightly been cleared out. I mean towns of 10k people in countries for which we have difficulty finding sources. As for species and academic biography etc: They do generally have sources, sufficient to pass WP:V; otherwise we could not have articles on them. But, generally, those sources are primary, and in many cases depth of coverage has to be obtained by combining sources rather than finding individually-deep sources. The GNG-fanatics, instead, insist on secondary sources that are individually deep. In this sense, WP:PROF for instance is very different than WP:GNG: because it is based on accomplishment rather than hype, you cannot pass it by getting a publicity piece published, and because it demands verifiability but not secondary-source-depth you can pass it by verifiably getting a named professorship even though that accomplishment was not picked up by the newspapers. Trashing that and forcing academic biographies to rely on hype, as this proposal would do, is a mistake. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- I would guess most notable professors do have secondary coverage adding up to an in-depth profile of their work. Other scholars discussing (not just citing) your results in reviews or even primary articles is still secondary coverage. 170 words describing important findings from "the ___ lab" is still a nontrivial treatment of research directly attributable to ___. What is trickier to gauge is whether the authors are actually independent of the subject and of each other, but that's basically the case for any discipline where the author and subject are peers. JoelleJay (talk) 00:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- The GNG-fanatics also typically discount sources about the publications of an academic as somehow not really being about the person. But if you do think of them as counting towards GNG, then we have the opposite problem: far too many academics would suddenly become notable, merely for having published a small number of works in venues from which all works are reviewed. For instance a large proportion of pure mathematics papers get at least two signed reviews in MathSciNet and zbMATH. Should every grad student who has published one such paper suddenly become notable? (It's a cop-out to say that "routine" coverage doesn't count, because what that really means is that every participant in AfDs will warp the definition of routine so that the people they think are important are kept and the people they don't think are important are deleted. There's no principled basis for saying that notability is based on the existence of in-depth sourcing and then also saying that the circumstances of the sourcing have to be somehow unusual.) —David Eppstein (talk) 00:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see what the issue is with excluding coverage known to be indiscriminate. That's already addressed by WP:NRV. And subjective definitions of "routine" or "SIGCOV" aren't any different from subjective definitions of "important award" or "major university". Just because it's easier to generalize a notability assessment to a bunch of different subjects automatically when there's a clear criterion doesn't mean it's necessarily better. That approach is also uniquely susceptible to failing N: deciding winners of X award are inherently notable leaves open the possibility of a subject for whom the only verifiable information in RS that exists is their name listed in an award announcement released by the awarding organization, which would fail independence. JoelleJay (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Fail independence" is only a problem because you define it to be a problem. The bigger problem in that scenario is the inability to expand the article beyond a sub-stub. As for "excluding coverage known to be indiscriminate": what is your philosophical basis for using that to determine inclusion criteria? If it is the usual justification for GNG, that we can only have articles on topics where there is enough well-sourced material for us to write an article, then there is no reason to care whether it is indiscriminate, because it doesn't matter for whether we have enough material. If it is that you are really trying to find which subjects have some level of importance and which are too boring to cover, because we need to have some threshold for inclusion (something I definitely agree with!) then there are much better ways of measuring that importance than in how creative their publicists have been at taking the publicity into non-routine forms. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia defines non-independence as a problem. We can exclude a huge number of non-notable subjects by requiring independence, which happens to remove the vast majority of "hype" sourcing. It also substantially limits the risk of non-neutral POV, which would be much more prevalent if we were basing all articles on what people said about themselves or about close affiliates. You !voted to delete that one astronomer whose child sexual assault charges were verifiable in court documents but were only covered secondarily in tabloid non-RS; it was important to you then that we not have a biography on this apparently notability-meeting person if we can't cover their heinous crimes, and yet isn't that exactly where we'd be headed if inclusion criteria were completely divorced from outside SIGCOV? How many of our other achievement-based bios fail to incorporate serious verifiable negative information simply because the subjects aren't real-world notable enough for the media to report on them (to the point that info is DUE)?
- Wikipedia also defines itself as not indiscriminate and not a directory. If we have an article on every single subject meeting a particular criterion, regardless of any info existing on them beyond verifying they meet that criterion, how is that not a directory? How would editors determine such a criterion in the first place? How would we ever justify rejecting a criterion beyond "I don't like it" if we can't consider arguments that meeting it does not predict further coverage? And how would we gauge whether a criterion was actually successful in filtering out the non-notables if the ability to expand an article with neutral, DUE material is irrelevant? JoelleJay (talk) 00:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Wikipedia defines it to be that way" is a bad and circular argument for why we should change our notability criteria to be a certain way. And setting aside your emotional appeal to highly-charged cases, if we have an article on every single subject meeting our notability criteria, I would consider that a good thing rather than indiscriminate. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that the notability guideline grew out of Wikipedia moving out of its early "wild west" days when nearly every topic could be included, to where there was clear consensus that we should avoid indiscriminate information, and thus notability created as a measure for what should not be considered indiscriminate. That is, trying to argue that we should allow indiscriminate article create is something that we've long since decided years ago.
- It should also be said that the idea of our notability guideline is more of how best can be guess and measure the topic's actual notability in the real world. Ideally, we'd have immediate access to every possible source and the ability to search them to quickly identify how much coverage there is about a topic and the appropriate of a standalone article. But that's impossible, so instead we're working on editors showing evidence that there is significant coverage by sourced they can find so that we can presume that a topic is notable - we're trying to show through only a slim window of sources that the topic is notable. We are defining what that window's bounds are through ideas like independent sourcing. It's not a type of circular logic at all. Masem (t) 16:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- ?? ...How would we be changing anything in our notability criteria? WP:N already says
if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article.
andNo subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason.
And WP:NOT saysTo provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.
