Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Notability: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 210: Line 210:


This is just to inform those who may have missed it that the members of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Poker|WikiProject Poker]] have proposed a new notability guideline for poker players. Their proposal was incomplete, so I completed it by moving it to its current location and announcing it here. This is a procedural post only, and I make '''no comment''' here as to the acceptability of the proposed guideline. —[[User:Gorgan almighty|gorgan_almighty]] ([[User talk:Gorgan almighty|talk]]) 11:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
This is just to inform those who may have missed it that the members of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Poker|WikiProject Poker]] have proposed a new notability guideline for poker players. Their proposal was incomplete, so I completed it by moving it to its current location and announcing it here. This is a procedural post only, and I make '''no comment''' here as to the acceptability of the proposed guideline. —[[User:Gorgan almighty|gorgan_almighty]] ([[User talk:Gorgan almighty|talk]]) 11:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
:: Can you help me with setting up our guideline, I represent [[WP:CREEP|WikiProject Overweight plumbers]]. We feel that a guideline regarding our inclusion is now merited at WP. --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] ([[User talk:Kevin Murray|talk]]) 16:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:01, 6 December 2007

Shortcuts
Archive
Archives


Change recommendation for adding a date to Template:Notability?

Does this line in Template:Notability:

"It should never be used with Wikipedia:Subst."

Mean that this line in this article:

"To place a dated tag, put a {{subst:dated|notability}} tag."

Should be changed? --Hebisddave (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Rationale" section

I have removed the rationale section that was recently added to the article, for the following reasons:

First, the section does not actually justify the existence of WP:N. It justifies a rigorous application of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOT, but not actual notability guidelines.

Second, its interpretation of WP:V and WP:NPOV is not uncontroversial. For instance, it's entirely possible for an article to be verified with only one reliable source. Also, "WP:NOT a directory" is not a principle that should (generally or perhaps even never) be applied across articles. – Black Falcon (Talk) 19:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed (as I did previously in Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 18#Centrx’s reversion). Centrx says there:
The rationale section states that a proper article must be "researched, checked, and evaluated through publication in independent reliable sources." Wikipedia:Verifiability states "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." These are almost identical.
They are not almost identical - and the difference is crucial. WP:V says "articles", and the rationale section says "article". The difference is that the rationale section suggests WP:V and WP:NPOV require multiple sources, which is simply not true. As Black Falcon says, it's absolutely possible to write a verifiable and neutral article based on a single good source. I am generally an advocate of WP:N, but I do not support trying to bootstrap it on a misreading of our core policies.--Kubigula (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of multiple sources is necessary for a topic to be notable and an article verifiable and neutral, but regardless you could simply change the plural to singular in the original addition [1] instead of deleting the entire section. —Centrx→talk • 21:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of multiple sources is necessary for notability, but not necessarily for verifiability and not always for neutrality. – Black Falcon (Talk) 21:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of multiple sources is necessary for an encyclopedia article as a whole to be verifiable, which is largely what notability is. If an individual fact has only a single source, it is only weakly verifiable and may also not be appropriate for an encyclopedia. From the standpoint of the verifiability of individual facts exclusive of neutrality or encyclopedicity, "The National Enquirer reported the sighting of a UFO" is verifiable. For a whole topic to be notable though, there need to be and will be multiple sources. —Centrx→talk • 21:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A verifiable stub could be written from a single reliable sources. Now, that stub doesn't prove the subject's notability, but that doesn't make it any less verifiable. For instance,

The [Name of group] are an Amazonian jungle tribe with a total population of around 20. (National Geographic, December 2007).

