Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 16

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 10

←

Archive 14

→

Korea Bronze Star List

I would like to add my Dad to this list. I have just discovered Wikipedia today and dont have alot of expierance with such things. Any help I can get would be helpful. Rwaters3 14:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Answered at user's talk page. --Kevin Murray 16:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Notability and Online Games

To follow up on the post on muds, the entire issue of online gaming should be examined, i.e. whether it should be included and if so, what should the notability requirements be. I've been editing an article for an online game called Web Boxing League at which I'm a player. Out of nowhere, without being marked for notability, it is marked for deletion. Then comes the gang of editors saying it is not notable. It was suggested that for it to be notable, it needs to have been reviewed by an independent online game reviewer. By this standard, you should wipe every online game from Wikipedia (which effort I believe is already underway). There are a couple of problems with this. First, there are not quite as many journalists running around out there to write authoritative treatises on online games as there are college professors writing arcane gobbledygook about topics of academic interest . Second, such authoritative articles are not usually particularly authoritative.

Let me quote from Wikipedia's own article on video game journalism regarding ethics:

"Unlike linear media, getting a complete sense of a game can require far longer than the time it takes to play it from start to end. Further to this, games such as RPGs can last for hundreds of hours. Computer and video game reviewers therefore tread a fine line between producing timely copy and playing enough of a game to be able to reliably critique it.

Therein lies the rub. Requiring a completely independent source for an online game is to require a source that is unauthoritative almost by definition. It puts any online game in an impossible position when trying to establish notability for Wikipedia's purposes. I don't believe it is lawyering to interpret the phrase "trustworthy and authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" to mean one has to have in depth knowledge of the subject, knowledge that can only be gained by playing.

In the article, I noted independent articles on the game by long time and successful players of the game. These authorities were pooh-poohed as not being independent, reliable or authoritative.

I believe that there needs to be an expansion or a reinterpretation of notability guidelines addressing the video and online gaming genre to reflect that fact that the only true authorities on such games are the players themselves. Online gaming is an important cultural phenomenon in the internet era. To say it should not be included by default because there is no one writing peer reviewed articles on the subject is an ostrich like approach that proclaims that if it doesn't fit our guidelines for what is important, it must not be important. --Art of Pugilism 01:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it is difficult or impossible to find sources does not excuse one from having them. If little reliable source material exists about online games, we shouldn't have many articles about online games. We reflect reliable source coverage, we don't attempt to correct what we see as deficient by covering what they don't. If you feel there is a deficiency, write to magazines, or newspapers, or reliable game-review websites, or whatever, and tell them you want to read more in-depth coverage of online games! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

and the nature of the subject does affect the nature of the sources accepted. We seek sources where the sources are. For material that is expected to be covered in major newspapers, we rightly expect that; for material likely to be found in small town papers, but where the subject is notable none the less, we accept the papers that there are. when a field of human endeavor that is clearly both important and interesting to WPedians is covered best by nonconventional sources, we should learn to sort out the reliable sources of that nature, and then use them. sometimes, the distinctions are lear, but wherever the borders are, there will be borderline cases. It is the responsibility of those interested in games to figure out and agree on what the good sources are, and then convince the rest of us to accept them. This is not in disagreement with Seraphimblade, but as a comment and expansion. DGG (talk) 04:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

So baically, DGG agrees with me "nonconventional sources" such as player articles should be considered. The problem with that is that there is an obvious bias here against nonconventional sources, so the entire issue becomes political. The "purists" gang together and refuse to accept anything that isn't conventional and keep out articles that they don't deem "worthy". I have proposed a new notability standard for online games, that is player articles, but no one will step up to support it. --Art of Pugilism 12:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The sources still must be reliable. Player reviews and the like undergo no editorial control or fact-checking, so they are in no way verifiable. On the other hand, there are several websites dedicated to reviewing games which do undergo editorial control, have non-anonymous authors, and the like. On the subject of games, those sites are a reliable source. "We will accept non-conventional sources" in some cases is not, and I can't emphasize it enough, not the same as "We'll accept just anything." Gamespot is a non-conventional but in some areas reliable source. Joe's Blog, John's Forum, or Jack's Site Where Anyone Can Post A Review are not. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Notability guidelines for beliefs, psuedoscience or superstitions

Does anyone know of any past discussions centered around how we establish notability for articles that document beliefs/superstitions or topics that might be classed as paranormal or pseudoscience.

The reason I ask it that there is currently an AFD going on for an article that attempts to document the various numerological beliefs regarding the time of day 11:11.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/11:11 (numerology) (2nd nomination).

I'm also curious to hear fellow editors thoughts on how we might establish notability for these types of articles.

As an example that I've used before, we have a plethora of sources that establish that people have ascribed all sorts of magical qualities to cats and to black cats in particular. As a matter of fact, Black cat discusses some of those beliefs. One can even argue that the article would be incomplete without some discussion about those beliefs.

But what do we do in the cases where certain beliefs/superstitions are not so well known or documented? TheRingess

We go to our fount; has the belief, pseudoscience or superstition been the subject of multiple, independent, reliable sources? Off the top of my head, if a separate guideline were being written (not that I think it should be), I think I'd start with the premise that the sources must discuss the belief as a belief, not just provide an example of it in action. For example a source showing someone ascribed to the belief would not really speak to the issue, while a source discussing the existence of the belief would be on point. If it is "not so well known or documented," how can one write an encyclopedia article about it? It either can be sourced or it's unverifiable, original research.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That helps. I guess I should have expanded what I meant "not so well know or documented" to specify beliefs that are not documented by multiple independant reliable sources. A perfect example of a belief that is well documented is the belief that 7 is lucky. Regarding the time mentioned above, there seems to be very few independant sources that describes what properties people ascribe to that time of day. So the sources for the article are primarily those groups and individuals who expound those beliefs.TheRingess (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

and they are RSs for the beliefs they have, though of course not for what reality actually is. But people's organized and shared hypotheses about the world, however foolish, are the proper subjects of WP articles. It really isnt necessary in an article such as this one to try to talk about the possible real-world correlates. DGG (talk) 03:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think these kinds of articles test the boundaries of the "significant coverage"/"non-trivial" criterion. A phenomenon like this might be widely noted in books on numerology, etc., without anyone thinking to write a whole book, a whole chapter of a book, or a whole article in a periodical specifically about the time 11:11. So if you have a few paragraphs specifically about the time 11:11 in a number of independent reliable sources, does that count as "significant coverage" or not? PubliusFL 14:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it does count (no pun intended). True, it wouldn't make for a large article, but the article it would make would be verifiable and objective if it's based on multiple independently published sources. And keep in mind that just because a psuedoscience probably is bogus doesn't mean that it's not worth mentioning as an topic in an encyclopedia. You don't have to be a member of a cult, for example, to find learning about the cult's beliefs interesting or useful. So while a Wikipedia article shouldn't claim that a clearly false scientific belief is true, if a false belief has enough public interest it is still worth noting that a non-trivial group of people believe it, explain what the belief is and rationale for why people incorrectly support it. Dugwiki 15:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Notability for Commercial Company

The reason to include this section here is to discuss the definition of "notability" for a commercial site. Is it solely based on revenue and number of years in business? The general guideline in this page pertains to the reliability of the source, but every company can provide "reliable" source of information about themselves. And "widespread coverage" for a commercial company is determined by their past advertising effort and the value of commercial products offered. Basically, why should one company be listed over another. Due to the anonymous nature, even if you own a UserID here, please do not state that your site is not notable and that one is. Provide quantifiable and measurable guidelines, or close to that would help. Your views please. -- Zragon 01:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts? Sufficiently notable for wikipedia means that someone else has written about it. “Someone else” means not the company or a controlled subsidiary. That someone else (author or publisher) needs to be reputable. "Written about" means that what is published actually says something about it, and is not just a report of information. Revenue or number of years in business are not important criteria. WP:N should in no way be seen to constitute a value judgment on the subject. It’s all about independent, third party secondary sources as to whether something is sufficiently notable for wikipedia. Having established sufficient notability from independent reputable secondary sources, it is best to cite specific facts to reliable primary sources such as published reports. --SmokeyJoe 01:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
After reading through some more stuff, I believe the power of creation of a new article lies in the hands of selected, trusted administrators. I would suppose that they would be the ones to verify that "someone" who writes or suggests the new article is reputable in the particular field, and yet does not relate in any way to the commercial company in question. Speaking from the neutral point of view, I think it is not quite easy to find someone reputable in a particular field and yet not related to the commercial company being listed here (in its own article), who is willing to write about it. This is especially when the company does not really have any unique product in question, e.g. domain name registrars. If the revenue and number of years in business is not used as the criteria, then anyone can propose any company to have a place here as long as they can prove that they are not related and are reputable. Does that not make Wikipedia a company directory/blog/forum instead? Let's use domain name registrar as an example for a start, what is the value of their page here? They all sell the same things (other than internic or netsol which needs to go into the history book), there are thousands of similar startups selling the same product at different price.

-- Zragon 13:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

No. It is not about power. It is about sourcing. Wikipedia contibutors never need to be reputable, and indeed many have argued that anonymity/pseudonym is preferable, and that appeals to authority or position are to be rejected outright. Wikipedia does not engage expert authors. There are other encylopedias that do that.

Anyone can propose (and write) an article on a company. The article’s survival depends on whether there exists a publication about the company, where the publisher or author are reputable. Many argue that there should be two such publications, independent of each other. The establishment of sufficient notability for wikipedia usually using secondary sources is additional to the requirement to use reliable sources to reference the content of the article. --SmokeyJoe 02:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. So may I read back that any company can have a page on Wikipedia as long as there are independent, "reputable" writers who publishes reviews, etc about a company? I was wondering if it is easy for commercial company to find 2 (or more writers) to write about their company and publish on established sites. No one has to know about any transactions or contracts. We have more than enough reference on Wikipedia for such established sites or publications perhaps, including EDU - where commercial companies have engaged the professors/PHD holders for studies and research reports. In any case, thanks and your points are noted. -- Zragon 12:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Long Term Notability

WP:NOT says "long-term historical notability of persons and events", while WP:N says "there is no need to show continual coverage or interest.". My question is regarding a missing kid case (Christina Marie Williams). While the disappearance got a lot of attention at the time, there has been nothing published about her in this millennium (per google news archives search). To me, this says there is no historic notability for this person. What does everyone here think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corpx (talk • contribs) 10:30, 25 July 2007

First of all I distrust your factual basis. I have come to distrust the google news archive as a proof of absence of coverage. It often seems not to include stories by significant news sources that can be found via regular google web searches if the stories are more than a few weeks old. In other cases stories on the archive sites of significant news sources seem not to be found in regular google web searches either -- perhaps they have disabled google spidering, as any site can do in the robots.txt file. So while google and google news can be excellent ways to find sources, i don't consider the lack of useful hits on google news persuasive of total absence of coverage. So i am not in the lest convinced that a google news search is good evidence that there in fact has been "no coverage in this millennium".