- What do you mean by "emotional appeal"? I asked you how your position of having a standalone on anyone meeting a particular criterion even if they never receive coverage was consistent with your position that we shouldn't have a standalone on someone whose verifiable serious transgressions cannot be addressed in our article due to lack of coverage.
if we have an article on every single subject meeting our notability criteria, I would consider that a good thing rather than indiscriminate.
Then what is indiscriminate to you? Apparently the set of "all train stations" meets that definition for you:If we don't have the sources to write individually about a station, we shouldn't just make a database dump. It can be a line in an article about the train line, and a redirect to that article, but it shouldn't be an individual article unless there exists in-depth sourceable content that we can use for an article about that station, which is all that would be required for individual notability. "Because we've always done it that way" is a bad reason for other outcomes.
Setting aside the fact that you are literally appealing to SIGCOV as the criterion for notability here, what makes train stations more of a "database dump" than college athletes or Sloan Research fellows or Pokemon or municipal coats of arms? JoelleJay (talk) 19:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)- If you're not going to read what I wrote, and instead spew TLDR talking points based on something other than what I wrote, then I don't see the point in continued engagement. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- What did you write that I didn't respond to? Because I've read every single thing you've said on this page, I've addressed and even quoted a whole lot of what you've written, and up until your penultimate comment I thought we were engaged in an interesting philosophical dissection of how to determine notability on Wikipedia. So I'm disappointed but not surprised that you've started ignoring all my questions and drifted more and more into giving insulting characterizations of my good-faith arguments. JoelleJay (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- If you're not going to read what I wrote, and instead spew TLDR talking points based on something other than what I wrote, then I don't see the point in continued engagement. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Wikipedia defines it to be that way" is a bad and circular argument for why we should change our notability criteria to be a certain way. And setting aside your emotional appeal to highly-charged cases, if we have an article on every single subject meeting our notability criteria, I would consider that a good thing rather than indiscriminate. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Fail independence" is only a problem because you define it to be a problem. The bigger problem in that scenario is the inability to expand the article beyond a sub-stub. As for "excluding coverage known to be indiscriminate": what is your philosophical basis for using that to determine inclusion criteria? If it is the usual justification for GNG, that we can only have articles on topics where there is enough well-sourced material for us to write an article, then there is no reason to care whether it is indiscriminate, because it doesn't matter for whether we have enough material. If it is that you are really trying to find which subjects have some level of importance and which are too boring to cover, because we need to have some threshold for inclusion (something I definitely agree with!) then there are much better ways of measuring that importance than in how creative their publicists have been at taking the publicity into non-routine forms. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see what the issue is with excluding coverage known to be indiscriminate. That's already addressed by WP:NRV. And subjective definitions of "routine" or "SIGCOV" aren't any different from subjective definitions of "important award" or "major university". Just because it's easier to generalize a notability assessment to a bunch of different subjects automatically when there's a clear criterion doesn't mean it's necessarily better. That approach is also uniquely susceptible to failing N: deciding winners of X award are inherently notable leaves open the possibility of a subject for whom the only verifiable information in RS that exists is their name listed in an award announcement released by the awarding organization, which would fail independence. JoelleJay (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- The GNG-fanatics also typically discount sources about the publications of an academic as somehow not really being about the person. But if you do think of them as counting towards GNG, then we have the opposite problem: far too many academics would suddenly become notable, merely for having published a small number of works in venues from which all works are reviewed. For instance a large proportion of pure mathematics papers get at least two signed reviews in MathSciNet and zbMATH. Should every grad student who has published one such paper suddenly become notable? (It's a cop-out to say that "routine" coverage doesn't count, because what that really means is that every participant in AfDs will warp the definition of routine so that the people they think are important are kept and the people they don't think are important are deleted. There's no principled basis for saying that notability is based on the existence of in-depth sourcing and then also saying that the circumstances of the sourcing have to be somehow unusual.) —David Eppstein (talk) 00:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- I would guess most notable professors do have secondary coverage adding up to an in-depth profile of their work. Other scholars discussing (not just citing) your results in reviews or even primary articles is still secondary coverage. 170 words describing important findings from "the ___ lab" is still a nontrivial treatment of research directly attributable to ___. What is trickier to gauge is whether the authors are actually independent of the subject and of each other, but that's basically the case for any discipline where the author and subject are peers. JoelleJay (talk) 00:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, I do not mean all of those bad sub-stubs about someone's farm or water tank or abandoned railway platform. Those have rightly been cleared out. I mean towns of 10k people in countries for which we have difficulty finding sources. As for species and academic biography etc: They do generally have sources, sufficient to pass WP:V; otherwise we could not have articles on them. But, generally, those sources are primary, and in many cases depth of coverage has to be obtained by combining sources rather than finding individually-deep sources. The GNG-fanatics, instead, insist on secondary sources that are individually deep. In this sense, WP:PROF for instance is very different than WP:GNG: because it is based on accomplishment rather than hype, you cannot pass it by getting a publicity piece published, and because it demands verifiability but not secondary-source-depth you can pass it by verifiably getting a named professorship even though that accomplishment was not picked up by the newspapers. Trashing that and forcing academic biographies to rely on hype, as this proposal would do, is a mistake. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Enos733 -