is a stub that would meet both WP:V and WP:NPOV. The article doesn't prove that the group is notable, but that's a different issue eentirely. – Black Falcon (Talk) 22:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the fact that a one-line stub is a work-in-progress, nothing approaching an encyclopedia article, without corroboration by other sources it is distinctly probable that the National Geographic article is inaccurate, from something as simple as a typo to an outright miscount by the reporter, let alone the fact that if there is not another source in a couple of years the number, if accurate now, will be unknown. Regardless, none of this is relevant to the inclusion of the Rationale section as written, which you deleted. —Centrx→talk • 22:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A one-line stub is a work in progress, but the notability guideline is used every day to make inclusion and deletion decisions for these types of works in progress. The Rationale section as written suggests that WP:N is completely unneeded, and that a rigorous enforcement of WP:V, WP:NOT, and WP:NPOV will suffice in all cases. – Black Falcon (Talk) 23:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability would be unneeded only in the sense that no guideline or policy is needed because all guidelines and policies are implied by the fact that we are creating a free wiki encyclopedia. Notability is, perhaps inter alia, a comprehensive application of verifiability, neutrality, and encyclopedicity to each individual article as a whole. A strict interpretation of Wikipedia:Verifiability has verifiability apply only to individual facts; WP:NPOV does not address what is necessary in order for a neutral article to be made on a wiki (good sources, and some third-party interest); and WP:NOT is brief about notability because it tries to address so many issues. —Centrx→talk • 23:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of notability derives from the general principle that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I'm not saying that it's unrelated to issues of verifiability and neutrality at a practical level, but rather that they are distinct at the conceptual level. WP:V and WP:NPOV apply to content in articles, which is something WP:N has nothing to do with. The case with WP:NOT is different, in that WP:N could be considered an extension of it (i.e. "Wikipedia is not a repository for articles about topics that are not noteworthy"). – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because the core content policies also derive from the general principle of an encyclopedia, Notability is related to them in certain ways that can be indicated here. If Notability is derived from the principle of encyclopedia through some separate path, that should still be included in a rationale section, and I think such a section would read similar to the current one. Try reading the current one while looking at the links only as helpful links to related topics. "A verifiable article" is a distinct concept derived from the principle of encyclopedia, but it is related to Wikipedia:Verifiability and helpful to reference it in a link. —Centrx→talk • 00:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not object to the existence of a rationale section or statement, but disagree with the claim that the concept of notability is derived from those of verifiability or neutrality. A claim that the concept is derived from WP:NOT (which is essentially a more practical version of WP:ENC) is more defensible, I think. While a "helpful links" section linking to WP:V and WP:NPOV would be fine, I can't think of a section that is explicitly titled "rationale" as simply a place to provide helpful links. Perhaps a brief rationale – referencing WP:ENC and WP:NOT – could be provided in one or two sentences in the introduction? – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the section. If there is a need to tweak the text, which I doubt, please do do. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And BTW, a subject about which there is only one source, is by definition neither significant, nor notable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but that doesn't make it unverifiable. Questions of verifiability and notability should not be mixed. – Black Falcon (Talk) 21:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They already are mixed, as the general notability guideline is, practically, about sources. —Centrx→talk • 23:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we only use one source then we are not going to do a very good job at achieving NPOV, and giving all viewpoints due weight. 1 != 2 21:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV is a separate issue. When speaking only of notability, a single solid source can sufficiently demonstrate notability for our purposes. --Kevin Murray 21:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Issues of NPOV can be dealt with in WP:NPOV. – Black Falcon (Talk) 21:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A single solid source can indicate notability but there will exist other sources for a notable topic. That there is only a single source in an article does not mean that there is only a single source for the topic. —Centrx→talk • 22:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We followed this path in discussions last year. I agreed with you then, but including the concept that one may be an indicator of more was shot down by the consensus. As it stands the allowance for single sources is rarely upheld at AfD. I'm just not seeing where the issue is which precipitated re-opening the wound. --Kevin Murray 23:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing - WP:N requires "siginificant coverage" in the source, while WP:V and WP:NPOV do not. As a matter of fact, one of the better arguments, IMO, in favor of WP:N is that WP:V and WP:NPOV are not good article inclusion criteria. For example, I could write a perfectly neutral and beautifully referenced article on the history of my house.--Kubigula (talk) 21:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you could not. Please read NPOV and V to refresh your memory and understand why you could not. This is quite simple, WP:N is not a policy and it does not dictate what can be included and not included in articles. WP:N is a guideline to assist editors in comprehending how WP:V, WP:N and WP:NOR apply to content. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • NPOV: articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)
  • V: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.
Now go write an article on your house and ty to add it to Wikipedia in a way that complies with these two content policies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure - there are plenty of land records and deeds that I could use for verifiability. In fact, there was even a newspaper article about my neighborhood being built. My article would fully comply with content regulation guidelines. What it would not comply with is WP:NOT and WP:N. I do agree that WP:NOT can be used as a rationale for this guideline, but not WP:V and WP:NPOV.--Kubigula (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jossi, WP:V and WP:NPOV are policies about content in articles. WP:N is a guideline about the inclusion/exclusion of articles. Wikipedia:Notability does not directly limit article content. – Black Falcon (Talk) 23:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV is explicitly about the entire article. An entire article has undue weight, an entire article is structured so as to be biased, etc. —Centrx→talk • 00:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's still about articles content moreso than article topics. An article has undue weight or is structured so as to be biased by virtue of its content. An article is notable or non-notable by virtue of its topic. – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Rationale" section