But in the second place, since this page should be for debate over the policy issue and not just a specific article, lets assume, for purposes of discussion that there has in fact been zero news coverage of this case since 1999. Dose that mean that the article should be deleted, or never have been created., IMO, no. If there was significant and sustained coverage earlier, IMO that creates permanent notability. Note that I said "sustained", and the guideline now says "In particular, a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability. Conversely, if long-term coverage has been sufficiently demonstrated, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest." Now whether there was sufficient long term coverage in a particular case is a judgment call. But lack of recent coverage is not, IMO a good reason to delete an article. Let's consider a different case, of someone who was also a crime victim, and rather longer ago. look at Thomas Shipp. I'm willing to bet that you will find no google news coverage of him at all. But IMO the overall notability here is clear, and so the lack of recent coverage is irrelevant. I see no need to change the guideline. It is possible that it has been and will be misapplied in some cases. Perhaps Corpx thinks it was in his example case (I am pretty sure that he does, given our recent discussion over my closure of the AfD in that case). There are ways to correct such errors. I don't see an overall or systemic problem here. DES ^(talk) 15:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, there are plenty of hits (there are invalid ones too, but there's plenty of valid ones) on google news way after the incident, showing, in my opinion, historical notability. A "short burst" should be judged on an situation by situation basis. Did this disappearance receive any more attention than any other kid disappearing? I'd say no, looking at the coverage. Corpx 16:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You are correct on the Shipp case, Google News was doing better than i had expected (I have in several instances found it to return zero hits when I was able to find news stories online by other means). I agree that the "short burst" standard needs to be judged on a case by case basis. You may even be correct that it wasn't proeprly applied in this case. But I still don't see a systemic propblem here, or any need to change policy or guideline. If your only concern is whether the existing guideline was correctly applied in this particular case, i don't think this is the proper forum. That, IMO, is a mattter for a new AfD, or a DRV of the previous one. DES ^(talk) 16:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Today's news is tomorrow's history. If the media continued to discuss all historical events, there would be no need for encyclopedias. Clearly this is not of great individual importance in the grand scheme of history, but it is a building block in our coverage of a horrific trend which we hope will someday only be historic. --Kevin Murray 16:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

A lot of things that were newsworthy in any period in the past, say the the 1870's, absolutely did not make it into the history books, even though they were the subject of substantial coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources. Then as now there were crime reports, in which someone was killed by outlaws or Indians, or a maiden was raped, or children were abandoned and starved, or there was severe weather that disrupted commerce and travel. Documented cases could be sometimes bundled into larger articles like "Frontier justice" or "Gangs of New York" but individual outrages typically faded from historical notice. If some event was the basis for new laws, or for setting up institutions to correct societal problems, or a boat wrecked and killed a few people and led to a lighthouse being built, or an Indian attack led to a fort being built, it might have made it into history, because it had significant and enduring consequences. From a different perspective, people were sometimes sent on sensitive missions, or there were criminal or political intrigues which were absolutly not in the news for many years after the events, but which are now in the history books, like successful codebreaking efforts in World War 2, or the Manhattan Project, which involved thousands in a race to develop the atomic bomb. It is now an important part of the history of years when it was a deep dark secret. Then there is phony news. News said the US got deeply involved in bombing North Vietnam because their PT boats attacked US destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin; history saus the attacks were spurious. History is not written from news reports all the time, and probably not most of the time. Edison 22:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

On the flip side, though, as an online encylopedia with no physical size limit Wikipedia is capable of maintaining a much larger pool of information derived in whole or in part from news events than would have been easily manageable even 20 or 30 years ago, let alone managed in the 19th century or earlier. Some of the events you described that weren't significantly captured in paper encyclopedias might have been capturable if Wikipedia existed at that time.

So while Wikipedia doesn't strive to "save ALL information on EVERYTHING", it is certainly capable of saving orders of magnitude more information than older conventional encyclopedias. Thus it makes sense that the bar for inclusion of a news event within Wikipedia will likely be a lot lower than the bar for inclusion of a similar news event within an older paper publication. Dugwiki 22:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of the things Edison described led to something that impacted society. When Amber Hagerman disappeared, they created the Amber Alert, which I'd say was a significant impact and should be noted here. I just dont see anything like that for this kid. Corpx 01:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

We already have a place to cover news events. That place is not, however, Wikipedia. It is over here. If you want to write about events in the news, you can do it all day long there, and they'll love you for it. Here, though, events are only appropriate for an encyclopedia if they had lasting significance. The newspaper has to be on doorsteps every morning whether it's a slow news day or September 12, 2001. That means a lot of things in it will not be of significance befitting an encyclopedia. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Exception to Notability for Student Editors (kids)? Or not?

I am a teacher with the Grant Joint Union High School District, and recently created an article about the California Aerospace Academy. After creation it was quickly marked for deletion, and from Wikipedia's current policy, I can understand why, and I am not making any argument. But the issue raised a question in my head. I have been trying to encourage our schools to teach students about how to become Wikipedia editors. And I thought one of the best places to start would be for the students to write an article about their own school. But with current policy, the article that a 12 year old might be bold enough to write, might be deleted under their noses. Even if they took the time to research and cite their sources. Due to this, I am having to reconsider how much I'm going to encourage others to become part of the wikipedia community, especially kids whose hard work, and hopefully quality work, would just be erased. I can understand being edited and improved, but I don't like the thought that it would just be deleted. I am very interested in the communities thoughts on this issue.--Pordaria 23:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that a researched and well sourced article would be deleted. I do think that novice users could get involved in WP through other routes than article creation, however: how about researched and well-sourced editing? Or how about a team article creation? I will say too that articles about schools are a particular sensitivity for those who monitor new article creation, but if users create researched and well-sourced articles on notable historical or scientific topics, they will stay. UnitedStatesian 01:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think an exception to Wikipedia's policies or guidelines for younger users is necessary. Consider that there are other wiki projects with less stringent rules where editors who find Wikipedia's policies and guidelines overwhelming can test their wings. For example, you could create an article about the school on http://myschool.wikia.com. Students could contribute to that article and learn Wikipedia's format (the engine is the same), and at the same time you could teach them a lesson about why Wikipedia's standards are so high and their importance for creating a reliable reference work. That kind of lesson will serve them well when they get into their high school and college years and learning to properly research and cite your sources becomes increasingly important. PubliusFL 02:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that other wiki link. I think that is an excellent idea, and a good starting place for students to learn about wiki editing, until they are ready to be able to do true encyclopedic entries. --Pordaria 19:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Pordaria is wrong about “one of the best places to start would be for the students to write an article about their own school”. It makes it too tempting for them to write things that they think they “know” rather than things sourced from verifiable references. Maybe a better idea would be to have them find a subject covered by more than one non-fiction book in the school library, and to write an article on it, or improve the article if it already exists. Even better would be to have the student choose and article needing improvement, doing further research, and then improving the article. Improving an article will more quickly introduce the student to the importance of collaboration. --SmokeyJoe 03:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I would most certainly agree with SmokeyJoe. It's great that you're using Wikipedia in this way, and please know that nothing which has happened is intended in any way to disparage such efforts. At the same time, I believe the suggestion to make the project research and improvement or creation of an unrelated article is a very good one. Perhaps a subject you'll be covering later in your class might be a good one for the students to help out on, to get them a head start on their research into it? I'd be happy to offer any help and advice I can as you go along, as I'm sure many editors here would be, so please don't hesitate to ask. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

What are "independent sources"

Would a tv show "companion Guide" give notability to all episodes? Would a video game guide (from a reliable source) give notability to all the maps/units covered? Corpx 07:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Great for real world information (though not sure about a video game guide, as Wiki isn't a how-to guide), but I'd say it doesn't give notability to the episodes. First, it isn't sigificant coverage. It's published material by the studio (or at least granted permission from the studio). It doesn't say why the show is notable, just how they made it. Also, many times there is only limited usable info for each episode, and not enough to support a whole page. See what I did for Smallville (season 1). I used a companion book for the entire season article. As individual episodes, there wasn't a lot of usable material, and some episodes have no mention at all because there wasn't anything usable. But, as a season, it becomes very well developed. The notability, though, comes from others writing about it, not the studio that owns it. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

What about unauthorized but professionally published guide books like this? They can't be regarded as promotional, since they have not acquired permission of the studio. Also, what about discussions of a given episode in works of cultural studies which happen to be officially licensed? Sometimes the only significant difference between a licensed and unlicensed book on the subject of a television series is whether the publishers use the show's offical logo and photographs or not.

Also, I tend to disagree with the implied comparison between television episode guides and video game guides; a television episode is usually a stand-alone work, comparable to a short story or novella, and can be individually analyzed by its themes and content, as well as for its effect on the culture-at-large. I'm not aware of how individual levels/units of a video game could be treated individually in the way that a television episode can. Television episodes are regularly reviewed individually; levels of a video game, to my knowledge, are not. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

To cover the game-guide side of things, generally not; the only reason to have articles other than on the game itself is if an encyclopedic treatment causes the game/series's article to become overlong. And generally, game guides don't present encyclopedic material. Once in a while they do (interviews with developers, etc), but usually that material will slide right into the main article anyway. Nifboy 15:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If it's unofficial, I'd wonder how they came across their information. That would be closer to self publication, as no one authorized them to make the book, thus no one could actually do any fact checking on it when it was finished. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The example I'm discussing is published by Virgin Books, a legitimate publisher which presumably has the same fact-checking facilities as any other. Just because the author doesn't have the cooperation of the studio doesn't mean that he couldn't interview people involved in the production, find interviews in other sources, and draw critical conclusions of his own. (Yes, that would be original research if it were on Wikipedia — but it's not. Remember that this is a secondary source we're discussing.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If it's interviews then it's a primary source, since he isn't actually interpreting things, but recounting other's opinions. But if he's stating things as fact, but doesn't supply his own method of how he obtained that information, then I become skeptical of it seeing as he isn't authorized to write the book. I'm not saying I'd remove the use of it. Either way, the question was about these sources providing notability, which they do not. Authorized or not, they don't really count as "significant coverage" because they are either fans of the show writing a "making of" book, or an authorized publication in an effort to market the show. If it's something like a book about the interpration of thematic elements and other such subjective opinions, that would be better. That speaks more about the cultural impact of said topics, where a "making of" type of companion doesn't have anything to do with the impact of the series, but with what went into make it. Great real world stuff, just not great assertiveness of notability. BIGNOLE (Contact me)

In the particular case we're discussing, a citation from a cultural-studies text has been added, as well as a citation from an authorized episode guide. I don't have access to the unauthorized guide in question, so I can't add a citation from that particular one, but I own similar unauthorized guides on other series and have used them as reliable sources in other articles (including some featured articles). I can see that the interviews could be interpreted as a primary source, but these books usually have episode reviews as well, which are clearly an interpretation of the primary text (the television episode).

I don't see how the mere fact that episode guides are printed for (and written by) fans makes them less than reliable sources. The authors of such works are fans, yes, but they're also professional writers who've been commissioned by a legitimate publishing house. Notability is determined by whether reliable sources provide significant coverage of the subject. I don't see anything excluding works aimed at the fan audience, as long as they're professionally published by a publisher with editorial integrity. Indeed, that's exactly the sort of source which television episode articles should use. It's no different from, say, an article on a particular locomotive citing works like The Second Diesel Spotter's Guide or A Field Guide to Trains of North America. These are works aimed at specialists, yes — but they're also the works which establish notability for the subject in question. We don't demand that articles on particular locomotives have sources from outside the train enthusiast world — if the sources meet our standard of reliability, they also meet the standard of notability. The same should be true of sources used for television and other pop-culture subjects.

Some editors seem to want to exclude episode guides merely because they are episode guides. I don't see anything in WP:N supporting that argument. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think those reviews would qualify as professional reviews. It would be equivalent to using a fansite review of an episode. Secondly, 1 persons review doesn't constitute "significant coverage". You cannot say an episode has asserted notability simply because you have one guy writing a book about the entire show/season. That isn't significant coverage, that's just one person's thoughts. Significant coverage means it's discussed in multiple places, not just some guy's unauthorizied (or even authorized) companion. I didn't say you couldn't use those books, just that it doesn't mean an episode is notable. Notability needs reliable sources, yes, but reliable sources do not mean something is notable. That is why it says "significant coverage". That's more than just one person writing a review about it. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't it a professional review, if (say) Virgin Books paid the author to write it? I think you're confusing authors-who-happen-to-be-fans (the case I'm describing) with "fan authors", that is, authors of fan reviews. It's similar to the difference between a Star Trek novel by Peter David or Diane Duane and one written by Joe Fan on fanfiction.net. The former is notable, the latter isn't. If an editor at a legitimate publishing house chose David A. McIntee or Keith Topping to review every episode of a given series, why can't that be part of the "significant coverage" you're asking for? Why is a book aimed at the fan market any different than a book aimed at the train enthusiast market — or the political junkie market, or the queer studies market, or any other niche area? You seem to want to exclude a certain group of professionally written books from the notability criteria just because they're aimed at fans. I don't see support for that in the guideline. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Because the author, unless otherwise noted, doesn't get paid to write reviews (hence not a professional review). He was paid to write a book, thus his opinion (though maybe ok, and that's a big maybe, to note on the page) doesn't establish the episode as notable. Publishing houses don't pay people to write a review, they pay them to write a book. The fact that he gave his opinion of an episode doesn't change the fact that he isn't a professional reviewer. But again, significant means more than one. So regardless of the fact that some author, who was paid to write a companion book, happens to write up a "review" of the episode in question, it still is not itself "significant coverage". If you have multiple reliable sources reviewing the show, then his/her inclusion is irrelevant anyway. The point being, their word alone does not justify an entire page devoted to an episode. Especially when I've already provided you with a season page that proves you can write an article about every episode of a season, using that same type of book, and it be comprehensive and not overly long. The fact remains, most individual episodes don't received significant coverage in the media. Even if they have some companion guide written, that isn't significant coverage. It's coverage by one person, but not many people. Not unless that book happens to also contain several reviews from other professional writers in it for an episode (which poses a problem if you getting all your information from one source). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

