Wikipedia talk:Notability: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 16:53, 25 April 2007

Latest revision as of 17:38, 23 August 2025

Line 1:

{{see also|Wikipedia talk:Relevance}}

{{Talk header|WT:N||noarchive=yes|search=no}}

{{Notice|Before assessing if a subject has enough notability to create an article, check out if they have been assessed at [[Wikipedia:Source assessment]] first.}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}

|maxarchivesize = 350K

|maxarchivesize = 300K

|counter = 11

|algocounter = old(7d)84

|algo = old(45d)

|minthreadsleft = 1

|minthreadstoarchive = 1

|archive = Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive %(counter)d

}}

{{Annual readership}}

{{talkheader}}

{{Press

{| class="infobox" width="300px"

| collapsed = yes

|-

| title = Who really runs Wikipedia?

!align="center"|[[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]]<br/>[[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]

| author = G.F.

----

| date = 2013-05-06

|-

| url = http://www.webcitation.org/6GPz3Wn9B

|

| org = Make Use Of

* [[Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 1|2005–Sep 2006]] <small>(related to page now moved to [[Wikipedia:Notability/Arguments]])</small>

| title2 = Writing Women Back Into History

* [[Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 2|Sep–Oct 2006]]

| author2 = Alexandra Thom

* [[Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 3|Oct–Nov 2006]]

| date2 = {{date|16 July 2013}}

* [[Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 4|18–25 Nov 2006]]

| url2 = http://www.webcitation.org/6ITdt9XI4

* [[Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 5|Nov 2006–Dec 2006]]

| org2 = [[Brooklyn Museum]]

* [[Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 6|Dec 2006]]

| title3 = The Geography of Fame

* [[Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 7|Dec 2006–Jan 2007]]

| author3 = Seth Stephans-Davidowitz

* [[Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 8|Jan 2007–Feb 2007]]

| date3 = {{date|22 March 2014}}

* [[Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 9|Feb 2007]]

| org3 = [[The New York Times]]

* [[Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 10|March 2007]]

| url3 = http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/opinion/sunday/the-geography-of-fame.html

|}<!--Template:Archivebox-->

| title4 = The Notability Blues

| author4 = Stephen Harrison

| date4 = {{date|26 March 2019}}

| url4 = https://slate.com/technology/2019/03/wikipedia-women-history-notability-gender-gap.html

| org4 = [[Slate (magazine)|Slate]]

| title5 = How Wikipedia cancels Dalit icons

| author5 = Sanghapali Aruna

| date5 = {{date|15 December 2019}}

| url5 = https://www.deccanchronicle.com/opinion/columnists/151219/how-wikipedia-cancels-dalit-icons.html

| org5 = [[Deccan Chronicle]]

| title6 = Canadian Nobel scientist's deletion from Wikipedia points to wider bias, study finds

| author6 = Manjula Selvarajah

| date6 = {{date|19 August 2021}}

| url6 = https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/wikipedia-bias-1.6129073

| org6 = [[CBC.ca|CBC]]

}}

{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes }}

{{Archive box|auto=yes|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot II|age=45|units=days|index=/Archive index }}

== NLIST for ''List of X in <country>'' lists ==

== N/A to article-content (continued) ==

For complex or cross-category lists (like ''List of X in <country>''), NLIST currently states: {{xt|There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") ...}}.{{refn|Though qualified later on by: {{xt|Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists.}}}} A few/some editors might take this to mean that the notability of a ''List of X in <country>'' list {{em|may}} be assessed in some way other than by ''X in <country>'' meeting [[WP:GNG]] or [[WP:SNG]]. This makes sense in theory, {{em|buuut}} in practice, editors seem to {{em|overwhelmingly}} prefer to assess notability {{em|only}} by ''X in <country>'' meeting GNG or SNG (cf table). Imo NLIST copy should prolly reflect this apparent consensus for at least this sort of complex/cross-cat list, as it's frustratingly vague/unclear at present imo, but I'll only leave this here for record's sake.{{refn|This seemed to be more fitting than [[WP:SAL]] talk. Thank you {{u|Bobby Cohn}} for helping me notice this, and sorry for all the grief (not sticking to consensus reading of NLIST) in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of incidents of civil unrest in Belize|that AfD]]! I was gonna make this a discussion per your suggestion over there but don't think there's any need really, per the table here. As an aside, there's a couple lists I wrote before that one that also fail NLIST per this consensus interpretation, but I'll AfD those pronto :)}} - [[User:Asdfjrjjj|Asdfjrjjj]] ([[User talk:Asdfjrjjj|talk]]) 04:43, 16 August 2025 (UTC) [[User:Asdfjrjjj|Asdfjrjjj]] ([[User talk:Asdfjrjjj|talk]]) 04:43, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

''(Continued from 'Does "notability" apply to the content of articles? -- Proposed add to guidelines: "N/A to article-contents"',above.)''