- Yes, sources should be secondary sources (per WP:Reliable Sources), but the operative word there is should. WP:V and specifically WP:RSPRIMARY recognize that primary sources "can be both reliable and useful in certain situations." WP:V says "primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic." To me, this means use caution in using primary sources, and do not justify an article based on primary sources, but certain primary sources, such as government publications, can be used to support the claims of an article. Also see WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD - Enos733 (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- V and RSPRIMARY are concerned with general use of sources within an article, not the types of sources that can contribute to notability. Just like non-independent and trivial-mention RS can be used to fill in biographical details in an article but cannot be used to meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 00:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose WP:GNG is not a fundamental policy; it's not even a policy. As a guideline, it is inherently weak and open to exception. It didn't even exist for the first five years of Wikipedia and just evolved as a pragmatic test rather like WP:OUTCOMES. There is still a general presumption that certain types of topic are a shoo-in and so should be accepted on this ex officio basis. These include subjects like species; monarchs and other heads of state; settlements; winners of outstanding awards and prizes and so forth. This especially matters for topics which are mainly documented in other languages. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose any "determination" on that question here. Of course there's no "inherent notability"....that would be an oxymoron. It implicitly acknowledges that wp:notability matters, and then says that the notability standards don't apply. But other than someone making the wacky "inherent" assertion that started the train station discussion, nobody is asserting "inherent" notability. It was a nice conversation starter but mal-formed as something with RFC status. Elevating to "RFC" level on that question would be a disaster. Either a "Yes" or "No" finding to that question would do a lot of damage so we should just drop raising this question to RFC type status. It can be restarted as "for general discussion only". North8000 (talk) 18:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose WP:NOPAGE is sufficient for this, having SNG's saying "things X and Y are always notable" is fine, because we have the editorial control to decide "no, we can't write anything about this other than it exists, we should mention it as part of a broader article". You could adjust the "presumed/inherit notability" to something like "these topics should almost always be covered somewhere", which would make it more clear that while we should cover the topics, we have the power to decide where such coverage should exist. Jumpytoo Talk 07:14, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed. If SNGs use a word like "always" then this is still subject to the limitation that they are guidelines and so exceptions apply. Ideally, they should use looser words like "usually" to reflect this. That's the way to deal with topics like railway stations -- that they are usually notable but there may be corner cases where they are not so substantial. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- The issue is a few editors have been saying even in corner cases it's not allowed to ever merge train station articles. It's nonsense but has caused serious disruption in the topic area nonetheless. I shouldn't have had to start an RfC to establish that train station permastubs can be merged into other articles, but that's where we are right now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed. If SNGs use a word like "always" then this is still subject to the limitation that they are guidelines and so exceptions apply. Ideally, they should use looser words like "usually" to reflect this. That's the way to deal with topics like railway stations -- that they are usually notable but there may be corner cases where they are not so substantial. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with you, including on what started this mess. And so the RFC on inherent notability of train stations is a good one.....it is responding to a specific false assertion. But I think that this different thread which started good (as a general discussion) has veered in a bad direction (a "finding" on inherent notability). Of course there is no inherent notability. But such an (unnecessary) oversimplified finding will certainly get mis-used as saying that there is no such thing as "presumed" notability. "Presumed" notability (or at least temporary presumed notability) is a defacto cornerstone of the big fuzzy notability ecosystem......without it, SNG's would be pointless and need to all get deleted along with about a million articles. Almost nobody understands how the big fuzzy wp:"notability" ecosystem works, and (the quote marks are because it's not just about notability) and big changes should not be made until that is understood. North8000 (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- While I'm being argumentative, I'd like to dispute the idea that a set of short pages is necessarily always more useful than having all their contents merged together. Even a "permastub" can have more information than readily fits into a row of a table. Merge too many "permastubs" together and you get an article that somebody will demand be split again, because their notion of how big a page should be was set in the days of 14.4 modems and will be defended to the point of tedium using data-free assertions from the Global North about what the Global South needs. Heck, while I'm on a roll, I'll go for the gold and say that the existence of the GNG is to a first approximation pointless. The bulk of the invocations of it are of the form "delete, fails the GNG", which could be replaced with "delete, fails WP:NOT", because the former is just shorthand for saying that the sources aren't good enough to show the article topic is more than indiscriminate trivia. At least the subject-specific guidelines reflect some amount of thought about and experience with the subject at hand. XOR'easter (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know how you believe that arguments over what constitutes NOT ("is it encyclopedic?") would be less subjective than GNG ("Do reliable sources exist?" yes/no). -Indy beetle (talk) 07:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't believe that, and I didn't say that I did. The question "Is this source reliable?" is a subjective judgment call every time. So is the question "Is the coverage in this source 'significant'?". Experienced editors acting in good faith look at the same sources and disagree all the time. At Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources, there are about 80 yellow-flagged entries, for which
Editors may not have been able to agree on whether the source is appropriate, or may have agreed that it is only reliable in certain circumstances.