So we're back to the number of sources. What if we've got two episode guides, one authorized and one unauthorized? Would you consider that "significant coverage"? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Authorized is not independent. Corpx 03:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Two sources, both being nothing more than companions..no. Two sources alone isn't significant, especially when they are nothing more than companions designed to tackle the entire season, and not individual episodes. Multiple professional reviews, or some kind of other significant coverage. Like South Park's "Trapped in the Closet". That garned lots of media attention because of the controversy surrounding it. Some random episode that is talked about in a book designed to talk about it is not coverage. Anyone and their mother can publish a companion book about a television show. There needs to be a reason it was singled out. These episodes in these guides are not being singled out. Someone is specifically writing about every episode of a season for a television show, whether the episode was notable or not, they are going to write about it. There doesn't have to be anything truly notable about the show in this case, because all the episodes are covered regardless. What exactly needs to be said in an individual episode page that cannot be said on a larger topic page? That is the question you have to ask yourself. If you want individual episode pages simply because a season page would sound weird if the reception section was packed with one guy's thoughts on every episode of that season, then you may want to rethink what you're trying to do. Since he's writing about every episode be default, it would probably be best to get his opinion of the entire season (or series depending on what he's writing about, and how he's writing it). Individual episodes usually don't get the same type of review as a film because they are only 22 and 42 minutes long, and a lot of the things that get talked about in reviews for films are things that take entire seasons to happen in a television show (e.g. character development). That's why when you truly have a notable episode, some random episode in a show, it's because something significant occurred in that episode that was outside the usual responses (e.g. a show tackling homophobia, or a milestone in the television show's career). 10 companion books are not significant coverage for an episode, because of what their purpose is, which is to promote that material. They weren't designed to critically analyze the show, that why they are television guides (or companions if you will) and not some "Thematic elements in Show X" type of book (which isn't a companion, but a literary critique...and much more valuable in asserting notability). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the elucidation, Bignole. I'm afraid I disagree with the distinction you're drawing between episode guides and "thematic element" books — although I can see that a "thematic element" book would establish notability more clearly than an episode guide, I suppose that I'm just a bit more inclusive. (I also disagree with the assertion that the purpose of an episode guide is to promote the series — surely, if that were the case, publishers wouldn't charge for them!)

I understand the argument about presenting information in a season article, but I just feel that there are some television series which get so much attention that every episode is notable, and if a series has a thorough, professionally published episode guide (or two) that's a good indication that the culture at large considers the episodes to be notable. I feel that by setting up a standard that requires mainstream media coverage, we're saying that the attention of specialists is unimportant, which is a dangerous and un-wiki precedent to set. But I do appreciate you taking the time to elaborate your position. I'd be interested in hearing others' opinions, to get a sense of how widespread this interpretation is. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Why would the culture at large consider the episode notable if there is an episode guide book? The culture didn't publish the book. The culture didn't request the book. Smallville has a companion book for every season, but almost no episodes have individual reviews for them. That companion book doesn't make all those episodes notable simply because it exists. It's one form of coverage, developed by the studio that produces the show. They're for marketing. Whether you want to view it as something to promote the show, or simply merchandizing, the idea is that they were created to make the studio money (asside from those unauthorized ones of course). If a studio is paying for its own coverage, that doesn't make it significant. What makes the unauthorized author a specialist? Unless he truly is a specialist, simply publishing an episode guide book doesn't make you a specialist in anything other than maybe that television series. Even that is questioned, as you don't have to even know what you writing about to actually write it. You just need the information to put it together. The purpose of Wikipedia is to have quality articles. I would be willing to bet that if you wrote up all the encyclopedic content from an episode guide book, for just about any series, the vast majority of those episodes would be better suited if they were merged to one page. I only say this because I've already gone through it before. I've wrestled with one episode that had a decent amount on real world information in it, but no one talked about the cultural impact of the episode. There were not multiple reviews (there weren't any reviews for that matter) on that episode. I'm still working on another episode that has even more information than the other, but the key factor is that it's information without cause. There doesn't appear to be any coverage of the episode outside of the studio's own companion guide. That's not significant. They paid someone to write about it. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The culture didn't publish the book? So it sprung fully formed from the mind of an editor, with no market or audience? Of course the culture requested the book, otherwise it wouldn't have been published. Any professionally published book is part of the culture. It arises from the culture and participates in it. The existence of the book shows that the culture, or at least a significant part of it, considers the subject notable. I still see no reason to exclude as a source a professionally published book covering television episodes, any more than we should exclude a professionally published book on locomotives, or Mongol pottery, or Indonesian boats. Is the subject going to be of interest to everyone? Of course not. But it's of interest to enough people that a mainstream publisher thought they could make some money off it, which shows that they thought ths subject was notable. The profit motive doesn't exclude the book from notability: the marketplace is the judge of what's considered notable.

As for "specialists", a published author on any subject is enough of a specialist that a major publishing house contracted him or her to write a book on the subject. We can't judge the expertise of authors, and shouldn't try. If the text meets our standards for reliable sources, it should meet our standards for notability as well.

We're looking at this from opposite ends. You seem to be starting from the assumption that most television episodes aren't individually notable, and building up a structure to justify that belief. I'm starting from the assumption that notability is established by the existence of outside sources, and maintain that we as Wikipedians have no right to judge sources as worthy or unworthy merely because of their subject matter. That's been my understanding of Wikipedia's culture and policy for many years, but perhaps this was an error. Or perhaps there's been a recent shift in the Wikipedia ethos, and I'm late catching up to it. I've always celebrated the breadth of Wikipedia's coverage, from pop-culture topics like television episodes to obscure historical figures. Maybe that breadth was only temporary — just a moment in Wikipedia's early growth when subjects weren't excluded because of arbitrary prejudices. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to show me where the "culture requested the book". Since anyone can publish anything they want, no one has to request anything. Yes, there is a market for it. But if you have 1 million fans, that's a market. It's also less than 1% of the United States population. The existence of the book shows that either the studio wanted to make more money (which you have to spend it to make it), and/or it shows that it has a fan base. No one is dismissing that fact, but having a fan base doesn't make something notable. Just about everything in the world has some form of fan base. I'm sure I have a fan base...I'm sure it's not a loving fan base, but it's a fan base nonetheless. This is why we say significant coverage when it comes to notability, because things will always be followed by the fans. Few are as well known as the Trekkies, or the Star Wars fans, but that's more to do with the fact that those two subjects are extremely well known around the world. It doesn't make every episode notable though. The notability of the sum does not equate to notability of its parts.

You don't know the publishing how contracted anyone to write the book. This is all assumption. He could have very well written the book himself and the publishing house could have said "ok, we'll copy and distribute it for you, but we get 70% of the profit". Also, he could very well pay a publishing company to produce his book. This is the idea behind "anyone can have something published". No one is discounting the reliableness of the book, simply stating that the book itself is not an indicator of notability. Not unless that is exactly what the book is trying to achieve (e.g. Star Trek in popular culture, or something like that which would be designed to explain the show's impact on society, and not simply be some episode guide).

You cannot confuse the need for reliable sources with the need for notability. Correlation does not equal causation. Just because you have a reliable source doesn't mean what it's reporting makes something notable. Notability needs reliable sources, but those reliable sources are not what makes it notable. What makes it notable is the content within. The reliable sources only serve to hence the validity of the assertion. WP:EPISODE already discusses episode notability. Yes, it has the standard "notability request reliable sources"-esque statement, but maybe this guideline and all the other notability guidelines are not clear to their meaning. 10 reliable sources on a topic doesn't make it a notable topic. What makes it notable is what they are reporting. We live in a world that lives and breathes the internet, where anyone can produce whatever they want on the internet. If you put something on Wikipedia, sure enough it will find its way until other locales. So, the number of reliable sources is important, but what's also important is what they are saying. If a companion book contains literally no encyclopedic content, does that make the subject in question notable? We can't use the information (who knows, maybe it's all fan-fiction, written from an in-universe perspective--this is hypothetical to the example, not saying those you listed above are this), so why would that make the episode notable? I can write about Eureeka's Castle, and have it published for the write amount of money. Does that make the show notable simply because I wrote a book about it. Sure, it's notable to me, but is it notable for Wikipedia? So, I have to say that I can't see where an book, which is just an episode guide, establishes, or even helps to establish notability. I agree, it's great for building real world content in an article, but notability is a different story. 100 people could write episode guides for 1 particular series, but we don't know if anyone bought those books (beyond the editors that happen to be using them for Wikipedia). What you have is 10 random people, in a world filled with 6 billion, that wrote an episode guide for a television show. Episode guide books, again this is my opinion and yours obviously differs, do not lend to the assertion of notability. They do to the real world content necessary for all articles on works of fiction, but when it comes to notability, I cannot see how they establish any form of significant coverage when all they are doing is recapping episodes. It isn't like a peer reviewed journal that details the importance of the show, but simply a book that rehashes the episodes for you. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Verifiability: "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses..." (emphasis added). I'm not talking about self-published books, I'm talking about books published by respected publishing houses like Routledge and Simon & Schuster. I feel like "notability" is being used here as a shibboleth to exclude certain categories of content which meet the core principles (WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV) but don't meet an arbitrary standard of what "should" exist in an encyclopedia.

Bignole, I understand the position you're presenting, but disagree with it. If it turns out that your view is representative of Wikipedia consensus, then I'll accept that I'm out of touch with Wikipedia. But I suspect that there are a lot of other editors who disagree with this interpretation of "notability". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Everything is notable

This may seem ridiculous, but let us consider this logically.

Assumption: There is a finite number of articles on wikipedia
Assumption: A 'finished' wikipedia represents the sum total of human knowledge
Assumption: Wikipedia is itself 'notable'

If it could be proved that within the said wikipedia, there was a single article which was deemed non notable, this article could be considered notable on the basis that it was the only subject on wikipedia which didn't satisfy the notablity criteria. Under the circumstances of an obvious paradox, the subject would then be included on wikipedia.

A defence may be that there is for instance that there is more than 1 article not considered notable. Even given this, it would be notable because it would be part of a small group of articles deemed non notable.

If the number of articles deemed non notable is at least as big as those deemed non notable, the criteria of being reflective of the sum total of human knowledge can be called into question. How can such an encyclopaedia function if it doesn't contain half of all subjects? Philipwhiuk 14:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This (in my opinion, mis) understanding comes from thinking we should try to invent our own notions of notability. If we instead rely on sources, as any encyclopedia should, then we see that notability comes from the amount of coverage a given topic has gotten in appropriate sources. When we look at it this way, your argument doesn't work anymore. Friday (talk) 14:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The third assumption above is false. Notability refers to outside verifiable reliable publications, not Wikipedia itself. Wikipedia articles are not considered reliable, verifiable outside publications and therefore something appearing in a Wikipedia article does not count toward notability. Dugwiki 15:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It is true that Wikipedia is notable (there is plenty of non-trivial coverage of Wikipedia itself in reliable independent sources), the problem is that he applies the premise in such a way as to commit the fallacy of division: assuming that what is true of the whole is true of all of its parts. Very few individual Wikipedia articles are themselves notable. PubliusFL 16:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

What I meant was that Wikipedia can not be used as a cited source for its own articles, and therefore can not be used as a cited source for purposes of determining notability. Either way you slice it, though, we obviously agree that the argument is flawed. Dugwiki 16:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Quite true - being "notable" does not qualify Wikipedia as a "reliable source" for WP:RS purposes, which the argument would essentially require. PubliusFL 16:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This clever paradox (a version of "the least interesting number" paradox) has a solution: you need to consider the fact that nothing is notable until those outside sources exist. So, "only non-notable article" or the "longest non-notable article" in wikipedia wouldn't become notable until someone wrote about outside wikipedia'. CharlesGillingham 03:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above. One has to consider the concept of diminishing notability. Wikipedia is (easily) notable to the extent necessary to warrant its own article, yet that does not mean that all of its derivative contents are notable. George W Bush is notable such that an article about him is appropriate, but the fact that Bush was once a cheerleader does not merit its own article, even though it is included in the Bush article. --xDanielx^Talk 01:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:N reform ... long overdue?

Yet another example of WP:N apparently being mis-used to support deletion, even when the advocates of removal seem to demonstrate very little familiarity with the subject in the deletion discussion.

This is just plain sad.

We, diligent in our ever-watchful patrol against "Original Research" in articles, nonetheless seem oblivious to this infraction when it comes to deletion discussions. Jimbo once justifiably stated that vague assertions of "I seem to remember hearing about this someplace or another" are not adequate grounds for inclusion in WP.