:This is a very interesting point that you've hit on in a what is notable sense, is it that list of items in country constitutes an ''X of Y'' list or an list of ''X'' alone and something that I was debating myself as we discussed in a previous AfD. I agree that some more clarity might be beneficial. Going through the list, I was expecting the keep/delete outcome results to follow what might be considered "large or popular topics" but it doesn't seem to necessarily follow. Thank you @[[User:Asdfjrjjj|Asdfjrjjj]] for doing some of the ground work in collecting a list of these cases. [[User:Bobby Cohn|Bobby Cohn]]&nbsp;🍁 ([[User talk:Bobby Cohn|talk]]) 22:13, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

;Fifth draft

::[[User:Asdfjrjjj|Asdfjrjjj]], mostly, when I see editors asking questions about this general subject, I find that they are looking at the list as if it were an ordinary article. However, lists serve two separate functions on wiki:

This is what was added to the guidelines 21:22, 20 February 2007 by Lonewolf BC, but then deleted from them 03:32, 21 February 2007 by Centrx. It's of two parts: The upper bit went at the end of the introduction of the guidelines, and the lower part was a last section of the guidelines.

::* article content – helping readers learn more about X

::* navigation – helping readers find the article they're looking for

::Almost all "List of X in <country>" articles are the navigation type. They exist for readers who say "I don't know what the name of that is, but I know it's an X in <country>, so let me scan down this list – Ah, there it is!"

::The relevant guideline is [[Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates]].

::The last time we seriously attempted to work on explaining notability of lists (over a decade ago), we didn't finish the job. This is one of the things that we didn't find wording to explain. There are some significant [[m:inclusionism]] vs [[m:deletionism]] factors involved. Also, some editors have a gut reaction to a "List of" page (because it superficially looks like an "article") that they don't have for a Category: or [[WP:NAVBOX]] that contains exactly the same information, so they're happy to have a "Category:X in country" and a navbox template for X in country, but as soon as it's a [[List of]] exactly the same thing – well, now you have to prove to them not only that the list is accurate and verifiable, but that there are lengthy sources carefully analyzing this group of X in that specific country, because now it is an article (in their eyes) instead of a way for readers to find articles (especially the ~67% of readers on mobile, and therefore who don't see categories or navboxes).

::I realize that AFDs over this can be frustrating because there's no clear Official™ Written Rule, but please use common sense, and encourage others to do the same. Maybe some day we'll gather our collective energy and figure out how to explain the difference between a navigational list and a content-focused list, and then tell editors to leave the nav lists alone. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 01:47, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

:::A few thoughts on this…

:::# In some cases, these articles started out as a “list of X” article where all X are notable. However, as that list grew it was deemed appropriate to split it into several sub-articles (by Y)… and someone decided that the Y should be “by country”. If they had chosen some other Y (say alphabetical) no one would question the notability of the list. In such cases, perhaps the solution is to go back to square one, and restructure the set of sub-articles using a different Y.

:::# Perhaps we need a better way to distinguish ''navigational'' lists from ''informational'' lists. This could be done by renaming purely navigational articles as “Index articles” (as in [[Index of articles on X]] or [[Index of X in Y]]. Meanwhile, informational lists could continue to be called “Lists” (as in [[List of X]] etc). We could then write distinct guidelines for “Index articles” vs “List articles”.

:::Very preliminary thoughts. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 13:18, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

IMO the dilemma is because I don't think that the issue can be solved using our existing framework. The reality is that even if a list is pure OR (a creation of the editor) and there is no independent coverage ''of the topic of the article'' (the overall synthesized creation) we often generally accept it as OK; i.e. not excluded by notability rules. If we wanted to work on this we'd probably need to start by acknowledging that decisions about notability incorporate other criteria (such as degree of enclyclopedicness) besides the notability guidelines. Then criteria that measure degree of enclyclopedicness could be utilized. One measure might be how close RS's come to making that compilation even if no source actually did it exactly. Another would be likehood that someone would come to an ''enclyclopedia'' to find that list.

:Note that these are guidelines for allowable ''article topics'' within Wikipedia, not for allowable ''content'' within Wikipedia articles.

:....

:<nowiki>== Notability is not needed by particular article-content ==</nowiki><br>

On a separate note, Blueboar's idea would be another element of a good start. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 12:53, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

:These and all the notability guidelines are for allowable ''article topics'' within Wikipedia, not for allowable ''content'' within a legitimate Wikipedia article. Although issues of article-content are sometimes discussed, on talk-pages, in terms of the content's "notability", that is not exactly "notability" in the sense of these guidelines, which do not directly apply to such matters: "Notability", in the sense of these guidelines, is ''not'' needed in order for particular information to be included in a Wikipedia article. For such article-content issues, see the guidelines on [[WP:V|verifiability]], [[WP:RS|reliable sources]], and [[WP:TRIV|trivia]]. (Note also, though, that within Wikipedia's guidelines, generally, the term "notability" means what it means in the notability guidelines.)