That list's 60-odd instances ofno consensus
also include examples where sources are deemed generally reliable for one thing yet the community could not come to agreement about whether they were reliable for something else. XOR'easter (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think that your observation that wp:notability and wp:not interact is an astute one. But while WP:not is of immense importance it is often unusable because it only covers "clearly excludes"situations. What we call "wp:notability" decisions actually also weight & weight wp:not considerations ala Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works North8000 (talk) 16:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- "What Wikipedia is not" covers a lot more than whether to exclude articles completely. It also reaches into matters of writing style and intra-article organization; indeed, that's where "Wikipedia is not a textbook" really comes into play, since the topics covered in standard textbooks are going to be the same as those in an encyclopedia. I think we get too much into the weeds debating whether NBUTTERSCOTCH overrides NBELGIANWAFFLE. It forces the basic questions like "Should we write about this in an encyclopedia?" and "Does this belong on its own page?" into a contrived and historically arbitrary framework. XOR'easter (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree fully with your descriptions of the other effects and uses of wp:not. I also agree in principle with the rest of your post. IMO that is mostly already happening in practice but we can't fix the problem areas because we don't know / recognize how it works. Which is decisions which weigh & weight multiple considerations. North8000 (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- "What Wikipedia is not" covers a lot more than whether to exclude articles completely. It also reaches into matters of writing style and intra-article organization; indeed, that's where "Wikipedia is not a textbook" really comes into play, since the topics covered in standard textbooks are going to be the same as those in an encyclopedia. I think we get too much into the weeds debating whether NBUTTERSCOTCH overrides NBELGIANWAFFLE. It forces the basic questions like "Should we write about this in an encyclopedia?" and "Does this belong on its own page?" into a contrived and historically arbitrary framework. XOR'easter (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think that your observation that wp:notability and wp:not interact is an astute one. But while WP:not is of immense importance it is often unusable because it only covers "clearly excludes"situations. What we call "wp:notability" decisions actually also weight & weight wp:not considerations ala Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works North8000 (talk) 16:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't believe that, and I didn't say that I did. The question "Is this source reliable?" is a subjective judgment call every time. So is the question "Is the coverage in this source 'significant'?". Experienced editors acting in good faith look at the same sources and disagree all the time. At Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources, there are about 80 yellow-flagged entries, for which
- I don't know how you believe that arguments over what constitutes NOT ("is it encyclopedic?") would be less subjective than GNG ("Do reliable sources exist?" yes/no). -Indy beetle (talk) 07:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: Of course, being covered by one or more reliable source(s), for some definition of reliable, is a fundamental requirement of WP:V. However, GNG goes beyond that requirement, and thus can be relaxed by certain SNGs. For example, WP:GEOLAND states that legally recognized populated places are inherently notable. There might only be a single source for the settlement, in the form of an entry in a government database with basic geographic and demographic info, but that is fine; it doesn't have to meet GNG. WP:PROF states that it is sufficient to have highly cited academic work; we don't actually have to use those citations to write the article, but can simply write the article by summarizing the author's own work, using primary sources which we know are reliable because they have been peer-reviewed and highly cited. Meanwhile, I see award-related criteria in WP:BIO as indications that if there is significant coverage of the subject having received the award, that is sufficient; such coverage is exempt from WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTNEWS. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:25, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- King of Hearts -
"For example, WP:GEOLAND states that legally recognized populated places are inherently notable. There might only be a single source for the settlement, in the form of an entry in a government database with basic geographic and demographic info, but that is fine"
- Since when is a place simply being listed in a "government database" (GNIS? Geonet Names Server? The Iranian Census?) sufficient to show legal recognition? The idea that something is notable simply by dint of being in a database is simply an excuse for filling up Wikipedia with low-quality, innaccurate articles that do nothing for our readers and indeed trash the information environment through citogenesis. It has led us repeatedly to the creation of massive numbers of policy-failing articles through violations of WP:MASSCREATE/WP:MEATBOT. This is EXACTLY the problem with SNGs that confer supposed "automatic" notability. - "Legal recognition" is not simply being mentioned in a government database. If it were, every single place on the planet would be notable, because every place has at least one listing (and often more than one) on GEOnet Names Server, which is a US government database. The standards for what legal recognition is that are regularly asserted at AFD are massively over-broad - particularly the idea that every place with a postal address is "legally recognised", because, again, every place has a postal address. The same goes for "mentioned in a government document" (the weather service? military/police documents? wildlife surveys?). "Legally recognised" means, if it is ever going to mean anything meaningful, more than simply being mentioned in a government document, it means recognition through a process of law, such as incorporation as a town.
- Finally, you're arguing based on what you believe the situation to be, not what it actually should be. FOARP (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- I am not saying that mere mention in a government database as an item is sufficient. Being mentioned in a government database as a legally recognized populated settlement is what I meant. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- The issue is that this is exactly where this has ended up in AFD. "Mentioned in a government database/list/whatever" is taken as "legal recognition". The end result is always to facilitate mass-production of low-quality articles.
- And again, even if this is your assessment of where we are now, the question is whether we really should be here. For train stations, the answer has come back "no" and the same logic applies in a lot of other areas. FOARP (talk) 10:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- I haven't given much thought to train stations, but for municipalities my answer is a resounding yes. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- My Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works posits that the big fuzzy notability ecosystem includes consideration for "degree of enclyclopedicess" and that in that consideration, certain geographic features (e.g. inhabited places) are considered to be ultra-enclclopedic, that being reinforced by their mention in wp:5 Pillars, putting a little extra weight towards their inclusion as separate articles. North8000 (talk) 01:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- I haven't given much thought to train stations, but for municipalities my answer is a resounding yes. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- I am not saying that mere mention in a government database as an item is sufficient. Being mentioned in a government database as a legally recognized populated settlement is what I meant. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- King of Hearts -
Notability in Singapore
How do we assess notability in Singapore, where all media is basically "national" media? I'm struggling with restaurant and chef notability at several articles right now. Normally for a NYC restaurant or chef to be notable, coverage in the NYT isn't good enough, even though it's a "national" paper. I want to see coverage in the Chicago Tribune or WaPo or the LA Times or something. But Singapore is unusual both in that it's tiny and the level of gastronationalism in the general geographic area is very high, which means a Malaysian or Indonesian media might just ignore the culinary scene in Singapore. valereee (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- WikiProject Singapore notified. valereee (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- WP:GNG doesn't exclude local coverage so any reliable publication in Singapore is okay for counting towards notability. As long as there are reliable, independent sources covering a particular restaurant or chef and you're able to write more than just "XXX is a restaurant in Singapore" I see no problem covering it in Wikipedia. NemesisAT (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- It doesn't exclude local coverage, but in general what I look for is ALSO coverage outside the local area. If we allowed only local coverage to support notability, we'd have tons of locally-notable bios and organizations that aren't known outside their local area. valereee (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Not necessarily true. When it comes to anything related to businesses and corporations, WP:AUD still applies. That's not to say that the larger Singapore sources can't be used to support notability for a restaurant, for example, but we do need to consider how broad that paper's coverage is. --Masem (t) 16:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- I would invite you to consider several things about your interpretation that
When it comes to anything related to businesses and corporations, WP:AUD still applies.