Yet the opposite case: "I ain't never heard of it, and a quick-and-sloppy Google search didn't turn up much, so it must not be notable" seems to have not only credibility in WP deletion talks ... this attitude seems to be de rigeur. It would seem "Original Research" and even "guess-work" are just fine and dandy when it comes to proposing legitimate content for the bit-bucket.

Just plain sad. dr.ef.tymac 18:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Important note: The preceding remarks are not directed at any specific WP users or contributors. Although a specific article was linked, it is for illustration purposes only. No inference should be made about other contributors or the validity and good faith of their viewpoints. I offer these remarks simply as generalizations based on my own (possibly biased) perspectives. Reasonable people can, and do, disagree. dr.ef.tymac 18:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I really dont see anything wrong here. That software is lacking "significant coverage from independent sources". If such coverage is found, then it should be kept Corpx 19:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I just provided three separate articles that specifically mention this software in the context of a well-publicized dispute centering on intellectual property rights in education. If you are an educator, a lawyer, a business owner or an entrepreneur researching this issue, it's significant. dr.ef.tymac 00:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Would it make you feel better if instead of "non-notable" people said "not been shown to be notable"? Because that's the real point. That's not original research, it's noting that the proponents of an article have not yet done anything to establish the notability of the subject. It's good form to make some effort to look for sources before one says that a subject has not been shown to be notable, but one is under no obligation to conduct extensive research to find obscure sources. PubliusFL 20:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

True, there is no such obligation, but the definition of "obscure" is subjective. Moreover, what is obscure to you may be blatantly obvious to someone in a different profession or field of endeavor. Topics that are very significant in specialized fields may have little or no obvious coverage that can be revealed through your garden-variety Google-whacking.

So, to answer your question, no. That doesn't particularly "make me feel better" ... what would be acceptable is something like: "I have over [x] years of experience in the field of [y], and based on that experience, I do not consider this subject encyclopedic" ... otherwise, how does one distinguish "not shown to be notable" from "something I personally haven't heard of yet" ... the latter smells more like a popularity contest than a test of "encyclopedic merit" ... like I said, I'm sure others disagree, but that's my 2 bits. dr.ef.tymac 00:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you're proposing that only experts be allowed to weigh in on whether something is notable or not. Which seems more like, say, Citizendium than Wikipedia. You ask how one distinguishes "not shown to be notable" from "something I personally haven't heard of yet." It seems pretty obvious to me: sources. Proponents of an article bear the burden of showing that an article is notable. If no one can come up with sources meeting the standards of WP:N, it's presumed not to be notable in Wikipedia terms. That doesn't mean it's absolutely not notable. Maybe there's a really great book or set of articles out there on the subject that no interested editor has yet come across. But when one does come across them, notability will be established and an article will be justified. The alternative is essentially to rely on a negative proof fallacy by saying "this article is notable unless you can prove it's not." Perversely, that would create an incentive for people not to find sources for their articles, because they could always oppose deletion on the grounds that everyone else hasn't looked hard enough to find sources that might be out there somewhere. PubliusFL 01:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you're proposing that only experts be allowed to weigh in...

No. I am asserting that someone with familiarity on a topic tends to have more credibility than someone with zero familiarity ... (this should be too obvious to even need mentioning).

It seems pretty obvious to me: sources.

Sure, and it seems pretty obvious to me that experts have more credibility than random Google-whackers ... but then "should be obvious" and "practical reality" do not always coincide here on WP, that much is clear.

Even when sources are provided, people still sometimes ignore those as "trivial reference" or "not reliable enough" ... even in the face of obvious refutation by people more familiar with the subject matter. Also, even in featured articles, not everything is precisely sourced. It's a fact. Anyway, notability is not always properly applied, even when sources *do* exist and links are provided.

The alternative is essentially to rely on a negative proof

No it isn't. That has nothing to do with it. Someone advocating content out of ignorance is no better than someone opposing content out of ignorance. If no one familiar with the subject participates in the discussion, then clearly a delete vote has no less credibility than a keep vote. I'm talking about situations where the uninformed assertions are directly refuted by someone who actually knows a thing or two about the topic, but the uninformed perspectives win out anyway.

Especially troubling is the implication that "if you want insight from experts, go to Citizendium" (!!!) To me, that is a huge warning signal. It tends to imply that WP is not a serious research tool, but a popularity contest. Is that kind of sentiment in the best interests of building the "world's largest repository of free knowledge"? Is that going to result in a better, more authoritative and respected "Encyclopedia"? dr.ef.tymac 02:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Then we'd need guidelines on who is qualified to comment on a topic and who is not. Are you going to post proof of your expertise in this area? I just dont think this is practical, and hence the reliance on independent sources to prove notability Corpx 02:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere have I proposed that certain people be prohibited from commenting on a topic.

There's nothing to stop non-experts from contributing to any discussion, any article, or even asking for help in some situations. However, if I am not a Botanist, it makes absolutely no sense for my opinions to carry as much weight as someone who is; if we are talking about deleting the article Botany ... or even if we are talking about deleting Asterids.

Besides, WP already uses reliance on experts as standard for article improvement. (See e.g., Template:Expert). Why is it not practical to first require that an article be tagged using that template as a prerequisite for deletion review under WP:N? Either WP values the input of informed contributors, or it doesn't. If an article is purely gibberish crap that requires no expertise to discern, then WP:CSD (if properly applied) already covers that.

Anyway, "proof of expertise" really is beside the point. Proof can always be fabricated; credentials can always be forged. It doesn't take long for a Botanist to discern whether someone else is familiar in the area, or at least capable of simulating familiarity. If someone wants to lie about their expertise, no guideline in the world will totally stop that. Sometimes lies can be detected and uncovered quickly, sometimes not.

The point is, under the current approach, a contributor doesn't even have to worry about faking familiarity (let alone expertise) before proposing WP:N deletion. To say that simply doesn't matter, or to say "we don't do that here, go try Citizendium" is just more than a little bit odd. dr.ef.tymac 03:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's where you're going wrong, I think. You say: "Someone advocating content out of ignorance is no better than someone opposing content out of ignorance. If no one familiar with the subject participates in the discussion, then clearly a delete vote has no less credibility than a keep vote." Not so. Wikipedia policies such as WP:V are based on the principle that advocating content out of ignorance is worse than opposing content out of ignorance. For example, WP:V says "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Someone who knows nothing at all about a subject should be able to say "hey, this article has no reliable sources at all," and if no one has come up with any sources by the end of the AFD process, it should be deleted. Also per WP:V, "any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source," (emphasis added) so unsourced articles need not be allowed to sit around for months.

You also say: "I'm talking about situations where the uninformed assertions are directly refuted by someone who actually knows a thing or two about the topic, but the uninformed perspectives win out anyway." If the person "who actually knows a thing or two" adds multiple independent sources with significant information about the subject, there shouldn't be any problem with WP:N. If articles are still being deleted in such situations, the problem lies somewhere other than this guideline. But if the person who "actually knows a thing or two" doesn't offer reliable sources to back up what they say, the "uninformed perspectives" probably should win out. Again, you're forgetting that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." No editor has the right to say "trust me, I know what I'm talking about" and have other editors just take his or her word for it. Anyways, if they can't provide sources to allow us to verify the claims they're making about the article, how can we verify the claims they're making about their expertise? PubliusFL 16:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Some points you may wish to ponder (I split your long reply into 2 paragraphs for clarity and formatting):

1) The first paragraph of your last response has nothing to do with what I am talking about here.
2) please re-read: ... I'm not talking about content that is totally unsubstantiated by references. If that were the only issue, there would be no need to be talking about this on WP:N (it would already be resolved by WP:V and WP:RS).
3) What I am talking about is uninformed viewpoints prevailing over informed viewpoints that do have substantiation.
4) I haven't forgotten about the "threshold for inclusion" in Wikipedia. That is another irrelevant point, again, I'm not talking about totally unsubstantiated content.
5) (You said) No editor has the right to say "trust me, I know what I'm talking about." (I reply) I never advocated your "trust me" approach. Again, you refute points I never asserted to begin with. You have the right to mistrust whomever you wish. If your skepticism is well-founded, you have the right to contest the validity of any claim. If you can back it up with sources, you will have more credibility. If you cannot however, back it up with sources, and you do not know the first thing about the subject matter of the article to begin with, you will have very little credibility in the eyes of someone who knows what they are talking about. It's really a very simple principle.
6) Since you've refuted points I never asserted to begin with, it seems as though you are missing my basic point. Here, therefore, is an illustration:

Johnny: The article steareth-70 should be deleted because it fails WP:N

Toxicologist: steareth-70 is a well-known substance that is relevant in the areas of consumer product safety and toxicology.

Johnny: Oh yeah? Well if it's notable, I should be able to find something about it on Google. It can't be possible that people use steareth-70 anymore because there is hardly anything on Google.

Toxicologist: Regardless of how much it is used, steareth-70 is definitely notable. Besides, there are plenty of references that mention it, here are several links to articles that mention it [1][2][3]. (links to respected journals of toxicology).

Johnny: Nah, that doesn't count, steareth-70 is only given trivial mention in those articles.

Toxicologist: I'm not sure how you define "trivial mention" but nearly every recent clinical study on carcinogenic properties of additives derives directly from studies done on steareth-70.

Johnny: You need to provide a citation to verify that.

Toxicologist: There are many, but none of them are freely available over the internet through Google. Frankly I'm a bit surprised by your demand, since no accredited toxicologist would dispute this.

Sally: I agree with Johnny, steareth-70 should be deleted. I'm also betting you're not really a toxi-whatever.

Toxicologist: Oh really? O.k. well don't take my word for it, contact any working toxicologist and ask them whether Steareth-70 is notable.

Sally: Nuh-uh. It's your burden to provide reliable sources to prove your claims ... and frankly, the opinion of "supposed" toxi-whatsits doesn't count for squat here ... go to Citizendium. The only thing that counts here is links to reliable sources.

Toxicologist: I already gave you three links.

Sally: Those don't count ... trivial mention.

Toxicologist: I thought you just said all that counts are references. You seem to also be counting your personal interpretation of the references as well. That wouldn't be so bad if you appeared to have at least passing familiarity with this area. Anyway, I don't have the time for this ... have fun ...

As I said previously, either WP values informed contributions, or it doesn't. Anyway that's my .02 for now ... have fun.

(By the way, don't bother getting sidetracked on steareth-70 ... it's yet another item that is not relevant to my central point, this is just an illustration). dr.ef.tymac 19:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this is dancing around the point. Reliable source are the key pillar at Wikipedia (if you disagree, you are arguing in the wrong place). If reliable sources do not exist for a topic, the article should be deleted, I think we all agree on that. The question is can non experts be tasked with determining if enough reliable source exist to write an article, I say probably yes. Let me give an example of how a deletion debate like Dreftymac's hypothetical should unfold.

Johnny: I have been unable to find any quality references to stearth-70 by doing a Google search. Unless someone can provide quality sources my vote stands at Delete.

Toxicologist: You are right it is hard to find sources on Google, but here are a couple [1],[2] that mention it is passing. In any case, steareth-70 is notable and is covered in significant detail on page X-Y of Bill's Guide to Toxicology and issue N of Toxicology Monthly both of which are reliable sources. I will add them to the reference section of the steareth-70 page.

Johnny:~~Delete~~Keep thanks for providing sources.

I don't think it has to be any more complex then that. In some cases where a hoax or vanity issue is possible, someone may want to check the print references. It does not take an expert to look at a reference list and determine if a subject has sufficient sources from which to write an article. --Daniel J. Leivick 22:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

AHH! ... Thank you, Daniel J. Leivick, if this illustration you provided were indicative of most (or even many) WP:N deletion reviews, I'd never have started this thread in the first place. There would be no cause for concern. The problem is, many times Johnny doesn't simply stop there, but he goes on to specify why "Toxicology Monthly" is not a reliable source, or second-guesses a mention as "trivial" ... or goes on to provide a tangential debate that makes you wonder if he's even read the references at all. It's even worse if "Toxicology Monthly" does not have a free online version available to the general public, or if "Toxicology Monthly" touches on abstruse subjects with an impenetrably dense editorial style (even from the perspective of established practitioners).