:I feel like that's exactly what the second NLIST paragraph (for informational or complex or cross-category lists) might've been meant to carve out - the intersections of some categories (''X of Y'') seem so fundamentally encyclopaedic that even w/o that particular intersection existing in IRSs, it'd still be of value in an encyclopaedia. But at least for intersections involving geographic entities (eg ''X in <country>''), that doesn't really seem to be the majority opinion in AfDs.{{refn|Though maybe there's a bit of selection bias going on ofc, both for nom'd lists, and participating editors.}}

;Discussion of 5th draft

:Partially agree with Blueboar re point 1 - I was also thinking of these ''List of X in <country>'' lists as basically all being one giant ''List of X'', just split along geographic lines for manageability. Did not really consider notability of individual list members though, as I feel I've seen a bunch of ''X in <country>'' lists where that's not a membership criterion.{{refn|And ofc it's not a required membership criterion, though some editors seemed to vote in AfDs as if it were, maybe, but those seemed like honest mistakes rather than substantive stances.}} Not sure re Blueboar's point 2 - dunno how often editors confuse info vs nav lists, but might be seen as [[WP:CREEP]] to require differential naming, maybe? - [[User:Asdfjrjjj|Asdfjrjjj]] ([[User talk:Asdfjrjjj|talk]]) 19:15, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

''Centrx's reason for deleting it (copied from "Problems with recent changes", above):''<br>

::We have some "index" articles, e.g., [[Index of Internet-related articles]].

Also, as explained above, notability ''is'' relevant to whether article content is included. The notability of the information and the reason for the notability of the subject is explicitly referenced in [[WP:BLP]] and [[WP:RS]], and otherwise is the major factor in whether information is included in an article and how it is organized. —[[User:Centrx|Centrx]]→[[User talk:Centrx|''talk'']]&nbsp;&bull; 19:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC-8)

::I've been wondering if the solution is a new template, along the lines of {{tl|disambiguation}}:

::{{dmbox||type=disambig|text=This [[Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists|list]] page primarily exists to help readers [[Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates|navigate]] to other pages.  Accordingly, a majority of the entries should be links to other articles.|nocat=true}}

:Centrx, I believe that the aspect of notability of your concern was taken into account by the chosen wording. If you think otherwise, you must be more specific. Please either explain what you mean well enough that I can better accommodate it, or write a draft yourself that does so. Naturally, I have already consulted BLP and RS. I really do not see what problem you see. -- [[User:Lonewolf BC|Lonewolf BC]] 01:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC-8)

::We could add some CSS-based text with instructions about sourcing requirements (e.g., "Unlike [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation]] pages, [[Wikipedia:Inline citation|inline citations]] are permitted on this page. However, please do not remove [[Wikipedia:Glossary#uncited|uncited]] entries unless you have a reason to believe they are actually wrong"). [I base the last sentence on the fact that an entry in a 'list of fruit' that has no citation is not [[Wikipedia:Likely to be challenged]] by any reasonable person, when clicking on the entry takes you to a page that says 'This is a kind of fruit'. I grant that there are about three-quarter million registered editors here each year, and that in any group of humans that large, there will be some unreasonable ones.] [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:34, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

:::{{to|WhatamIdoing}} looks really good! Seems a bit more elegant than differential naming for nav vs info lists imo - [[User:Asdfjrjjj|Asdfjrjjj]] ([[User talk:Asdfjrjjj|talk]]) 22:12, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

:Okay, I think I might see your problem, now. You are construing the fifth draft as saying that notability, in the common sense of the word, is not a consideration for article-content, or at least you are worried that it might be construed that way. That is not the intent. The intent is to make clear that "notability", in the ''special'' sense of compliance with the notability guidelines, is not needed by each piece of article-content. (Indeed, this whole business arises from equivocation upon "notability" -- its common and special senses.) I'm still not positive I have rightly understood you, though. -- [[User:Lonewolf BC|Lonewolf BC]] 18:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC-8)

:::Yes, that looks like a good idea. Maybe not the "big fix" but a good idea. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 17:58, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

::One thing to consider is that if garage bands are not notable, would an article on Garage bands in the Detroit metro area be notable if it was just a compendium of non-notable article content? I would think no, but that is just MHO. And of course, if there were multiple feature stories on the bands as a group, that could make it jump the shark. [[User:Dhaluza|Dhaluza]] 04:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC-8)

::::How much bureaucratic procedure should we put around this? Boldly create the template and start using it, or have a big conversation/RFC or two first? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 18:59, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

:::::I like it and think we should be bold. [[User:Davidstewartharvey|Davidstewartharvey]] ([[User talk:Davidstewartharvey|talk]]) 20:27, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

::Notability, in the special sense of the word, is relevant to whether article content is included. Article content must be relevant to why the topic is notable in the first place, especially for any biography of a living person and any weakly reliable source. Articles do not simply contain any and all verifiable information about a topic. —[[User:Centrx|Centrx]]→[[User talk:Centrx|''talk'']]&nbsp;&bull; 07:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC-8)