The first thing I would like you to consider is that chefs are not things, organizations, or companies. They are individual people who may be a part of an organization or a company, but that does not make them an organization or company so applying AUD (NCORP) to chefs is an incorrect and disingenuous interpretation of AUD (NCORP). Especially since it specifically saysSimply stated, an organization is a group of more than one person formed together for a purpose.
right in the lede of WP:NCORP. It even goes on to say thatThis guideline does not cover small groups of closely related people such as families, entertainment groups, co-authors, and co-inventors covered by WP:Notability (people).
I think a chef would fall under the category of "people", and even a restaurant might fall under the category of small groups of closely related people such as entertainment groups since meals and entertainment are very frequently combined together so often it isn't even funny. This doesn't even begin to mention the fact that our main notability guidance on this very article we are discussing gives us the discretion to decide ifIt meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)...
which means that GNG could apply just as equally as AUD to a restaurant, therefore it is impossible, improper, and immoral for anyone to be attempting any strict application of solely the AUD SNG when GNG is also an equal option. Huggums537 (talk) 06:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)- There are elements of AUD that apply to people in a corporate position, of which a head chef of a restaurant can be. This is not to say AUD applies 100%, but we do have to watch out for highly-promotion, local press that do not have the appropriate independance for notability. We just need to be aware of the source and how it works, if its one of those that you can pay to get coverage, we can't use it. --Masem (t) 06:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- I certainly agree that if you have to pay for coverage you can't use a source, and we have to watch out for promotional stuff, but there is nothing whatsoever in AUD saying or even implying it applies to corporate heads or individuals of any kind, and if it has been applied as such in the past, it has been misapplied as a rather disgusting application of NCORP. My biggest problem with the way I have seen people using NCORP is that almost anything or anyone can be said to have some kind of connection to a business, company, or an organization. That is why I think it is of the utmost importance we draw the bright line in the sand to make the distinction between actually being an organization or company, and simply having some kind of connection to one. Being a CEO or a head chef does not make you an organization, company or "a group of more than one person formed together for a purpose" as defined in the lede of NCORP. Huggums537 (talk) 06:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Let's put it this way, a key part of AUD is the need of source independence, which is a requirement of the GNG. A chef only covered by works that we know are "pay to publish" would fail the GNG for this reason (AUD moreso). It should not be because they are tied to a business, though there are definitely specific professions and industries that promotional media easily exists and we need to evaluate independence. --Masem (t) 21:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- That's an interesting theory. I for sure agree with you
It should not be because they are tied to a business, though there are definitely specific professions and industries that promotional media easily exists and we need to evaluate independence
and I also agree chef only covered by works that we know are "pay to publish" would fail the GNG for lack of independence, but I vehemently disagree about the (AUD moreso) part since I really think it is the independence moreso, and the AUD isn't even needed or applicable. Huggums537 (talk) 08:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- That's an interesting theory. I for sure agree with you
- Let's put it this way, a key part of AUD is the need of source independence, which is a requirement of the GNG. A chef only covered by works that we know are "pay to publish" would fail the GNG for this reason (AUD moreso). It should not be because they are tied to a business, though there are definitely specific professions and industries that promotional media easily exists and we need to evaluate independence. --Masem (t) 21:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- I certainly agree that if you have to pay for coverage you can't use a source, and we have to watch out for promotional stuff, but there is nothing whatsoever in AUD saying or even implying it applies to corporate heads or individuals of any kind, and if it has been applied as such in the past, it has been misapplied as a rather disgusting application of NCORP. My biggest problem with the way I have seen people using NCORP is that almost anything or anyone can be said to have some kind of connection to a business, company, or an organization. That is why I think it is of the utmost importance we draw the bright line in the sand to make the distinction between actually being an organization or company, and simply having some kind of connection to one. Being a CEO or a head chef does not make you an organization, company or "a group of more than one person formed together for a purpose" as defined in the lede of NCORP. Huggums537 (talk) 06:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- There are elements of AUD that apply to people in a corporate position, of which a head chef of a restaurant can be. This is not to say AUD applies 100%, but we do have to watch out for highly-promotion, local press that do not have the appropriate independance for notability. We just need to be aware of the source and how it works, if its one of those that you can pay to get coverage, we can't use it. --Masem (t) 06:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- I would invite you to consider several things about your interpretation that
- What about Japanese media? Do they cover Singapore restaurants? Levivich 13:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- One would think so, since Japan is as food-obsessed as the US, and as Draft:Shoukouwa is a sushi restaurant, one would think if it were truly notable it might have at least been mentioned in Japanese press. Even if only to sneer at the Singaporean idea of excellent sushi. Transliteration searches are difficult, and especially with proper names.