The following adds nothing to the page which is pertinent to the topic of notability. I see no basis for adding this and no consensus in support. --Kevin Murray 22:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The notability criteria is based on Wikipedia content policies:

A rationale section in general justifies Notability as being appropriate for an encyclopedia. This rationale section specifically explains how Notability is implied by the basic content policies. Rationales should be included in guideline and policy pages in general, so that the reader understands the justification for the guideline and is potentially convinced by it, without requiring repeated redundant talk page conversations about why a guideline exists. —Centrx→talk • 23:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. We can debate until our fingers fail. If you want to add this get a consensus, otherwise leave it alone. There is no problem in need of a remedy. This is just over-fussing for no purpose. --Kevin Murray 23:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You responding simply that you "don't agree" for no reason does not constitute you participating in a debate or you contributing to any consensus the change. The purpose of including the rationale is stated directly above, no reason has been given against it, and you are simply reverting without discussion as a perfunctory obstruction against three others who think it is a good idea. —Centrx→talk • 23:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At least one reason has been given: the section misrepresents the concept of notability by suggesting a connection between the noteworthiness of topics to policies that govern how to write articles. Although intended to be a rationale for the notability guideline, it gives the impression that WP:N is completely redundant to WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT. – Black Falcon (Talk) 23:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of the rationale is to explicitly link the the core content policies with notability by standing halfway in-between. The fact that Notability is implied by the core content policies does not mean that the consequences of that combined implication are fleshed out, without Wikipedia:Notability.
The only more precise wordings I can come up with might be convoluted. A "verifiable article" is a clear concept even if strictly read Wikipedia:Verifiability seems specific to individual facts. To be explicitly precise, "For a verifiable article" would become "For an article in which the constituent information is individually verifiable such that the total article can, in sum, be called a verifiable encyclopedia article." The neutral one might start as "A necessary pre-condition for making a neutral article..." —Centrx→talk • 00:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My main objection is not to a particular wording ... it's to the mention of WP:V and WP:NPOV in the first place. The "Notability" inclusion guideline is derived from WP:ENC and WP:NOT; it is not implied by WP:V and WP:NPOV, which are primarily about content in articles and have little to do with the topics of articles, to which the concept of notability applies. – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I've made my points quite clearly. Recap: (a) no value added (b) potential confusion (c) not relevant to the topic (d) more words without further clarity. I don't think that we need to go beyond that. If you can show some broad consensus, add it, but two people do not represent a consensus here. You were bold and were reverted, now the onus is on you to demonstrate consensus for change. --Kevin Murray 00:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have simply stated this without any reasons, in the face of reasons. The value added and the reasons why it is added are given above; this separate section with clear sentences is no more confusing than any other sections and sentences on this page, most of which are more legalistic and confusing; the section explained itself how it is directly relevant to notability; the rest of the page consists mostly of legalistic sub-definitions which are many words with almost no clarity. The whole page would be clearer if, with the exception of the introduction, it were replaced with this section. —Centrx→talk • 00:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have a very nice evening! --Kevin Murray 00:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<<< This is utterly ridiculous. How can a guideline bypass policy, subvert it, or replace it? It can't. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to add this get a consensus Uh? There is consensus on policies. And this guideline must respect the consensus of the established policies: It does not stand alone. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What specifically are you claiming is subverting policy? Mind your manners and discuss it please. Horrorshowj 06:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to second the above request for clarification. Please note that I don't disagree with the content of this edit, but I'm not sure where the issue of bypassing or subverting policy came into play... Notability does not apply to article content and, as far as I'm aware, never has. – Black Falcon (Talk) 07:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I too support this addition: this edit, made by Jossi and supported by S-blade's reversion. --Kevin Murray 14:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a suggestion, might we say
"Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, and What Wikipedia is not."
instead of:
" Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not."
This might be more clear and consice.--Kevin Murray 14:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two examples