:::::I like the template for lists that would unambiguously be navigation lists. That said, I am not sure that the template helps resolve the question of when a cross-categorization list should be created - as I do think we should err towards requiring some sort of independent reason for the list, rather than the cross-categorization being [[WP:OR|original research]]. - [[User:Enos733|Enos733]] ([[User talk:Enos733|talk]]) 20:47, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

::::::So, I think you mean that WhatamIdoing's idea looks good but you don't want it to be a substitute for continuing to work on the broader question. If so, that is also my thought. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 11:58, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

:::Your response leaves me puzzled, and thinking we have not been understanding one another at all well.<br>Who said anything about "...any and all..."? Certainly '''I''' did not, and that's not at all what I'm driving at. Nor do I think that any of the draft versions have implied such a thing.<br>I think we must have different ideas of what "the special sense of the word" is. I used it to mean the requirement for multiple, non-trivial, independent sources. If you mean that same thing by it, then you would seem to be saying that ''all'' article content must have multiple, non-trivial, independent sources. This goes right back to my initial question (now archived, unfortunately), and would answer it contrariwise to the way a number of other people did. I somewhat doubt that that is really what you mean, but if it is not, then just what do you mean? Likely it would help if you told me what is ''your'' understanding of the "special sense" of "notability". I'm thinking (and hoping) that it is something like what I mean by the "ordinary sense of notability" -- "worthy of note" -- which of course is relevant to what goes into an article, although not in an all-or-none way.<br>This brings me to your middle sentence: I believe that you are misinterpreting the other guidelines that mention "relevant to notability". For example, JRR [[Tolkein]] is notable for his fiction, not really for his career as an academic, and certainly not because his father-side ancestors were craftsmen with roots in Saxony, yet these are covered in the article on him, which was lately a front-pager. Scarcely anyone is notable because of where they were born, and in most cases the exact place makes no difference to their notability, yet birthplaces are ordinarily given in biographies. Rather, there are particular classes of potential content that need to be "relevant to notability" (controversial matter about living persons, particularly). -- [[User:Lonewolf BC|Lonewolf BC]] 23:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC-8)

:::::::Correct. - [[User:Enos733|Enos733]] ([[User talk:Enos733|talk]]) 16:35, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

<!-- add comments above this line -->

;Sixth draft

List of ''List of X in <country>'' AfDs in 2025.{{refn|This is meant to be a complete list, but mistakes could've been made ofc. Info was {{em|not}} double-checked so could be mistaken too (esp summaries in ''Description'' column w/c required some interpretation). This list excludes lists of words (glossaries, gazetteers, so on), of numbers (results, stats, so on), and of people. It also excludes lists which were full or partial duplicates, disambiguation lists, split lists. The ''NLIST?'' column here answers the question, ''Was NLIST one of the reasons for nomination?''}}

Notability guidelines do not specifically pertain to the content within an article. For content issues, see verifiability, reliable sources, and trivia.

{{Table alignment}}

{{Sticky header}}

;Seventh draft

{{Row hover highlight}}

Notability guidelines pertain to ''article topics'', but do not specifically limit ''content'' within articles.

{| class="wikitable sticky-header hover-highlight sortable col1right"

*This one seems to be the clearest and most supported by the notability criterion: "a ''topic'' is notable if ..." -- [[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]] 11:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC-8)

|+ {{Screen reader-only|List of complex or cross-category ''List of X in <country>'' AfDs in 2025, with some exclusions.}}

|-

;Eighth draft

! Date

Notability guidelines pertain to ''article topics'' but do not specifically limit ''content'' within articles. For issues of article content, see especially the guidelines on verifiability, reliable sources and trivia.<br>I think that is still not immune to the pig-headed, but it would be better than nothing. -- [[User:Lonewolf BC|Lonewolf BC]] 23:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC-8)

! class=unsortable | Link

! {{var|X}}

;Ninth draft

! {{var|country}}

:''(to add at end of introduction)''

! {{hint|NLIST?|Was NLIST one of the reasons for nomination?}}

:Notability guidelines pertain to ''article topics'' but do not directly limit ''content'' within articles.

! class=unsortable | Description

<!--

:''(to add as a last section)''

|-

:<nowiki>== Notability guidelines do not directly limit article-content ==</nowiki><br>

| date

| [[link|AfD]]

:These and all the notability guidelines are for allowable ''article topics'' within Wikipedia, not for allowable ''content'' within a legitimate Wikipedia article. That is, not all material included in an article must, in itself, meet these criteria. For issues of article content, see especially the guidelines on verifiability, reliable sources and trivia. Note also, though, that other guidelines refer in places to "notability", meaning notability as defined by these guidelines.