- I believe that when we're supporting notability of someone who is only getting coverage in the location/industry he has a business in, we should consider AUD. I do not believe we should be drawing a bright line in the sand. I think we need to consider each case. I could probably come up with a list of thousands of chefs and restaurants if local coverage is good enough. Every city newspaper and magazine does restaurant reviews, and even small town newspapers are RS. valereee (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- No. Not at all. Not even for a second. Plenty of people are notable solely for the industry they are in. That has nothing to do with AUD. AUD has to do with location specifically related to organizations. So, we should ignore AUD when it comes to [whatever] industry [a person is in], and when it comes to location AUD applies to businesses, not the individual who owns the business. There is nothing in all of NCORP, NBIO, or BLP preventing individuals from being notable on coverage based on location. It only exists at AUD and it should be expelled from there as well since at appears to contradict with all the rest of Wikipedia guidance as nothing exists anywhere else in policy supporting it that I am aware of. Huggums537 (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- I am not sure we should completely ignore AUD when it comes to people. If the editor/reporter of the Smallville Daily Bugle writes a glowing review of the new cook at the local diner… it really does not indicate that the cook is notable. If the NYT does so (say as part of a series on “the best small town restaurants in the North East”) well, that is a different kettle of fish. Blueboar (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm getting your point, and I really do see the difference in notability there, but the glaringly big problem is that the new cook at the local diner in Smallville just isn't an organization or a company and I think reasonable people can see the difference in notability without the ham-handed use of NCORP, and its little brother AUD. Besides, what's next, using NCORP for products, and then moving on from people and products to more ambitious things? No thanks. Having NCORP applied across the whole of Wikipedia is my idea of a kind of living hell. Huggums537 (talk) 07:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Calling this 'immoral' and 'my idea of a kind of living in hell' is a bit dramatic. You have an opinion. Others are disagreeing with you. You've been here long enough to know that's how it works here. valereee (talk) 11:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe so. Maybe not. You're right I've been here long enough to know things have been working that way here, but my hope is to change minds about that so they can see another viewpoint. I think when editors have misapplied guidance to one thing that was actually meant for another thing, it causes needless conflict among editors, and these drastic times call for drastic measures. Conflict causes needless suffering, and misapplied guidance is a perpetual perversion of trust, reasoning, and truth. I would say "immoral" and "living hell" are really more accurate descriptions of these perversions than they are a bit dramatic, and even if they are a bit dramatic, then I hope it is enough to wake people up. Huggums537 (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Calling this 'immoral' and 'my idea of a kind of living in hell' is a bit dramatic. You have an opinion. Others are disagreeing with you. You've been here long enough to know that's how it works here. valereee (talk) 11:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm getting your point, and I really do see the difference in notability there, but the glaringly big problem is that the new cook at the local diner in Smallville just isn't an organization or a company and I think reasonable people can see the difference in notability without the ham-handed use of NCORP, and its little brother AUD. Besides, what's next, using NCORP for products, and then moving on from people and products to more ambitious things? No thanks. Having NCORP applied across the whole of Wikipedia is my idea of a kind of living hell. Huggums537 (talk) 07:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- I am not sure we should completely ignore AUD when it comes to people. If the editor/reporter of the Smallville Daily Bugle writes a glowing review of the new cook at the local diner… it really does not indicate that the cook is notable. If the NYT does so (say as part of a series on “the best small town restaurants in the North East”) well, that is a different kettle of fish. Blueboar (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- My yardsticks when dealing with Singaporean sources, coming from a Singapore-based editor: in-depth coverage (like North8000's comment) and the impact of news item on national level. I am not using audience as a yardstick for the mainstream media as Singapore is a captive market for the print media, and there aren't much alternatives in that space anyway. Like it or not, government, authoritative news/announcements are usually from the mainstream media. For online/new media, audience may be a factor, but than again the smaller 'news' websites are typically lacking either in editorial control or experienced/profesisonal journalists/writers. The yardsticks evolve over time as I participate in more afds. – robertsky (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
There are a lot of articles on small businesses in Singapore including food stalls in the NPP que. I think that an important distinction is that there is some in-depth coverage of the business, not just "review" type coverage (e.g. talking about how the food and service is). North8000 (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- In short, to enforce the "in depth" coverage part of GNG. North8000 (talk) 11:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, and in fact the only claim to notability for almost all of the food stalls is that they received a Michelin bib, which the first year it was given in SG was given to like 35 food stalls. A Michelin bib simply isn't an award important enough to confer (or even imply a likelihood of) notability. valereee (talk) 15:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm still concerned about this w/re articles like YakiniQuest. We need more than just reviews in SG media to demonstrate the notability of a current restaurant. Not every restaurant in SG that receives reviews is notable, just like not every restaurant in Tokyo that recieves reviews in Tokyo media, or every restaurant in NYC that receives reviews in NYC media, is notable. valereee (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- And here's another, Poisson (restaurant), which opened in April 2022 with a draft created May 1, moved to article space in June. The likelihood a restaurant that has been open for a few weeks can be notable is slim-to-none; literally the coverage is all of the opening and early reviews. How does that support notability simply because the announcements and reviews are in "national" media? valereee (talk) 13:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- I share your concern. But not sure what to do about it. They pretty clearly fail the guidelines. Also the pretty clearly fail the intent of the guidelines. If they are being kept at AFD then it's a question of AFD malfunctioning. North8000 (talk) 15:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah we get the same issues with sportspeople from tiny countries whose coverage is of course going to be "national", and furthermore any awards they receive will be "national". So we get editors claiming "top [country] footballer of the year" is a significant honor meriting a standalone even when the country only has like 13,000 people. JoelleJay (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- We hit WP:SYSTEMICBIAS issues here though, and we need to take caution against invalidating notability sources just because the country is small. Of course if there is no coverage at all or trivial coverage then we can still delete it but I would be wary of discounting such sources if an comprehensive article can be created from them. Jumpytoo Talk 07:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- IMO the intent is that the scale of a particular coverage is an indicator of notability. And when there is "national coverage", the size of the country is legitimately a part of that indicator. North8000 (talk) 13:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- To my mind this conflates notability with significance. The basic notability question is "have reliable sources covered this subject sufficiently to support a stand-alone article?" A local source is not inherently less reliable than any other, and all other things being equal is likely to be more reliable than a non-local source on local matters. In the case of a small town there might be reasonable questions about the independence or reliability of local media, but that doesn't seem like a realistic concern for Singapore. -- Visviva (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Belo Horizonte is bigger than Singapore. valereee (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Without even looking, I feel confident in saying that we should have at least an order of magnitude more coverage of topics related to Belo Horizonte than we currently do. And those articles should rely on the best available sources, which are likely to be local ones. As this example shows, conflating notability with significance has a strong tendency to exacerbate systemic bias, which is harmful to the project. -- Visviva (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- If restaurant in Belo Horizonte is notable, there'll be coverage in Rio or Sao Paolo media. Typically a notable restaurant gets coverage in other non-local major city media. A notable restaurant in Dayton, OH, gets coverage in NYC, Chicago, LA, Atlanta. valereee (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with Visviva and Jumpytoo about systemic bias, and the conflation between significant coverage, or notability. My specific concern is that this seems to be hinged on the notability of the sources themselves rather than the topics. For example, the question above seems to ask if the sources in question are regional, or national enough to be considered notable. I submit it isn't our job to be determining the notability of sources, but of topics, and this seems a contributing factor to the problem of the systemic bias of under represented topics. In other words, I see this as questioning the notability of the local source as opposed to questioning the notability of the place. We should be avoiding that if the source is reliable. Heck, we should avoid that even if the source isn't reliable. We evaluate the notability of topics getting articles, not the sources themselves being good enough to make articles or not. In other words, we don't have any guidance for the notability of sources (nor should we), only the reliability of them. Huggums537 (talk) 23:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- At the same time, NCORP is a key notability guideline to prevent businesses using localized coverage to get articles on WP about them - that would include restaurants. I do assume that there are major "national" newspapers in Singapore that would provide the significant coverage and sufficient independence for that. This would be the same metric we'd need to use when a source like the New York Times includes restaurant reviews, we want to make sure that this isn't just a local plug but actually giving significant coverage of the business.