In fact, (talking solely from my own anecdotal first-hand experience), I've never seen a person immediately change a WP:N delete vote to a keep vote after being provided with references. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I can't remember ever seeing it first-hand. Of course, I don't see a lot of Shooting Stars either, that doesn't necessarily mean they are rare. I agree with you though, it doesn't really have to be more complicated than the illustration you gave ... it would be nice to see something like that actually happen.dr.ef.tymac 02:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: Just to clarify, I totally agree that hoax, vanity, dubious and inappropriate content does not belong in WP. We all surely agree that reliable references are crucial. My points should be narrowly construed to apply only to the type of scenario I mention in the illustration. dr.ef.tymac 03:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Even scholarly references don't count

Even after providing numerous scholarly references to a subject, contributors persist with "delete" votes, dismissing all the references with a wave of the hand. I still have yet to see a delete changed to a keep after references were provided, ( although apparently one user did at least acknowledge that a simple search of Google scholar would have been enough, after registering a "delete" vote [but the vote was not officially changed to a "keep" or "neutral" despite this observation] ). Perhaps WP should really just stop calling itself an "Encyclopedia". dr.ef.tymac 07:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This is, indeed, depressing. It's the main reason I don't contribute much these days. Trollderella 23:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The closing admin is supposed to take into account changes to the article during the period of the AFD and adjust interpretation of the discussion accordingly. If the primary concern by persons desiring delete was a lack of references, for the closing admin to ignore the fact that there is no longer a basis for these arguments for deletion isn't properly closing the AFD ... in my opinion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You must be new here. Trollderella 02:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

as a back-up, "additional references" is one of the relatively few arguments that seem to work at Deletion Review. DGG (talk) 02:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I've changed my mind a lot of times after somebody who "voted" after me provided reliable sources attesting to notability Corpx 04:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Political parties

I posted a comment on this talk in April, but got zero response, so I'm reposting it: I propose the construction of a separate subpage for judging notability of political parties. Notability in politics is clearly different from the procedure when judging notability on companies and commercial chains. A significant difference lies in that political parties (generally speaking) contest elections, a criteria that is widely different than presence in a market. --Soman 08:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

There's not at all a different standard, in use or needed. If the party is covered in multiple reliable secondary sources, then we should have enough material to make a decent article and assert notability, just like anything else. Market presence (popularity) is not a measure of notability. Vassyana 20:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

If a verifiable article can be written, then that should be enough. Trollderella 23:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Political parties fall under the notability guideline WP:ORG. I'd suggest you check there if you want to expand on the details. >Radiant< 09:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

New Bot

I have had an idea for a bot that would help out a lot on AfD's, esepecially those regarding notability, by providing references and information for new articles. See my ideas etc at User:TheFearow/RefBot. Please direct comments/criticisms/ideas to that pages talk page. Thanks! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations! To everyone who put in such hard work a few months back and to those who have continued to fine tune the work. This really seems to be a good guideline and finally stable. --Kevin Murray 20:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Fiction

I'll see what it does to our coverage of fictional subjects before I say anything. It could apparently be used to reduce the field to a fraction of what it is, which isn't a desirable option to any but the most stringent deletionist, and the day we harm the encyclopedia to help the rules -- eh, you know the rest. --Kizor 23:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Fiction has a subject specific guideline at: Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). --Kevin Murray 00:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I’d prefer to direct questions about fiction to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). WP:FICTION is mostly a derivative of WP:N and what remains is better covered by WP:WAF. Kizor’s fears are well based. When it comes to fiction, there is an awful lot original research and excessive plot summary out there. --SmokeyJoe 01:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Is WP:FICTION obsolete? Should it be superseded and marked with the historical tag? --Kevin Murray 01:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

No more obsolete than all of these, I would assume. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Especially since it was just rewritten to comply with WP:NOT and WP:N (the previous version contradicted both). If used correctly, the new WP:FICT will help to remove or relocate a ton of minor fictional sub-articles in a reasonable fashion. — Deckill er 01:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Largely redundant, but no, not obsolete. Different bands of editors have kept various notability guidelines remarkably up to date. Currently, the ambiguous terminology and difficult logic is substantially improved over past versions, in my opinion. A problem with so many redundant guidelines is complexity to the unsuspecting newcomer. --SmokeyJoe 01:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree on both points. The notability scheme is still a bit complex when you first walk into it, but the guidelines coexist with each other much better these days than they used to.--Kubigula (talk) 02:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability of journalists

While I realize there was a guideline previously proposed at Wikipedia:Notability (journalists) on this topic, it died on the vine, and I'm wondering if there's a hole that needs to be filled with regards to notability of journalists. This AFD is what spurred me to wonder just what kind of criteria we should be applying to journalists when determining notability. Looking at the results of searches for that particular person (the current editor of Food & Wine Magazine) suggests that with a number of popular books bearing her name, as well as a large number of incidences where she's quoted as an expert in her field, if she were an academic she would probably pass WP:PROF; however, because she's an editor, the current trend is towards a merge with the magazine. I've participated in another AFD that involved a freelance writer where the decision was keep based on body of work, which I at the time felt was a marginal decision (and which apparently someone agreed with, as it was killed via PROD some months later).

We have quite a lot of articles on journalists (a random sampling of which indicates the need for some clearing out) but it seems to me that we don't have a regular set of rules to determine notability for them. I guess my question is: should there be something specific set out for journalists, or do they fall into one of the other sets of guidelines? Tony Fox (arf!) 17:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we have it already: in WP:BIO there is a "creative professionals" section (which explcitly mentions journalists and editors). It lists the following crteria:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.

The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.

The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

Hope this helps. UnitedStatesian 17:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hadn't seen that one before, in that context. Wow. That's quite restrictive. I'd think that someone who had managed to work his or her way up to the top position at a well-known national magazine would be able to assert notability, but under those, they have nothing. Interesting. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

National magazine where? Uganda? Nepal? Peru? Nil Einne 19:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I propose to cancel this "notabilty" thing

This "notability" thing is beurocratic idiotism. I mean, yeah shure the party is small but fact is it exists, so why not to have this information on Wikipedia?? The idea of Wikipedia was to have Maximum information. One of the reasons i fell in love with the Wikipedia so much is because i found on it even the smallest, unknown to the masses, "not notible", information. Those notability laws are dengerous and mean "regression" for Wikipedia. As long as the information in the article is correct, it's a serious encyclopedia. The more articles, subject the encyclipedia covers, and that includes covering the most unknown themes, the better and more serious it is. The whole idea for an internet-encyclopedia is that it has now restrictions like money on pages and paint and stuff like that, and it's a crime not to use that greate advantage. I mean, why restrict ourselves when we dont have to?? I personaly oppose to those "nobility" laws. M.V.E.i. 19:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You aren't alone. However, we ahve wrangled with this for months and produced a more inclusive concept of notability as a compromise. I think greater inclusion is good, but there is an extreme to be avoided. --Kevin Murray 19:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- MVEi, it's simple: if National Bolshevik Party of Israel is to have proper encyclopedia article, it should include reliable external sources of information to verify all claims. It's perfectly reasonable that each article should have an explicit (or heavily implicit) demonstration of encyclopedic note, which is most readily demonstrated by in-depth coverage from 3rd parties. The extreme position that Kevin alludes to, one of absolute or near-absolute inclusion would result in Wikipedia becoming what it's decidedly not supposed to be, namely a directory of indiscriminate original research (with a fresh soapbox-y smell) vanispamcruftisements. The Notability criteria are seriously not that hard to meet, and every time they are met article quality improves. — Scientizzle 20:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to point out that WP:NOT is an official policy, while WP:N is only a guideline. My point here is that we can do away with notability and still have no fear that Wikipedia will become an indiscriminate collection of information.

Scientizzle, I agree with you that establishing notability improves pages. But I believe in that sense we are talking about the content of the page; in that sense notability works as a style guideline, as if there were a rule that said "write articles in such a way that their notability is apparent". But this is not what the actual notability guideline says, to my reading. Rather, it says that topics should be notable, and actually demonstrating the notability in the page content is less important. -- BenBildstein 04:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I've also partially responded below, incorporating some of your concerns w/ MVEi's most recent post in this thread. Simply put, I consider WP:N to be a pragmatic extension of WP:NOT, existing as a consensus-derived clarification of the policy's language on a topic's "suitab[ility] for inclusion". I think reasonable people can disagree on the wording of these guidelines, and on their applied usage, for sure. I agree with you that, philosophically, there should be no need for these guidelines as they exist as a general synthesis of policy concerns and how best to meet them, with the given flexibility of consensus determination; but, practically, I think abandoning the (non-binding) clarifications provided by these guidelines would result in more general confusion, less consistency in content and greater overall strife (despite how loud the wailings can get after an article deletion based on notability concerns). — Scientizzle 19:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

When Jimbo Wales was asked about "the proper crieria for inclusion/exclusion", he responded that "'verifiability' has long been accepted as a decision rule"[1]. Specifically on "Notability/Historical/Fame and importance", Jimbo said that "'fame' and 'importance' are not the right words to use, they are merely rough approximations to what we're really interested in, which is verifiability and NPOV."[2]

How else do we justify that there is a Wiki article for every single episode of The Simpson,[3], or a thousand pieces of rock,[4]. Are they all significantly notable from one another? I doubt it. Do I think they are all notable.. no. Do most people think they are all notable... I doubt it. Should we delete most of them? Hell no. Who knows when I might need to know something about the bit of rock called 490 Veritas (latin for Truth) --85.21.143.245 22:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone should put together a list of links to every "do away with WP:N" proposal. Here's a start:

[5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

Perhaps it will help to also search Google, using the terms "abolish" "do away with" "get rid of" ... or something totally random like "kansas_cur_peaking" ... just to see if that turns up anything. It might take a while, but it's probably possible to track down every talk page post where someone proposes to repeal or substantially limit WP:N. dr.ef.tymac 02:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That's like tracking down every time a team loses. They still lost, and in this case, all those proposals for removal were still rebutted and the consensus was to keep. Saying, "look...12 people thought we should remove this guideline" should be followed with "all these other people disagreed, and the page was kept". There are probably hundreds of thousands, or more users on Wikipedia. If you want to remove this guideline, I'd probably suggest you find a wider venue for consensus, something that attracts more than just a handful of editors. You can't disengage a guideline, especially one that's been in practice for so long, with a simply discussion on the talk page. You need to find consensus in a much wider field. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Or we can compile a list of the scads of editors in the past week, the majority of whom do not visit this talk page, who actually employed notability standards in deletion discussions, prods and other places.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Bignole There are lots of reasons why I disagree with that analogy, but I will limit myself to just two:

1) the "lose/win" dichotomy is a tad misleading, especially since individual discussions (unlike individual coin tosses) can exhibit Path dependence (and the "game" never really ends); and 2) not everyone sees it as a "win/lose" in the first place ... some might just be happy to see that their thoughts have been well-covered elsewhere, and then simply not bother with yet another anti-WP:N posting.

I bet even some of the folks you might call the "losers" are sensible enough to not want to waste keystrokes. "Why is it we don't have an article on XYZ, yet we have an article for every single episode of the Simpsons?" ... has been already asked numerous times. Some folks just don't realize that yet. Easy access to historical context may help fill that knowledge gap.

This whole "win/lose" perspective is pretty interesting though, my guess is some of the more dedicated proponents of WP:N (aka "the winners") must feel pretty beleaguered. If so, I don't blame them. dr.ef.tymac 02:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It's just an analogy, and not a criticism or a "haha we won" remark. The point of the analogy is the point out the fallacy in simply stating "let's go find every time someone questioned this page and use that as a reason to dismantle it". The point is, every time someone says such a thing, a discussion takes place and the result is to keep the page. You are focusing on the specific words I used to analyze the situation, don't, look at the idea behind it. Also, you bring up the Simpsons. You might want to venture over to WP:EPISODE, as I'm sure you are aware that there is a current review process going on for all articles that do not assert notability in regards to episode articles. There are many many many many television show articles on Wikipedia, and with that, probably about 10 times (or more) as many individual episode articles for those shows, most are just plots and trivia and in no way warrant a separate mention. The Simpsons articles you refer to are probably going to be last on the list. Why? One reason is that the show has like 17, 18 seasons, with like 20 episodes a season. That would take forever. And, the reason it isn't getting tackled early is because every episode in season 8 of that show, not only has its own article, but is either featured or GA status. That says that group of editors in that WikiProject is working hard to bring those articles up to code, and their effort shows by the fact that they have an entire season in good standing. They're aren't all great quality articles, but they source information that estabishes notability. Simple production isn't something that establishes notability, unless the production itself is notable in some way...what it does is provide context for the article. Notability is established through significant coverage from outside sources. Most production information comes from limited sources, like commentaries or "making of" books, which isn't "significant coverage". To detach from The Simpsons, Smallville has an article devoted to its pilot, but not to the rest of the series. The rest of the series is found at Smallville (season 1), which covers all the production for the rest of the first season, and provides information on that season's coverage outside the primary source, something that each individual episode lacks. The reason episode XYZ doesn't exist would be because it doesn't follow the guideline, or the policies the guideline is based on. The reason Simpsons' episode XYY does exist is either because it follows all those things, or people haven't gotten around to reviewing it for reasons stated above. There are far too many television episode articles out there for them all to just vanish and there be no more "why is this still here, when it looks just like this other episode that got deleted". Things take time to work themselves out. Some articles (stepping away from the fictional ones since this is the basic Notability guideline) just get fingered first. There are almost 2 million articles on Wikipedia right now, and if we say that 10% of them fail all notability guidelines, that's about 19,528 articles that would fail. That's a lot, and it would take time to actually go through and review, discuss and take action on each individual one. We can't simply say "good bye" and not have a discussion about how it can be improved, that would cause even more of a stir. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

On the issue of The Simpsons, a couple of things. First, I think the individual episode pages are well written and deserve their featured or GA status. Also I love The Simpsons and I'd hate to see the articles removed.