(1) Wikipedia currently has articles on every single Pokemon character, as well as every comic book that ever existed. Are these notable? Why?

("Pokemon" as a whole has received much coverage, but that would not warrant this much detail. Similarly, Superman would merit an article, but not some obscure character like Dollar Bill.)

(2) Would "Bhutanese literature" be considered noteworthy? Surely yes, but why? Who has noticed it? And what about a scholar who is famous in the field of Bhutanese literature, but unknown to the general public? Would he be notable? Should his article discuss his biography as a human being, or as a scholar of Bhutanese literature?

I use these examples as representatives of the larger question, not because I have any particular opinion about Pokemon or Bhutanese literature. --Dawud

There used to be an article for every Pokemon but that has since changed; all but the most notable (Pikachu for example) are now briefly described in a series of lists. This issue has lead to the so called pokemon-test that is basically asserting that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS because individual pokemon had articles, and thus promoted the change.
As for your second question, remember that "notability" is defined not by its importance, fame, or knowledge by the general public. Is is now "significant coverage by reliable secondary sources". Even if the field is covered by books that would be in dusty university libraries, it still has coverage in secondary sources. A person working in the field, probably not as much unless their fame in the field can be qualified by secondary sources - if the fellow is the primary author of many books about the Bhutansese language, that's becomes a primary source, and as such, doesn't demonstrate notability. But if there was say a monthly independent journal that followed that field and cited the fellow several times as the lead scholar in the area, then you have your secondary source. Such an article should then primarily focus on his scholarly work and follow all other requirements of biographies of living persons. --MASEM 14:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for rationale section

I agree with Centrx that a rationale section would strengthen this guideline and help to head off some of the persistent questions and challenges that we get. I have therefore drafted a proposed rationale section based on the existing language and some of the ideas and arguments raised above. As I know Kevin will object if there’s no prior consensus, I am coming here first. So, I propose changing the existing “Notability requires objective evidence” section to the following:

==Rationale==
As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a directory or an indiscriminate collection of information, the notability guidelines require verifiable objective evidence that subjects are of sufficiently broad interest to justify inclusion. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines.

Substantial coverage in reliable sources also helps ensure that the content of the article will be fully verifiable and neutral, and that a high quality encyclopedic article can be written.- Please comment or tweak.--Kubigula (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Some tweaks below.