| x_cat

| country

-- [[User:Lonewolf BC|Lonewolf BC]] 09:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| nlist_y_n

| '''result_here''' result

== Induction vs. Deduction / Subjective (Dis)Like ==

-->

|-

A number of the comments on this page seem to be of the type: "Well, I want articles on topic X to be kept/deleted, so let's adjust the notability guidelines accordingly" or "Well, articles on topic X obviously do/don't deserve to be in an encyclopedia, so let's try to find a way that excludes them". This is really nothing more than adjusting guidelines based on [[WP:ILIKEIT]] and [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]]. I think it is counterproductive to try to change or keep the general notability criterion in order to allow/exclude certain topics.

| 17 Jul 2025

| [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of incidents of civil unrest in Belize|AfD]]

Shouldn't the issue at hand simply be: '''is there enough information available on this subject to write (at least) a stub-class article?''' That there is plenty of information on Pokemon cards (an example from this talk page) or other subjects that some editors consider "crufty" is no reason to try to find ways to devalue those sources (that's a subjective preconception that Pokemon is inherently unencyclopedic). Conversely, that there are no independent, non-trivial sources on a Carthaginian general to allow us to write at least a stub-class article on him/her is no reason to try to find ways to get this individual included by changing guidelines (an example similar to one in discussion above). Exceptions can be made under [[WP:IAR]], but the whole premise of a guideline should not be to make a positive or negative exception for articles on a certain subject. I urge all of us involved in this discussion to keep this in mind. Thank you, [[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]] 11:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| incidents of civil unrest

| Belize

:Actually there's more to articles than just whether or noth there is enough published verifiable information for a stub. For example, I could theoretically write a stub or greater size article summarizing everything discussed for a given issue of the New York Times. I could list all the headlines, give a short synopsis of every story, sum up all the editorial opinion articles and letters to the editor for the day, and provide a run down of any other notable bits from that day's paper. Clearly such an article would be verifiable and, so long as I kept everything objective, not original research. I imagine such articles could be reasonable in length, too. I also don't see anything that it would violate in WP:NOT either.

| {{yes}}

| {{no|align=left|'''delete''' result; 1 editor noted cross-cat notability; 2/3 editors wanted ''X in <country>'' to be notable{{refn|Possibly 3/4 but fourth editor (said "If any of those incidents are really notable then we need articles on them instead.") seemed to want list {{em|members}} to be notable, rather than list set/group itself.}}}}

:But despite meeting all those policies and passing the "stub" test, I'm fairly sure we have good consensus that Wikipedia isn't supposed to have an article for every daily edition of the New York Times or any other paper. So the question isn't just whether there "is enough published information for an article", it's also "is there more than just a few days interest in this specific subject?" [[User:Dugwiki|Dugwiki]] 12:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)

|-

| 1 Aug 2025

::I do not mean to suggest that sufficiency of information to write a stub should be the ''only'' criterion, but rather that it should be the ''minimal'' criterion, from which we may then move on. I am fairly confident the NYT example you bring up is a case for [[WP:NOT#IINFO]] point 6: Wikipedia is not an "annotated text". In any case, my comment was intended as a criticism of comments of the type, "well, this guideline allows for articles on topic X, which are ''inherently'' unencyclopedic, so the guideline must be changed". Such judgments about the ''inherent'' (un)encyclopedicity of topics are ''inherently'' subjective, except in cases of pre-existing definition. By "cases of pre-existing definition" I mean cases which are directly relevant to the Enligsh-language definition of "encyclopedia". For instance, the definition of an encyclopedia precludes it from being a dictionary (I realise that the former developed from the latter, but this development took place long ago and the distinction has existed for over a century). This distinction is expressed as [[WP:WINAD]], but WP:WINAD did not create this distinction; it existed long before Wikipedia even came into existence. -- [[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]] 13:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of World Heritage Sites in Scotland|AfD]]

| World Heritage Sites

:::I think we're almost in agreement. I would say that there isn't a "single minimal" criterion for articles to be kept, but rather there are a handful of two or three loosely related criterion. One of these criterion is, as you said, that there should be enough verifiable information to produce more than a couple of sentences for the article. A second minimal criterion, though, would be that even if an article is verifiable that the information should be of less than completely fleeting interest to Wikipedia readers. That second requirement is defined in part under WP:NOT, and WP:N also is intended to help futher refine the definition.

| Scotland

| {{no}}

:::Now obviously people are going to have different opinions on exactly where lines should be drawn in borderline cases. But I think almost all the editors agree that most (not all) articles which have at most one verifiable reference should probably not be included in Wikipedia as a practical matter for various reasons, even if they otherwise meet the policies. It's not simply a matter of "taste" or "bias against cruft", etc, but more of some actual limits on editorial maintainence, fact checking and helping readers by filtering out information that the vast bulk of the readers will probably never access. That trimming helps keep the encyclopedia more efficient for both readers and editors alike. And the guideline WP:N comes into play by trying to help make those trimming decisions as consistent as possible. Sure, editors don't HAVE to follow a guideline, but by and large its in editor's best interests to try and follow guidelines unless a good case can be made for an exception. That way article authors hopefully don't have a "moving target" they need to meet to avoid a possible editorial consensus against keeping their article.