But the notability guideline says specifically, at the top of the page, "These guidelines pertain to the suitability of article topics". It is irrelevant for the purposes of establishing notability whether the article is well written or complete. The question you have to ask (according to the guideline), is "is this topic notable". For example (random example of Simpsons episode), "Is My Mother the Carjacker, the second episode of season 15, notable?". Has it received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? That's precisely what the notability guideline says you should ask.

Now I can almost guarantee that this question is not being asked by people before they add new episodes. And for a lot of episodes, I suggest that they are not notable, by this definition. Or at least they are not all notable. But what if 75% of them were. Wouldn't it suck to have a quality encyclopaedic page on most but not all of the episodes? I suppose what I'm getting at is that we should keep these episodes, not because they are notable but precisely because they are well written, complete, and fit well together. And I guess it's not that far from that point of view to thinking we should scrap notability (as a topic inclusion guideline, though establishing notability in the content of an article will always be a good thing). -- BenBildstein 04:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(To BIGNOLE): Unfortunately, your very long reply seems to miss my very basic point in item 2).

The point ... is the ... fallacy in simply stating "let's go find every time someone questioned this page and use that as a reason to dismantle it"

The "reason to dismantle it" part is where you missed my point. That's just one way of justifying links.

There is another, completely unrelated justification for links: to help people to discover that their anti-WP:N opinions have already been expressed by someone else in the past, and thus save them the trouble of repeating arguments that have already been made before, or perhaps save them the trouble from posting at all.

I offered the "Simpsons" as an example of an argument that has been made before, many times. I wasn't offering it as a rationale for canceling WP:N. Please re-read my reply closely and try to imagine a world where there are other perspectives besides "win/lose" or "cancel/keep". Try to imagine a world where people read past discussions and think to themselves: "Oh, I didn't realize I was not the first person to think of this, I guess I won't bother to bring it up again."

Perhaps such a world doesn't exist, but if it does, past links can help; and it is a rationale that has little to do with providing "reasons to dismantle" WP:N. dr.ef.tymac 03:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, Dreftymac. I would really like to see a page discussing all the issues, for and against notability, as a reference page not a discussion, with reasons why the consensus decision was to have notability. It would be very, very valuable. There's too much of an is-ness to notability, and not enough of a why-ness, in my opinion. After all, there are no hard and fast rules on Wikipedia, right, but with notability it's really hard to figure out when you should break the rules because it doesn't explain what the actual intent of the guideline is.

And to clarify, I actually, honestly, believe such an explanatory page could convince me that notability is good, if it is good. I'm not just saying we need it as a way of arguing that the "for" reasons don't exist.

Unfortunately, I'm not volunteering to embark on this mission. -- BenBildstein 04:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but there's an arithmetic error above. 10% would be more like 190,000 articles not 19,000. Going through these one by one, at the rate of 100 a day, would take more than five years. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Been here, done this. The problem is, without notability, we'd see a lot of problematic articles. For example, without notability, I could write an article on my car, and it would be perfectly appropriate.

(What?)

Now here's how that works. Public records (city documents) verify that it exists, and those documents are entirely reliable. Further, the car was involved in an accident once, so that police report provides information regarding it not derived from original research. Finally, the article could pretty easily be written in a neutral tone. What keeps those types of garbage articles out is this—the requirement that subjects be treated in accordance with their significance, and how significant the sourcing is. Every car in the city has those public records, every car that's ever been in an accident has an accident report about it. Nothing special, nothing significant. Notability also helps with the problem in NPOV (which is policy) of undue weight. Quite often, we're giving a subject undue weight by covering it at all, other times we give it significantly undue weight by having 50 articles related to it when there should be 1 or 2. Notability helps to guard against this. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. WP:N does solve the 'article on my car' problem, but WP:NOT does it even better. Notability is a guideline, while What Wikipedia is Not is official policy. WP:NOT will protect us without the need for WP:N. That's the whole thing about the 'article on my car': it's useless. And so including it would be turning Wikipedia into an indiscriminate collection of information. Other articles are useful, interesting, encyclopaedic and yet not notable, and so the notability guideline gets in the way of us keeping a useful page that WP:NOT would certainly not exclude. -- BenBildstein 04:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The article on Seraphimblade's car is useless and uninteresting? Well, I say it's more useful than electricity and more interesting than The Prince. And those articles on Antarctica and quantum physics — boring and completely useless; just get rid of them already. ... The employment of purely subjective criteria like "useful" and "interesting" will turn any disagreement into a pointless back-and-forth expression of personal preferences. The requirement of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources is an infinitely more objective criterion. Moreover, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We, as editors, should not make personal determinations of what's useful or interesting. Instead, we should reflect the published evaluations of others. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying (though I don't appreciate your hyperbole), and I agree that objective criteria are needed. However, I believe that the content policies have the underlying goal of creating useful and interesting articles. I also believe that they generally do it well. Verifiability, no original research, and a neutral point of view make articles more useful and interesting. When we obey these policies, our goal is not articles that are verifiable, with no original research and a neutral point of view, but rather quality encyclopaedic content. Otherwise we wouldn't have the ignore all rules policy. -- BenBildstein 05:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I meant no offense with the example; I was presenting an exaggerated point based on the example being discussed in order to convey my thoughts clearly. I apologise if it came across as sarcastic or otherwise inappropriate. In response to your point: I think that the content policies of "verifiability", "no original research", and "neutral point of view" have the underlying goal of creating accurate and balanced articles, but alone do not ensure that content is encyclopedic. WP:NOT tells us what we shouldn't write, but it doesn't say what we should write. That's where the notability guidelines come in, telling us that we should write about topics that others consider worthy of note (i.e. that have received non-trivial coverage in reliable sources). — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, I think we want accurate and balanced articles because they are more useful and interesting. We don't want accurate and balanced articles that aren't useful or interesting - that's why it's policy that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

And yes, I agree that we need an objective criterion.

I... don't think WP:N tells us what to write. I don't think anything tells us what to write. Taking a step back for a moment, I think the policies can only tell us what not to write, because when we do write, we write because we want to. It seems almost as if what we try to achieve with the policies is some kind of definitive guide to what shouldn't be on Wikipedia, and we hope that by the many users principle, everything else will end up getting written. Kind of the opposite of the tragedy of the commons :)

To get back to the point, I believe we would have objective and useful inclusion criteria without notability. Are we in agreement or disagreement about that? -- BenBildstein 06:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

An accurate and balanced article is not necessarily "useful" or "interesting" (however we define those terms). I can write an accurate and balanced article on myself (using government records, educational transcripts, records of financial transactions) or my house (using city, construction, and title transfer records), but those subjects are still not inclusion-worthy because they has not been covered non-trivially in reliable sources (i.e. others have not considered it worthy of non-trivial mention).

Our inclusion criteria could still be objective in the absence of the notability guidelines, but I don't believe they would be. Regardless of what policy says, people will still want to delete articles on Seraphimblade's car or my neighbour's home. However, the removal of the notability guidelines would give primacy to (subjective) personal evaluations of "worthiness" and "usefulness" over (objective) actual coverage in sources. As for my prior comparison of WP:NOT and WP:N, I ought to have used "can" in place of "should": WP:NOT tells us what we can't write and WP:N tells us what we can. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that the notability guideline doesn't say anything about whether or not you can write about Seraphimblade's car, yourself, or your house. It simply says they don't deserve their own pages. So it's not true to say "WP:N tell us what we can [write]" either. It just tells us how we can organise it.

As an aside, I personally wouldn't mind seeing an accurate and balanced article on your car, as long as it didn't contravene the other policies, including WP:NOT. I think a lot of the episodes of The Simpsons fail WP:N, but are still great articles that I personally am happy to have. (Here's the hypothetical: do you think before people start a new page on a new episode of The Simpsons, they ask themselves "has this episode received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject?") -- BenBildstein 07:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, notability tells us what subjects we can write about, but doesn't actually limit the content of articles. I'm surprised that you'd want to see an article on my car, considering that the same (or a similar) article could be written for millions of cars. We'd become a car/home/yellow pages/white pages directory rather than an encyclopedia. And the only way that WP:NOT can stop that in the absence of notability guidelines is if we resort to personal, subjective standards of "useful" and "interesting". As for your hypothetical question: I don't know whether the people starting articles on episodes of the The Simpsons ask themselves that, but if they don't, they should. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess what I was saying was that without notability, as long as you're not turning Wikipedia into an indiscriminate collection of information, I'm happy to see an article on your car. But I can't see how you could achieve that. But if you could, I wouldn't mind.

I understand what you are saying about how the notability guideline helps implement WP:NOT, but I don't agree. WP:NOT is a content guideline, but WP:N regulates the topics of pages and not their content. If the content is valid under the content policies, it should be merged into a more notable page, and the page of the non-notable topic should be deleted. Right? -- BenBildstein 00:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

If a suitable merge target exists, then certainly (although for copyright reasons the merged page must be retained as a redirect). However, there will often be cases when a suitable target does not exist (e.g. an article about a single car), even if the content is valid. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

In a nutshell, notability is simply confirming that there are enough reliable third party sources to create an encyclopedic article. If a topic is notable, there should be enough. If there aren't enough, it's highly questionable whether a topic is notable enough for inclusion. To put it in another way, notability is recognizing that multiple third party sources have "taken note" of the subject in some substantial fashion. Vassyana 07:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The question is whats enough? If a band is given only two links but third party and good information why not to stay? The problem is that there are administrators who delete if they dont know the band only because they personaly dont know it. For example, i wrote 3 articles on 3 of the greatest Russian rock bands. And a administrator deleted them saying they are not notable, till another administrator, who knows the band and knows hoe notable they are restored them. M.V.E.i. 09:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

What's enough is up to us. AfD is where consensus can determine if one great link is enough or if 33 trivial sources isn't enough to create & maintain a proper article. This is the strength of the notability guidelines: they provides rather simple, relatively inclusive baselines at which each article creator can aim. They then provide mutiple examples of consensus-derived checkmarks that can assist in the unambiguous assertion and verification of claims of notability. In a deletion debate, the guidelines provide a focus for notability claims (rather than a vague, "Band X should be deleted because it isn't notable", WP:BAND makes the satement clearer that Band X hasn't generally received nontrivial media coverage, toured, released anything of note, etc., each of which can be independently researched and somewhat objectively determined). Deletion discussion participants are then free to interpret the presented information and weigh its sum total against policy considerations, which includes the WP:NOT assertion that subjects must be "suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". The notability guidelines provide a rational mechanism to avoid reinventing the wheel, i.e., de novo defining of "suitable for inclusion" in each separate instance. In the end, however, it's up to us as editors to determine that suitability, and WP:N et al. are a useful framework from which to focus our encyclopedia building efforts whilst improving the signal-to-noise ratio of truly useful truly encyclopedic information.

Where I will agree that there's an issue, is perhaps the too-wide and too-wild application of CSDA7. I'm probably guilty of this, too, but a little less speedy tagging and a little more help for the newbies would be a positive thing, socially and informationally. But that's not really a WP:N problem, but a WP:CSD problem... — Scientizzle 19:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus has never been a reliable indicator of the world's knowledge. Jimbo said that "if a view is held only by a few people without any traditional training or credentials, and if that view is dismissed by virtually all mainstream scientists, then we can say that, too."[11]. The object of an encyclopedia is to expain a subject, regardless of its notabilty by others. It's not for editors to determine notability, that's up to the reader.