- It is definitely a grey line here, but those working to create or keep articles from Singapore need to be aware that we are looking for coverage beyond a local scope if we're talking business matters. We can give some flexibility given that Singapore is not that big of a nation that its national papers are likely going to look closer to a major metro area newspaper for that purpose, but as suggested above, there's also matters of routine coverage (like only reviews for a restaurant rather than any details about the history of it) that aren't sufficient for notability purposes from NCORP's stance. Masem (t) 23:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Current businesses and living people are my main concern. I wouldn't object to something like only-SG coverage used to support notability of noncommercial subjects. There are any number of notable subjects that might for reasons of systemic bias only be covered in SG media. valereee (talk) 15:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with Visviva and Jumpytoo about systemic bias, and the conflation between significant coverage, or notability. My specific concern is that this seems to be hinged on the notability of the sources themselves rather than the topics. For example, the question above seems to ask if the sources in question are regional, or national enough to be considered notable. I submit it isn't our job to be determining the notability of sources, but of topics, and this seems a contributing factor to the problem of the systemic bias of under represented topics. In other words, I see this as questioning the notability of the local source as opposed to questioning the notability of the place. We should be avoiding that if the source is reliable. Heck, we should avoid that even if the source isn't reliable. We evaluate the notability of topics getting articles, not the sources themselves being good enough to make articles or not. In other words, we don't have any guidance for the notability of sources (nor should we), only the reliability of them. Huggums537 (talk) 23:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- If restaurant in Belo Horizonte is notable, there'll be coverage in Rio or Sao Paolo media. Typically a notable restaurant gets coverage in other non-local major city media. A notable restaurant in Dayton, OH, gets coverage in NYC, Chicago, LA, Atlanta. valereee (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Without even looking, I feel confident in saying that we should have at least an order of magnitude more coverage of topics related to Belo Horizonte than we currently do. And those articles should rely on the best available sources, which are likely to be local ones. As this example shows, conflating notability with significance has a strong tendency to exacerbate systemic bias, which is harmful to the project. -- Visviva (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Belo Horizonte is bigger than Singapore. valereee (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- To my mind this conflates notability with significance. The basic notability question is "have reliable sources covered this subject sufficiently to support a stand-alone article?" A local source is not inherently less reliable than any other, and all other things being equal is likely to be more reliable than a non-local source on local matters. In the case of a small town there might be reasonable questions about the independence or reliability of local media, but that doesn't seem like a realistic concern for Singapore. -- Visviva (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I fully agree that we should just be looking at the amount of coverage in different RS for GNG. And I am absolutely against conflating GNG with arbitrary definitions of "significant". The issue is that often users will assign importance to the "prestige" of a source as if that makes up for it having only trivial coverage of the subject. This happens with claims of a subject having "national coverage", even though the same coverage would be completely unremarkable if it was in a subnational locale of comparable population. I also think what valereee describes above, of Singaporean media being treated as if it was equivalent to a much more geographically spread out country's national media, is indicative of the same biases that lead to editors ascribing identical importance to various national-level awards when evaluating ANYBIO. JoelleJay (talk) 02:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- But, isn't it apples to oranges comparing national populations to subnational populations, or national awards to restaurant reviews, and even this kind of bias to that? Huggums537 (talk) 11:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- IMO the intent is that the scale of a particular coverage is an indicator of notability. And when there is "national coverage", the size of the country is legitimately a part of that indicator. North8000 (talk) 13:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- We hit WP:SYSTEMICBIAS issues here though, and we need to take caution against invalidating notability sources just because the country is small. Of course if there is no coverage at all or trivial coverage then we can still delete it but I would be wary of discounting such sources if an comprehensive article can be created from them. Jumpytoo Talk 07:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
I think we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bath water, and condemn national sources (and subnational sources, if that matter) outright. I have participated in Singapore CORP (Aspial Corporation) and BLP (Lee Yi-Jin, Ong Tze Ch'in, Chua Chwee Koh) AfDs where there deletion or redirection was the result despite having references in Singapore national sources. I think what can be done is to have a couple of 'test' AfDs to see what the community thinks of the notability of the subject(s), and then go on nominating the rest of the same topic if the result of those 'test' AfDs are of deletion or redirects. – robertsky (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
WP:NEXIST
Is WP:NEXIST the best way to improve verifiability and reliability of an article? Quite often at AfD there are claims that NEXIST is sufficient without giving the actual sources. People go at great length to find sources to prove notability but then refuse to add them. Thus undermining the notability straight away. I know AfD is not a way to improve articles, but this looks rather inefficient to me. The article should prove its notability, not an AfD. The Banner talk 12:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- As long as sources have been identified and noted on the AFD page or article talk page, then that is sufficient fir nitability. They really should be added but we can't force that. Of course the sources still need to be vetted for reliability and for significant coverage.--Masem (t) 13:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Agree with Masem, but as a matter of general behavior, we need to build the general consciousness and expectation that putting in sources where needed for wp:notability is a main part of creating an article. And that there's nothing wrong with pointing this out to people who say that the sources exist but can't be bothered with putting them into the article. North8000 (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- I also agree with Masem and North on this. Huggums537 (talk) 23:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Putting in sources when creating an article is important because everything in an article should be sourced, but the sources that verify claims in an article may not be the ones needed for notability. Putting in sources that verify notability but are not needed for article claims is a good idea, to avoid the hassle of fighting off WP:BEFORE-ignoring deletionists, but is not important. Being told as part of an AfD that the sources should be added to the article tends to push me to do the opposite, because it usually indicates that the person doing the telling is deliberately ignoring WP:BEFORE and I don't want to cater to editors who do that. (I do often add sources to articles in AfDs, though, because if I've taken the trouble to find them I might as well record the results and save future editors the same effort.) —David Eppstein (talk) 23:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- I also agree with Masem and North on this. Huggums537 (talk) 23:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Agree with Masem, but as a matter of general behavior, we need to build the general consciousness and expectation that putting in sources where needed for wp:notability is a main part of creating an article. And that there's nothing wrong with pointing this out to people who say that the sources exist but can't be bothered with putting them into the article. North8000 (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's not possible to require that editors add the sources they find, per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, but I agree that they should be required to demonstrate that the sources actually exist by citing them in the discussion. Otherwise, we have situations where it takes three AfD's to delete a non-notable article because editors fail to find sources but continue to argue WP:MUSTBESOURCES; this wastes editors time and is disruptive to process of improving the encyclopedia.