As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a directory or an indiscriminate collection of information, the notability guidelines require verifiable evidence that subjects are of sufficiently broad interest to justify an article on the topic in question. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such evidence, as do published peer recognition and other factors listed in the subject-specific guidelines.
Substantial coverage in reliable sources also helps ensure that the content of the article will be verifiable and neutral, and that a high quality encyclopedic article can be written.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

I don't see the why to this. This basically just restates the lead paragraph. Why not incorporate any variances in the lead? I don't object to the general message; I just don't see the value added of one more section. But I do appreciate an attempt at gaining consensus. --Kevin Murray 20:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current Lead

Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity", although these may positively correlate with notability. A subject is presumed to be sufficiently notable if it meets the general notability guideline below, or if it meets an accepted subject specific standard listed in the table to the right.

These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles. Relevant content policies include: Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons.

Proposed rationalle

As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a directory or an indiscriminate collection of information, the notability guidelines require verifiable evidence that subjects are of sufficiently broad interest to justify an article on the topic in question. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such evidence, as do published peer recognition and other factors listed in the subject-specific guidelines.
Substantial coverage in reliable sources also helps ensure that the content of the article will be verifiable and neutral, and that a high quality encyclopedic article can be written.

this wording avoids the issues . We need a clear definition of just what is meant by an indiscriminate list of information, or a directory. These terms areusedin a variety of inconsistent ways, often amounting to nothing more than I dont trhink its notable.
Proposed merger as a new lead (rough draft)

Wikipedia is not a not a directory nor an indiscriminate collection of information. Notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic. The topic of an article should be "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity". Notability guidelines require verifiable evidence that topics are of sufficiently broad interest to justify inclusion. Substantial coverage in reliable sources also helps ensure that the content of the article will be verifiable and neutral, and that a high quality encyclopedic article can be written.

These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles. Relevant content policies include: Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons.

To Kevin. We wouldn't actually add a section, this would replace and only slightly expand the existing objective evidence section. Also, it is different from the Lead. The Lead focuses on what the notability guideline is, with only a little bit about why we need it. We could expand the lead to say more about why, but I think it's better and more clear in a separate section.
It seems that we could eliminate the objective evidence section and incorporate the better aspects of the rationalle into the lead. I think that with the best of intentions WP is a constant victim of bloating. --Kevin Murray 21:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ha - this is half of what I started with. I anticipated your comment and tried to keep it as succinct as possible :)--Kubigula (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To Jossi - good tweaks!--Kubigula (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ENC is too bitey to be linked so prominently. WP:N is a guideline read by new contributors after they’ve had their page deleted.--SmokeyJoe 01:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True - I hadn't looked at that page for a while. We could link to Encyclopedia or just skip the wikilink. In any event, my preference would be to keep the lead as is and add the rationale section as tweaked by Jossi. Otherwise the lead becomes too dense with information and exceeds the purpose of the lead, which is to introduce and provide context. Expanding the lead per Kevin is my second choice, though it would be a net improvement of the guideline, IMO. Anyone else?--Kubigula (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the link to Encyclopedia should be skipped. --Kevin Murray 15:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like that proposed lede. It evades the issues of what is or is not an indiscriminate list or information, or a directory. The discussions at many afd come down to just that, and it practice amount to I do/do notthink the content is notable. given that content does not have to be notable, this is usually a red herring. Can someone perhaps explain exactly what is meant, with examples, that we could agree upon? DGG (talk)

Does linking to not a directory and indiscriminate collection of information help? --Kevin Murray 15:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with DGG. "Not a directory" applies to the content of articles; it doesn't really apply well across articles (imagine "Wikipedia is not a directory of prime ministers"). I think we're better off mentioning "is an encyclopedia" and dropping any mention to WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the links are helpful. I think WP:N (a guideline) needs to have some reference to some policies (otherwise we are much more likely to get the "WP:N is just a guideline, so we can ignore it" argument). I also disagree with the statement that WP:NOT#DIR applies only within articles: that logic is how we got all the articles that duplicated the four Pokemon directories, and how, despite WP:NOT#DIR we are well down the road to getting articles to duplicate every entry in the Baseball Encyclopedia. UnitedStatesian 20:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really interested in individual Pokemon or a biography of every professional baseball player, but it is dangerous to apply the philosophy of "not a directory" to sets of articles. The viability of each article should be judged invididually, and we should never delete an article on a notable topic just because someone feels that we shouldn't be a directory of articles of a certain type (I've seen this type of argument applied to articles about non-US and non-European subjects). – Black Falcon (Talk) 21:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is the opposite: an article gets written on a non-notable topic where its only source is a directory or directories. Without referring to WP:NOT#DIR, there is no way to delete the article because of its lack of notability. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it could be deleted per WP:N, which requires "significant coverage", something that a simple directory listing does not provide. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict between WP:N and WP:V?