I think you've completely misunderstood what Jimbo was saying. Jimbo was not saying that we should cover every single minority view that exists. We shouldn't. I could come up with some crack pot theory about how Kennedy was assasinated by a 6 year old Osama to ensure Bush would become President in 2000 and publish it on some crack pot website. Who knows, perhaps I could even get a few other crackpots to believe me. But this theory is so absurd that it's rather unlikely many people are going to read it let alone take their time to dismiss it. This minority view is clearly non-noteable and should not be covered in wikipedia yet according to you it should because it's a minority view. If a lot of people dismiss a minority view then I think most people would agree it's noteable otherwise no one is going to take the time to dismiss it. However this doesn't mean we should cover all minority views, frankly that's absurd Nil Einne 19:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Subject to WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS, yes, Jimbo was saying just that. He has confirmed that he want Wikipedia to be "the sum of all human knowledge"[12], not the sum of knowledge that certain editors consider notable. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Your crackpot theory is not verifiable, and is original research. Minority views are verifiable, and NPOV undue weight says that "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them"[13]. How else do we justify including 1000 articles on 1000 pieces of rock,[14]?

Proposal to stop deleting non-notable content

I am proposing a change to the deletion policy so that non-notable content is not removed from Wikipedia. After all, the notability guideline itself says that the guideline is not about content. It's only about whether or not a topic deserves its own page! I don't think we should be deleting good content just because it's on the wrong page.

That's exactly why notability is an important and appropriate consideration for deletion debates. It covers, as you say, "whether or not a topic deserves its own page". Vassyana 08:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying. I agree that the notability guideline suggests that the page shouldn't exist, but in any such situation we're stuck between a rock and a hard place: if we delete the page, we lose the content that we have nothing against; if we keep the page, we are not complying with the notability guideline.

I suggest that the former is the lesser of two evils, but to mitigate that, we can put something on the page asking people to merge the content into other page. Template:Notability, except saying "please merge this content into other more notable pages", instead of saying that it will be deleted. I'm suggesting a different solution to identified non-notability. One more in line with the notability guideline. -- BenBildstein 08:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Have we considered that, often, the content you are requesting be merged may have no place in Wikipedia? In addition, plenty of AfD debates end in merge, it's up to someone to do the merge. I am sure closing admins have no problem making content available to those who are trying to perform a merge as a result of an AfD. IvoShandor 08:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

For example, where do we merge Seraphim's car? Ford? (No offense by make meant). IvoShandor 08:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

We delete Seraphim's car. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -- BenBildstein 08:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

And thats the idiotique berucracy i talk about. Why to delete it?? Why not to have it?? What if someone learning the history of small carcompanies will want to learn about them, why not helping him? Thats what we say, it's better to have than not to have. Why not?? We wont have enough money for pages or color to print them? We must use the advantages the internet gives us. M.V.E.i. 08:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand your argument, but that's a separate issue. -- BenBildstein 09:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If the content has no place in Wikipedia, we should remove the content. I have no problem with that. I'm not arguing against the content policies.

See also the discussion taking place at Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy#Deleting_non-notable_content. If it's bad content, we should remove it, but if it's good content, I believe leaving it there in infringement of the notability guideline is the lesser of two evils. -- BenBildstein 08:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If an article is based on real facts, and it gives linkes to prove that, it has the right to be here. The more information we have the higher the level of the article. M.V.E.i. 08:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, that's a separate issue. -- BenBildstein 09:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thats exacly what were talking about, the "notabilty" laws that say that if a party is to little and unknown or somthing like that will be deleted. And thats just stupid man because think about it, why to delete information and make laws that restrict us, if we can have and nothing bad will hapen? I mean, were on the internet. We dont have to spent money on pages and colors and all the rest of the stuff. So lets collect maximum true information on maximom topics. M.V.E.i. 09:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You might be interested in this essay: Wikipedia:Non-notability/Essay. But there is also another policy that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (part of WP:NOT), and that's an official policy, which would be much harder to change than even Wikipedia:Notability. -- BenBildstein 09:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh sh** sorry man, wrong discussion hhh. My mistake. M.V.E.i. 09:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

So why does Seraphim's car get excluded, but not one of a thousand pieces of rock? In this case, it is the difference between trivial sources (government records), and published articles. Again, verifiability from reliable sources is the criteria, and "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them"[15] --222.90.144.166 09:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

And notable minority views can and do receive attention, such as the 9/11 conspiracy theories. In that case, however, there have been plenty of reliable sources written about these theories, even if many are written with the intent of disputing or debunking them. But there is no question that sufficient source material exists to have an article on the subject. Even the flat-earthers get a page, again, because there is reliable source material about them (though again, in most cases they're presented as a novelty or subject of ridicule, but how the sources present them is up to the source, not to us). There's still plenty of source material available. On the other hand, if some crackpot gets the idea that a group of aliens is in control of the whole world, this is not the place for that to be brought. He can do that on his blog. As to "the sum of all human knowledge", knowledge is not the same as information. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Minority views do no have to be notable. We have 1000 articles on 1000 pieces of rock,[16] few of which are any more notable than they other. We include them all because they are verifiable with reliable souces, not because they are notable. Likewise minority views do not have to achieve notability any more than a piece of rock; they all conform to WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS and are consequently notable.

I wanted to through my two cents in, notability means that a reliable source of the subject took note and thus an article can be sourced. Those thousand pieces of rocks are notable, they are in numerous asteroid catalogs which noted them. Seraphimblade's car is probably not notable unless a reliable source has written something substantial about it. In short notability=reliable sources. --Daniel J. Leivick 22:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Though I suspect that the multiple asteroid catalogues include entries that are based on a single primary source.

But how does this explain the articles on all the episides of the Simpsons (and much lesser series), where I doubt there is an independent reliable source on each, and the episode itself is the only source. It seems to me that each episode conforms to WP:V and is its own source? How does the compare to the books of an obscure author which have received no reviews, and the book itself is the source? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.186.65.88 (talk) 23:55:49, August 18, 2007 (UTC)

Why do people feel the need to play the "hey, they have the toy, how come I don't have the toy" game. There are almost 2 million articles on Wikipedia, we cannot monitor them all. People create things every day, that's why The Simpsons have an article for every episode, because someone created them and most people do not monitor the television WikiProject (except those apart of it). The entire season 8 of that series is either GA or FA status, so it proves they are working to make all those episodes meet guidelines and policies. But, even then there is a review process going around addressing all these television episode articles that do not meet guidelines. There just happens to be a lot of them so it isn't like it will all be addressed in a day. Since The Simpsons have a good record of satisfying the guideline, and the fact that it is the largest of the shows here, it will probably be the last one to get reviewed. Also, the only thing and episode can be its own source for is the plot section, and we have a policy about that. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

People play the toy game because they assume the same rules apply to all toys. When 1000 articles on 1000 thousand pieces of rock, most of which are non-notable, and have no rerferences to reliable sources, and people pick on my toys claiming notability issues, rather than clean up their own un-notable rubble, then I suspect that so-called notability is being abused. Since "notability = reliable sources", and we already have a policy on WP:RS, then I question the need for WP:NOTABLE.

I have no problems with aricles on a 1000 pieces of rock, or 500 episodes of the Simpson, or even two dozen shades of blue, despite few of them being any more notable than the rest. They are all verifiable.

If you believe that other crap should be deleted, feel free to prod it, or send it to AfD, or speedy tag it, but that doesn't mean anything else is alright. I also fail to see how asteroid articles can possibly be based on non-independent sources—did the asteroid write about itself? Likely, it's based on astronomy guides or the like, which are secondary sources. It may, however, be true that many of those asteroids have received only trivial mention in such sources, and would be covered better in a list form than by 1000 permastubs. You can go start editing that right now, if you want. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability Killed the Wikipedia Noob

I'd been a member of Wikipedia for a while, but not a contributor. At least not until a month or so ago. I was writing something for another site about Hate crimes against LGBT people, and in the course of my research came across the Wikipedia category and the Violence against LGBT people page. I immediately noticed there were a number of cases I knew of that were not included.

This, I thought, might be an opportunity to finally contribute to Wikipedia. I started researching cases, and writing them up with sources cited, etc. I contributed a number of entries. Two, on Nizah Morris and Nireah Johnson were featured in the "Did you know...?" section.

My mistake, though, was not reading through all the notability guidelines before the first keystroke. Had I done so, I might not have started. One article was deleted entirely, and the articles on Roberto Duncanson and Nireah Johnson have been challenged as not being notable enough, with the latter threatened with deletion. The notability criteria stated for the objections to the two articles were:

They were not the first crimes of their kind.
They did not receive widespread coverage, were not "high profile," and did not involve "high profile" victims.
They did not cause major protests.
They did not inspire new laws.

I didn't read those specific criteria under the notability guidelines, but apparently they fall within the criteria.

I have many more stories left to research and write up. In fact, I have a list of potential cases that's well over 100. But none of them are recent news. So WikiNews is not the right place for them. Most of them did not receive widespread mainstream coverage. Most of them did not inspire major protests. And almost none of them inspired new legislation.

So there may not be a place for them on Wikipedia. And I can't know unless I write them up, publish them, and see what happens. I can only guess that they will not be notable enough for Wikipedia, and the hours I spend researching and writing them up here may very well be wasted.

I'd hoped that recording the facts of these cases on Wikipedia would make them accessible to more people. But that's because I believe that what happened to these people is worthy of notice. Somewhere. But maybe not here. And I don't know where. At least not where they might get attention now.

I may attempt to start an independent site where these cases can be documented with full citations, etc. But that will have have the disadvantage of starting from square one, and having many other sites to compete with. So it may be that the people whose stories I'm recording really aren't worthy of notice.

This was my first experience contributing to Wikipedia. Right now I do not see how it will not also end up being my last. There are so many flaming hoops, I can't possibly jump through them all, not without getting singed. TerranceDC 23:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Just looking briefly at the articles in question, I don't see any notability problem. There are in each case multiple news articles on each hate crime, and that's enough to pass the threshhold of notability. COGDEN 18:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see a notability issue. I see a size issue, and the subject may be better "organized" in a larger topic, but the significant coverage in outside, reliable sources satisfies the guideline it was tagged as not fulfilling. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Lists

Sorry I was just wondering how articles which are lists meet the notability guideline. The notability guideline suggests that the topic of a page has to be notable but the contents do not. In a list often the oposite is the case with the contents notable but the topic itself not, does there have to be significant coverage of a list or are they considered differently. For a list to be have an article do there have to be multiple sources describing such a list? Sorry if this comes up a lot or if there some handy guideline that I've missed that someone could point me towards. Guest9999 - sorry tilde key's broken. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Guest9999 (talk • contribs).

Re your broken tilde key preventing a signature. Just above the edit window, the 10th button from the left will append your signature and the date. For the substance of your question, see WP:LIST and Wikipedia:What is a featured list? --EdJohnston 16:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. [[Guest9999 23:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)]] (diferent computer working key)

Some thoughts: If the list itself is notable, I wouldn’t consider the article to be a list, but an article about a list. I see lists as valuable as navigation tools, pointing to articles, preferably with a summary or context given. (Perhaps someone can suggest other uses for lists?) Navigation implies that every item in the list does, or should, have its own article, and is thus notable as per WP:N. However, there are subjects that are not really subject to WP:N, such as asteroids, naturally occurring chemicals, or species. A list of asteroids discovered this year might be OK, without WP:N being met for each asteroid. --SmokeyJoe 05:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (years)

Another permutation of the Notability rule creep has been proposed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (years). --Kevin Murray 18:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You make it sound like we reached consensus here.

Here's two quotes from WP:CREEP that I think are particularly relevant:

"Instruction creep occurs when instructions increase in size over time until they are unmanageable." (definition of instruction creep)

"The fundamental fallacy of instruction creep is thinking that people read instructions."

In the case of new notability guidelines like Wikipedia:Notability (years): first, I don't think the proposal would make the instructions unmanageable. In fact, I believe the intent is the opposite - to make it easier to decide notability; second, I really do think that people will read the instructions on particular years. Or at least that enough people will come to know about them that the information will flow to where it's needed.