- I would propose addressing this by changing NEXIST TO:
The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question.
Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. However, once an article's notability has been challenged, notability-indicating sources must be provided to keep the article.
BilledMammal (talk) 02:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC)- It is clear from your comments that you do not intend to require editors to add the provided sources to the article. But your proposed wording does not make that clear at all, and it is very likely that some editors, not seeing this discussion and your comments in it, would misinterpret "must be provided" to mean "must be added to the article". Therefore, I do not think this wording is appropriate. If you think that a change of this type is actually needed, it needs much greater care in wording. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Fair point. Perhaps
However, once an article's notability has been challenged, the existence of notability-indicating sources must be demonstrated to keep the article
instead ofHowever, once an article's notability has been challenged, notability-indicating sources must be provided to keep the article
? BilledMammal (talk) 02:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)- That seems much better to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have major huge problems with the "to keep the article" bit at the end. This portion suggests that deletion discussions must favor one side or another with strong favoritism to a deletion side. There is no reason why it can't simply say that once notability has been challenged sources must be demonstrated and just leave it at that. I also see no point in removing
and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any.
when the whole point of the section is to get editors to make this consideration. Huggums537 (talk) 11:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)- Both of those proposed changes are intended to make it clear that the sources must be provided. I'm slightly unclear on your objections here; are you objecting to the specific wording, or are you objecting to the concept in general? BilledMammal (talk) 11:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- The change you made at the end already makes it crystal clear sources must be demonstrated even without the removal of the content in the previous paragraph. The only thing the removal accomplishes is removing that option for an editor to take into consideration. That is my objection. Huggums537 (talk) 11:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- But if sources must be demonstrated then that isn't an option for editors to take into consideration? What may be appropriate is adding a line about this to WP:ATD-I, saying that if editors believe sources must be exist but cannot find them then incubation is a suitable alternative to deletion - however, I believe that would be better as a separate proposal. BilledMammal (talk) 12:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Except NEXIST isn't about incubation, alternatives to deletion, or even demonstrating sources. It is all about the consideration of the possible existence of sources... Huggums537 (talk) 12:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Also, the answer to your question is no it isn't an option for editors to consider if sources must be demonstrated because it would be something they must do and that is not optional. Huggums537 (talk) 12:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- But if sources must be demonstrated then that isn't an option for editors to take into consideration? What may be appropriate is adding a line about this to WP:ATD-I, saying that if editors believe sources must be exist but cannot find them then incubation is a suitable alternative to deletion - however, I believe that would be better as a separate proposal. BilledMammal (talk) 12:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- The change you made at the end already makes it crystal clear sources must be demonstrated even without the removal of the content in the previous paragraph. The only thing the removal accomplishes is removing that option for an editor to take into consideration. That is my objection. Huggums537 (talk) 11:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Both of those proposed changes are intended to make it clear that the sources must be provided. I'm slightly unclear on your objections here; are you objecting to the specific wording, or are you objecting to the concept in general? BilledMammal (talk) 11:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have major huge problems with the "to keep the article" bit at the end. This portion suggests that deletion discussions must favor one side or another with strong favoritism to a deletion side. There is no reason why it can't simply say that once notability has been challenged sources must be demonstrated and just leave it at that. I also see no point in removing
- That seems much better to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Fair point. Perhaps
- It is clear from your comments that you do not intend to require editors to add the provided sources to the article. But your proposed wording does not make that clear at all, and it is very likely that some editors, not seeing this discussion and your comments in it, would misinterpret "must be provided" to mean "must be added to the article". Therefore, I do not think this wording is appropriate. If you think that a change of this type is actually needed, it needs much greater care in wording. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm actually opposed to the whole thing now that I put more thought into it because it undermines the good faith of editors who may have knowledge of sources or leads to others, but just haven't yet found them or put them in the article, talk page or user page for whatever reason and this forces then to do so even though the claim is being made they are not compelled to do anything on Wikipedia, and many of us know Wikipedia is not finished. Huggums537 (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
In other words, there is no real difference between forcing an editor to put sourcing in the article and putting it somewhere else. If you're forcing putting it anywhere, it would be just as well in the article as anywhere. Changing from "provided" to "demonstrated" doesn't change anything since the forcing is still there either way you go. Huggums537 (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)