Now I've not been editing very long, but it seems to me as if there is a conflict between the concepts of notability and veriability as seen on Wikipedia.

From what I understand, Wikipedia:Notability basically says that 'only things that are important ('notable') should have articles on Wikipedia'. The current standard by which this notability is judged (as per Wikipedia:Verifiability) is publication in 'reliable third-party sources' .

The problem, as I see it, is that third party sources publish things because they are already notable. A subject does not instantly become notable or important merely because an article has been written on it. I would even contest that if a subject was truly 'non-notable' it would remain non-notable no matter how many articles had been written on it.

In short, I believe 'Notability is inherent in the subject, not its reportage'.

If this premise is accepted, then Wikipedia has a problem, namely that there is a large corpus of knowledge that is unlikely to be reported on in the media (for such various reasons as concerns for academic image, editorial bias on the part of those sources that it is unimportant, the sheer bias of available academic or media-based studies etc.), or unlikely to enter third-party discourse for quite some time, that may in fact be notable.

I think that Wikipedia should expand its definition of Notability, whilst tightening up policy and action regarding the truly non-notable articles of the wiki; such as vandalism, personal attacks, advertising, spam, etc.

Anyone have any thoughts on this? Man from the Ministry (talk) 23:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may help to think about it this way: because we don't do original research, and because an encyclopedia is a tertiary source, the actual state of the world is not our concern. We don't directly observe things; we go by what other sources have already observed. So, it doesn't matter if notability is inherent in the subject- it only matters to us what reliable sources say. Friday (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see what User:Man from the Ministry is saying, and I believe it stems from the difference in meaning of notability in common use, and the meaning of notability as used here, which is somewhat confused. You belief, 'Notability is inherent in the subject, not its reportage' is right, in a real world sense. However, some people try to contribute articles not because they are notable, but because they have some other motivation. These contributions are generally considered to be cruft or spam, and to be detrimental to the encyclopaedia as a whole. So how should you try to discriminate? Various notability subguidelines have attempted to create subject specific guidance for inherent notability, but unfortunately they tended to encourage original research, countering the intent of the core policy Wikipedia:No original research, and failed to encourage quality sourcing. WP:N, in tying “notability” to reportage, encourages quality sourcing. The nebulous “notability” is turned to mean instead “has previously, elsewhere, verifiably, been noted".
There is not a fundamental conflict between Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Notability. (If you see a specific conflict, fix it.) Wikipedia:Verfiability requires that all content be verifiable, but it does not say that everything verifiable is suitable content. Wikipedia:Notability helps to define the subset of verifiable material that is suitable content. If Wikipedia:Notability were to imply that certain things were suitable content without reference to sourcing, then there would be a conflict. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New notability guideline proposal: Poker players

Wikipedia:Notability (poker players)

This is just to inform those who may have missed it that the members of WikiProject Poker have proposed a new notability guideline for poker players. Their proposal was incomplete, so I completed it by moving it to its current location and announcing it here. This is a procedural post only, and I make no comment here as to the acceptability of the proposed guideline. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 11:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me with setting up our guideline, I represent WikiProject Overweight plumbers. We feel that a guideline regarding our inclusion is now merited at WP. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability&oldid=176179695"