| {{yes|align=left|'''keep''' result}}

|-

:::For my part, my opinion is that WP:N should hopefully represent a bare minimum level of sourcing that almost all editors can agree to. That allows us to use WP:N to filter out the "worst case" offenders efficiently and focus our possible deletion discussions on the borderline cases. It also represents an increased challenge for borderline articles to be deleted, because if they meet WP:N there is an implication that by default the article should probably be kept unless there is some important reason not to do so.

| 28 Jul 2025

| [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of e-commerce chains in Nigeria|AfD]]

:::My appologies for the somewhat rambling reply. Hopefully I was able to explain the points I was trying to get across. [[User:Dugwiki|Dugwiki]] 14:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| e-commerce chains

| Nigeria

::::I would generally disagree to the "stub" test, we shouldn't have permastubs (articles which could never be expanded beyond a stub). We should be able to write a ''comprehensive'' article using only secondary sources about a subject, with primary sources relegated to a limited role. In terms of localities, above, census data and the like is not a source which allows a comprehensive article. Books and such on the ___location would be. ''Nothing'' is notable "because it's a...". It is either notable because significant amounts of secondary sourcing have been written about it, or non-notable because that has not occurred. That is not a bias. It is a prevention of bias. It places the determination of what's notable or not squarely out of the hands of editors, where it does not belong, and into the hands of those who write our source material, where it does belong. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]] [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Seraphimblade 2|Please review me!]]}</small> 15:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| {{yes}}

:::::User:Seraphimblade, I think you make some excellent points. :) [[User:Travb|Travb]] ([[User talk:Travb|talk]]) 08:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| {{no|align=left|'''delete''' result; 1 editor noted cross-cat notability; 1/2 editors wanted ''X in <country>'' to be notable{{refn|Possibly 2/3 but third editor (said "Not enough entries to meet WP:NLIST") seemed unclear.}}}}

|-

:::::I think Seraphimblade's argument that "census data and the like is not a source which allows a comprehensive article" is demonstrably false. For example, see: [[Centre County, Pennsylvania]]. This is just one sample of thousands of similar articles created using only U.S.census data. It is far more comprehensive than many notable WP articles. Also, based on his argument that the guideline should reflect the consensus of what the community actually does, this means that the standard of notability that requires multiple secondary sources does not have consensus. I think the multiple secondary sources standard is applicable to a wide range of subjects, but as I have been trying to point out repeatedly, it is not universally applicable to all. [[User:Dhaluza|Dhaluza]] 11:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| 26 Jul 2025

| [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of DuMont Television Network affiliates (by U.S state)|AfD]]

::::::[[WP:ATT]] (derived from [[WP:V]] and [[WP:NOR]]) is an official policy, the work of widespread consensus, and ''specifically'' states that primary sources should be relegated to a limited role, and should never be the sole basis for an article. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]] [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Seraphimblade 2|Please review me!]]}</small> 11:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| DuMont Television Network affiliates

:::::::Yes, but that is a relatively recent addition. When these articles developed, they were consistent with policy. And I think that the recent crusade to change these policies is misguided, as the example I presented is clearly encyclopedic, and it's loss would not improve WP. Continuing this would should not require following [[WP:IAR]]. [[User:Dhaluza|Dhaluza]] 12:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| US

:::::::I disagree with your declaration that [[WP:ATT]] ''specifically'' states that primary sources should be relegated to a limited role, and should never be the sole basis for an article. It ''specifically'' states both that '''Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible''' and that '''(m)aterial from self-published or questionable sources may be used in articles about those sources, so long as the article is not based primarily on such sources.''' Let's let the policies speak for themselves, rather than use our inferences of what they mean, it keeps everyone on the same page. [[User:Steve block|Steve block]] <small>[[User talk:Steve block|Talk]] </small> 12:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| {{no}}

:::::::Agree with Steve block. While it may be possible to make such a restrictive interpretation of WP:ATT, that interpretation is not explicit in the policy and such an interpretation is most definitely not policy. [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 13:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| {{no|align=left|'''delete''' result}}

::::::::Ah, but it states that more specifically. "Material from self-published or questionable sources may be used in articles about those sources, so long as: ... '''the article is not based primarily on such sources.''' (emphasis mine)." So yes, it very specifically states that primary sources should be relegated to a limited, supplementary role, and not used as the primary basis of any article. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]] [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Seraphimblade 2|Please review me!]]}</small> 13:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

|-

:::::::::I think the point is that you appear to be conflating "primary sources" with "self-published or questionable sources". They're two quite different things. While self-published or questionable sources may also be a primary source, that does not in any way deprecate quality primary sources. [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 14:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| 24 Jul 2025

::::::::::Yes, I saw that. But here's how that works. If only very obvious information from primary sources is put in with no interpretation, we've got a directory entry or indiscriminate collection of information, which fails [[WP:NOT]]. On the other hand, if interpretation is performed which is not from a secondary source, it must have been performed by an editor here. That editor's interpretation is a questionable, unreliable source. So either way, articles cannot be based solely or mainly upon primary sources. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]] [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Seraphimblade 2|Please review me!]]}</small> 14:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of movements in Wales|AfD]]