In my opinion, guidelines aren't instruction because they don't add workload, they give guidance. You're not telling people, "whenever you create a page on a new year, also do this and that and the other thing". You're just offering guidance on which years to add! -- BenBildstein 06:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (Reality Television participants)

Wikipedia:Notability (Reality Television participants) has been proposed as a new guideline. Are these people significantly different enough to merit a new guideline? Or is this rule creep --Kevin Murray 18:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the idea is misguided. Wikipedia is only as good as its sources. Inclusions tests should be based on sources. I think the independent secondary sources test should be a minimum and a sufficient criterion. Any criteria not based on secondary sourcing implies that WP:V and WP:NOR can be waived; it creates a loophole allowing unverified contributions or original research/synthesis. Of the suggested criteria, numbers 1, 2, 3 are independent of secondary sourcing; numbers 6 & 7 allow articles based entirely on a burst of news reports; and 4 & 5 are redundant with existing (arguable redundant) guidelines. --SmokeyJoe 05:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to have as many specific guidelines as we can get agreement on. it will decrease the routine work at AfD and let us concentrate on the more important issues. DGG (talk) 03:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks creepy to me. We've already got notability guidelines here, and some bio-specific ones at WP:BIO. Sources cover them or sources don't, and especially for bios, sourcing is an absolute requirement. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

When WP:MUSIC says 'two or more major label records' that doesn't prevent the use of common sense, and it's helpful. Just WP:BIO alone would not lead to uniform standards for musicians. If a guideline like this were available I'd be more likely to take the time to participate in an AfD about one of these Reality participants. In a difficult case you like to have other examples to look at, and this draft guideline provides them. EdJohnston 03:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) A separate notability guideline is a bit CREEPY, but I do see value in reaching consensus on additional specific classes of topics. Yes, there must certainly be sources, but in some instances meeting WP:N may not be enough to justify a separate article. These types of discussions have a valuable purpose, IMO, to establish notability and editorial guidelines. This provides encylopedic uniformity and consistency, as well as reducing the load at AfD. So, I like the concept, though perhaps not the execution. I'm not sure what the solution is - maybe a greater role for WikiProjects?--Kubigula (talk) 04:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think DGG has it completely wrong, that subject specific guidelines increase the effort wasted at AfD. To keep discussion on topic, the guidelines should be to the point. In terms of notability, the threshold is *whether others have writen about it*, which is the core of WP:N, rooted in WP:V and WP:NOR. If you introduce subject specific criteria, such as whether the contestant won a sufficiently substantial prize, whether the science is pseudo or fringe, or whether the school is sufficiently old relative to the community, not only do you move away from core policy, you enter into the realm of project space discussions that are original research/synthesis. It should not be for a wikipedian to determine the worth of prize, the standing of the science, or the values of a community. If any comment is to be made about such things, then the comment must be attributable to a reliable source. Subject specific criteria invite such comments at AfD. --SmokeyJoe 04:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that DGG has it completely right. We need our articles to follow WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOT but there are serious problems in using these in a sort of automatic way to determine whether an article should exist or be deleted. The more we can get the attention of people who actually know about the area the better. Subject guidelines are helpful. What I think we are seeing at AfD is more use of the notability guideline to delete material with no sources when editors should be looking for sources and also perhaps removing material that can not be sourced. There are two many people quick on the trigger to kill articles when attempts should be made to improve them. Remember that only a few people have worked on the changes to WP:N. Most editors probably have no idea it has been changed. I have yet to be convinced that there is real consensus on notability, and there probably will never be. --Bduke 22:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I’ll agree with helpful subject guidelines, and organising knowledge bases, but I don’t think that building on the umbrella of notability guidelines is the way to do it. Unfortunately, notability is entrenched in wikipedia culture as a criterion for deletion. I fear that any attempts to formulate subject-specific editorial guidance in a notability guideline will lead to articles being nominated for deletion for failing that subject-specific editorial guidance. I don’t think that the notability guidelines have ever successfully advocated improvement except through the culling of the weakest. Notability is about a minimum threshold for existence, it calls for a couple of independent secondary sources, without reference to the content of the article. Such sources are often not reliable in terms of supporting the facts of the article. Treatment of a subject in the editorial of a major newspaper, or a popular book may demonstrate notability, but these sources may be poor in terms of reliable sourcing of specific facts.

Perhaps a better idea would be to create subject specific guidelines under the umbrella Reliable Sources? --SmokeyJoe 01:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I certainly think subject experts can get to together to develop a set of helpfull guidelines that explain how sources work in a particular area of knowledge. I also think it is a good idea to explore general notability guidelines. For example, the Scouting Wikiproject spells out the general guideline about sub-chapters to argue against individual Scout Troops, Groups or units having their own article, and to generally explain to those who not understand Scouting, what is a "sub-chapter" and what is not. It does not mean they can never have their own article, but it raises the bar so sources in local papers and the like do not count. The troop has to be very special or the first in a country. Similarly I think guidelines that say that n'th level sports teams are not normally notable helps to give us consistent coverage. If someone finds an article on a soccer teams at level x. they reasonably expect to find one on the other teams that the team plays. Of course we need sources to do it, but it is a reasonable expectation. In another area I do not think we should have to argue notability all the time for articles on say Fellows of the the Australian Academy of Science. I noted on the talk page of List of Fellows of the Australian Academy of Science only this morning that there are a mass of redlinks there but all these people are notable otherwise they would not have been made Fellows. We need to just look for sources, which really have to be there, and not argue about notability to people who really do not know what a national academy of science is. If you are suggesting that subject or project guidelines should be rather broad in scope, then I agree with you. --Bduke 04:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This is along the lines of the point I was trying to make. Many of the WikiProjects (or similar groups of collaborative editors) do an admirable job of organizing content and making good decisions about what should qualify for a separate article and what is better merged within a larger topic - in other words creating subject specific guidelines. I personally support giving these efforts a certain amount of leeway. The flip side, of course, is that these efforts can also lead to some serious gardens of cruft.--Kubigula (talk) 04:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Bduke, I think that the scouting pages collectively are a good example of a collection of worthy articles that are, individually, superficially, incompatible with WP:N. I’d like to see the incompatibility removed by fixing WP:N. Exactly how, I don’t know. Maybe the concept of notability through association should be revisited. Scouting is undoubtedly sufficiently notable for wikpedia, and it makes sense that scouting should be thoroughly covered, including regional activities. These regional activities probably are not all covered by independent secondary sources, and there are far too many for them all to be lumped into a few massive articles. Essentially, this modification of WP:N would mean that editors are allowed to structure a topic over multiple articles without requiring that each individual article pass the WP:N test, as it reads now. I think relaxing WP:N to allow leeway for broad subjects to be structured across narrowly focused articles is preferable to writing subject specific notability guidelines to allow of subject specific exceptions. --SmokeyJoe 08:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The clarification of WP:N and a correlated reduction of misuse at AfD?

I remember noticing a tendency for WP:N to used as a front for biased points of view, where a nominator selectively nominates for deletions subjects he doesn’t like, with arguments based around poorly defined criteria. I judged the fault of this to lie with the poor readability of WP:N, especially the poor definition of “notable” (“poor” as in being liable to be interpreted differently by different people). It seems to me that since then WP:N has become clearer, and that its misuse for POV causes at AfD is diminished. Has anyone else noticed, or it is just in my mind? --SmokeyJoe 04:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Serious problems with this concept.

I've just been reading several places where such notability concerns are raised, and I have to admit that whilst annoying, they are also entirely POV and contribute nothing towards stability or neutrality in the wikipedia, but i would go so far as to say the opposite were true. Several people seem fit to add these on articles based upon their size and other simplistic assumptions, which leads me to realize that dabbling in the sheer paralysis of thought as to "what is notable" and regardless of the outcome, it contributes NOTHING to neutrality or community, but only to limitations -- the forefather of censorship.

Notability is entirely based upon the zeitgeist of the time, and also the group in question; recently there have been notability "posters" slapped all over television shows and their individual episodes, which in the eyes of the televisual public would be more than notable for them. In the wikipedia, the entire message is that we leave our predilections and our prejudices aside, at least in practice, and divulge in an exercise that fulfills our insatiable appetite for knowledge and in turn benefits masses who may or may not find something notable. For instance, my field is physics and therefore as a relatively narrow-focused scientist, i am but one person in a sea of incredulously diverse people, many of whom would find physics incredibly boring and essentially to them -- not notable.

“

'no·ta·ble' worthy of note or notice; noteworthy: a notable success; a notable theory.

”

So, from this definition of notable, it would be reasonable to say that because i do not take note of, for instance -- Greek architecture that to me it is not noteworthy, simply because i would not remark upon it -- nor would i make note of or about it, and therefore to be would remain noteless. However, millions of other people would hastily jump into the foray and describe that our cultural heritage can be derived from simple means, and that our progressive understanding also of construction and design laid roots from these ideas and that eagerly, such people WOULD find these things notable.

In summation -- if one seemingly bases the notability of an article based upon their own personal background, which remains true for practically everyone who edits here or inhabits our planet then we can safely say that such assumptions would be based upon subjective and not objective means. The other argument that it may be "taking up valuable space" or "wasting bandwidth" is just as preposterous as it is in direct defiance of core beliefs of wikipedia's aims --

“

To provide free access to the sum of all human knowledge.

”

“

To provide free access to the sum of all human knowledge based upon the ideas of some people who deem it worthy

”

From humble beginnings, mighty oaks spring. If you allow such minor things to move throughout the site, there is concern for me that we can push a centimeter, then an inch, then before we know it, we're telling people they can't make articles on a subject because the majority of us don't like it, or haven't heard of it. "Twisted Issues", indeed. Uxorion 20:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability isn't some personal opinion enforced though, its easy, notability is established by reliable, published sources. Wikipedia is an encyclpedia not Google. IvoShandor 21:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

But to me, looking at the information in the page -- references, length, independence and soforth are more related to the reliability of an article, and that is an important thing due to the need to ensure that information being presented to people who wish to use wikipedia as a reference tool is accurate. To me, however i feel that the act of simply putting a "notability" template on a page, simply because it is not referenced, long enough or independent of the topic doesn't relate to notability -- notability, as I have always known it is more of a personal or subjective means of explaining the importance of something -- "what was notable, however was the length of her wedding dress".

Firstly, i haven't been able to understand what you're meaning about google, which indexes pages based upon their relevancy and amount of user clicks which in a sense, IS notability but only on the level of clicks to a website. Uxorion 21:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

One of the goals of google is to index all information. Wikipedia isn't meant to be a collection of all information, not all information is knowledge, but I am not going to get into a philisophical debate. Encyclopedias, by their very nature, only collect information that other people have written about. This is why notability is important, and to be honest, it isn't that high of threshold to pass. I have nothing else to say on this matter, good luck with the discussion. :) IvoShandor 21:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I want to point out that "the sum of all human knowledge" has never been a Wikipedia-specific goal, but rather that of the Wikimedia foundation as a whole (plus Wikia, "the rest of the library"). Nifboy 21:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Still, regardless of that -- the wikimedia exerts this effort mostly through the wikipedia, which is it's largest "subsidiary", if you will, so it's merely a hair in twain. Also, just as a suggestion:

Article unreferenced/self-claims? {{verify}}
Reliable? (see above, again)
Sources? (see above, again)
Independent of the subject? How would this work on non-personal articles? Again, see above.

Upon reading this, this just seems like a huge mash of all current policies into one ambiguous "guideline".

“

Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles

”

Again, policy already exists for this -- if it's too small, then if the information is included in a larger article about a broader subject then by all means redirect; however, if it expands to the point it is ghastly within an article then replace the redirect for a page and request help from others who would like to expand these articles. But, if anything -- i would say that most people probably did not understand what i was referring to when i mentioned the use of this template above, and it was this sentence.

“

The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standard of the notability guidelines.

”

If this is removed, the entire guideline is just a broth of every other individual policy with meaty chunks of ambiguity, and it's less palatable. With this addition, it ensures it's position as the same, but with no real discernable single retaining value . If there is THAT MUCH ambiguity as to where to place this template, i would be inclined to suggest that it comes from the fact that this is nothing more than a mixture of those policies which on their own have small ambiguities, and when mixed become impractical when applied to a single solution -- i.e cleanup, NPOV and so on.

Just so i'm clear -- wherever i see these templates, i'm removing them and replacing them with specific ones so when i'm trawling the cleanup requests and wikiproject stats, i know exactly what is required of an article -- sure, they don't tell me EXACTLY what part of an article is poor, but this guideline and related template increases that ambiguity tenfold. For me, i just feel this particular guideline is being given the status as more of a procedure like cleanup, rather than a guideline. To me, it's just like adding 10 policies in one, and then having to explain each of the 10 parts of the single policy in greater detail; just use 10 policies. Uxorion 00:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that this is a common misunderstanding as regards notability. What this guideline does not ask is "Is it notable to you?" That's WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and means nothing. What it is asking is to verify that something is notable, by showing that reliable sources unaffiliated with the subject have actually taken significant note of it. Like any article writing, we should reflect reliable sources, not second guess them—and if those sources have written little or nothing on a subject, we should mirror them by writing little or nothing. We should not have pages and pages about something when there is only a paragraph or two of reliable independent source material. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that for something to be verifiable there needs to be a specific source for every word of explanation, particularly for films and TV Programmes. Uxorion 20:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)