:::::::::::Well, in a sense that leap in reasoning you made there goes to the heart of the perpetual confusion on WP about what exactly is a "primary source" as well as other contentious issues. As a reality check, would articles about music albums that contain only track listings and production note and perhaps some sales figures would fail your test? I think that is probably a clearer example of the use of primary sources than place articles based on Census or Survey data. [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 14:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| movements

::::::::::::Yes, if that's all that's available, the album should be merged and redirected to its parent band, not covered in its own article. (We can even redirect straight to the album section, "anchored" redirects now work.) That's a very clear example of primary-source only articles. (Of course, if secondary source materials are later found, and the album can be expanded, it may then merit spinning back out.) [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]] [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Seraphimblade 2|Please review me!]]}</small> 14:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| Wales

:::::::::::::To a degree, I agree with this. But I wouldn't want to see it promoted as some sort of general rule (that stubs should always be merged) or even as s simplistic algorithm to determine which stubs get merged and which don't. Such merging requires a fair degree of skill to do it well. Besides, there are problems with anchored redirects that place limits on their usefulness. Subsequent editors may not consider the merged material to be sufficiently relevant to the parent article and delete it or whittle it away to a point of making the redirect useless. Or the section heading may be altered, making the redirect not go to the right section, leaving a reader wondering why a link took them to an apparently random article. [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 15:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| {{yes}}

| {{no|align=left|'''delete''' result; 1/1 editor wanted ''X in <country>'' to be notable}}

As one of the authors of that complicated policy, I'd like to pipe in here. I certainly am not claiming priority in interpreting what we were aiming at, but it was a very long, complex, adversarial conversation that led to the wording. Let me say, that *if* an article is based entirely on primary sources, then it probably does not pass the bar that states that it must be "the subject of multiple, non-trivial, third-party...". In other words, the issue should not come up *here* at all, since it cannot pass the lower bar. My second point is, that if I were to read an article which was evenly divided between paraphrasing secondary sources and quoting primary ones, that is 50-50, I'd have no problem with it. In fact I'd think it's quite good. And yes, I advocate, in all cases, quoting primary sources, not paraphrasing them. That way leads to madness. [[User:Wjhonson|Wjhonson]] 13:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

|-

:So are you saying the example listed above ([[Centre County, Pennsylvania]]) "cannot pass the lower bar"? [[User:Dhaluza|Dhaluza]] 13:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| 20 Jul 2025

::I don't think the sole criteria would be the ''amount of text'' attributed to primary sources, but rather their ''importance to the article''. In some cases, an article 50-50 split between primary and secondary might be very clearly based on the secondary sources, in others it may mainly use the primary ones. As to Centre County, I'm sure plenty of secondary source material is available on ''any'' US county, scholars and analysts study at a county level all the time. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]] [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Seraphimblade 2|Please review me!]]}</small> 13:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of home improvement retailers in the United Kingdom|AfD]]

| home improvement retailers

::In this particular case, I quickly reviewed the article and note several statements of fact that could not come from Census reports. Simply because the Census bureau doesn't collect some of the facts that this article sports. So apparently there are other sources. The sources for the article are not named. Perhaps a tag could be added to try to tease them out. [[User:Wjhonson|Wjhonson]] 13:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| UK

:::FWIW, I don't think Census Data really qualifies as a "primary source", at least not in the form released by the Census. The actual survey questionaires and the raw tabulation, yes that is unquestionably "primary" material. But the data released for public consumption by the Bureau has been processed, even some corrections made, and I would hope some level of verification that the released data is accurate (at least to the standards used by the Bureau). It is not a primary source in the same sense as a collection of a correspondence or unpublished notes or a transcript of a dialog. [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 14:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| {{yes}}

::::FWIW, better think again. From [[WP:ATT/FAQ]]: "Examples of primary sources include...census results..." [[User:Dhaluza|Dhaluza]] 14:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| {{no|align=left|'''delete''' result; unclear on NLIST}}

:::::Hmm, while I respect the hard work people have put into [[WP:ATT/FAQ]], but it doesn't necessarily get everything right. It is not policy and isn't even an actual guideline yet. My point, if there was one, is that there are different types of primary sources and it does not help to treat all primary sources the same way. I mean, yes, census numbers are pretty much just data, and are primary in that sense. Drawing conclusions from the data is interpretive/analytical work. But re-presenting the numbers without additional interpretation is not a problem. I guess your objection would be that if the article contains nothing other than census data, there's no encyclopedic value. I disagree, and I think repeated !votes in the past to delete the Rambot-generated articles have failed, usually be a wide margin. I think a consesnus has developed within the community that such articles about populated places are valid encyclopedic topics and justifiable as placeholders for eventual expansion. [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 15:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

|-

| 20 Jul 2025

== Let's start a [[Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Categorization|categorization]] ==

| [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of artists who reached number one in New Zealand|AfD]]

| artists who reached number one

[[Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Categorization]]

| New Zealand

| {{yes}}

I've started this page to help us out in the case that we decide to rebuild this guideline. I think the steps on that page would allow us to write something useful and informative. The plan that I've outlined there obviously isn't in stone... feel free to tweak it. I've started this ahead of the outcome of the above because it will take some time to do thoroughly and with consensus at each stage. The first part doesn't take any time for people to contribute to: it's just a categorization of a bunch of topics onto each side of the notable/non-notable dividing line. Please add to this list. We might not end up using it if the decision from above is not to rebuild but it will be good to have in the case that we do. [[User:Sanchom|Sancho]] ([[User_talk:Sanchom|talk]]) 10:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| {{no|align=left|'''delete''' result; 3/3 editors wanted ''X in <country>'' to be notable}}

:I don't understand what you are trying to do. We could just look at precedents from AfD, rather than building an arbitrary list. There is a page that covers this already: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes]]. [[User:Dhaluza|Dhaluza]] 10:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

|-

:*Okay, we could populate it with common outcomes, that would make sense. I was trying to make a specific list of topics from a bunch of people so that we could see if other policies explain the division already. Hopefully people will put borderline cases that they feel aren't explained by the other policies. Then we would know exactly where the other policies are deficient and have clear direction for what this guideline needs to add that the other guidelines/policies don't cover.[[User:Sanchom|Sancho]] ([[User_talk:Sanchom|talk]]) 11:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| 30 Jun 2025

| [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Soviet straight-winged jet fighters|AfD]]

:The answer is easy anyway, without picking out a whole bunch of arbitrary examples.

| straight-winged jet fighters

| USSR

:*'''Notable for an encyclopedia''': Anything on which we can write a good-quality article (not just a stub, stubs are acceptable, but not if that's all that can ever be done), from the use only of reliable secondary source material, with primary sources relegated to a limited, supplementary role.

| {{yes}}

| {{no|align=left|'''delete''' result; unclear on NLIST}}

:*'''Not notable for an encyclopedia''': Anything else.

|-

| 15 Jul 2025

Really, it is that simple. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]] [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Seraphimblade 2|Please review me!]]}</small> 10:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Channel 51 digital TV stations in the United States|AfD]]

::*If that is the simple answer, why has it not been agreed to by consensus on this page? [[User:Sanchom|Sancho]] ([[User_talk:Sanchom|talk]]) 11:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| Channel 51 digital TV stations

:Why are stubs not acceptable? Won't they eventually get merged or expanded? Isn't that the point? And how do you know a priori that a subject will only support a stub? Do you already have a more comprehensive definitive reference? [[User:Dhaluza|Dhaluza]] 10:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| US

| {{no}}

::I'm thinking that he probably means "if it cannot be expanded beyond being a stub". In other words, if ''all we can write'' that satisifes Wikipedia policy -- especially the two core policies of [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:ATT]] -- ''is just a stub'', it doesn't belong, as a stub that cannot be expanded is pretty much worthless. [[User:74.38.32.195|74.38.32.195]] 12:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| {{no|align=left|'''delete''' result}}

|-

:When you write stub here, you clearly don't mean the same as [[Wikipedia:Stub]]. On some subjects you could write a thousand words, and it still would be a stub. On others, a hundred words might be the limit of the possible, so that a stub version there might be two sentences. The state of being a stub is only tenuously related to article size. People keep taking stub tags off articles because they're big, and adding them because they are small, but that's entirely wrong. The only way you can tell if an article is a stub is by trying to expand it. Easy? It was a stub. Hard or impossible? It wasn't a stub. [[User:Angusmclellan|Angus McLellan]] [[User talk:Angusmclellan|(Talk)]] 10:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| 2 Jul 2025

| [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gangs in Australia (2nd nomination)|AfD]]

::Then replace all instances of "stub" in my post above with "article which is very short or does not cover the subject comprehensively," the exact definition of "stub" was not the point I was trying to make. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]] [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Seraphimblade 2|Please review me!]]}</small> 10:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| gangs

:::Well, the point I am trying to make is that this is supposed to be a collaborative effort. Making an article comprehensive is a shared task, and we should not put an unnecessary burden on the original contributer. [[User:Dhaluza|Dhaluza]] 10:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| Australia

::::Please do not respond to a [[:straw man]] argument, but to what I actually wrote. I ''specifically'' stated that stubs should be considered acceptable. What should not be considered acceptable are ''permastubs'', subjects on which, using secondary sources, we could ''never'' write a comprehensive article. Not for lack of collaboration, not because no one's done it yet, but because the sources simply do not exist. There's a difference between saying that an article ''is now'' very short or uncomprehensive, and to say that the article will ''always'' be very short or uncomprehensive because we just can't do better. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]] [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Seraphimblade 2|Please review me!]]}</small> 11:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| {{no}}

| '''redirect''' result

:::::Seraphimblade, could you give an example of what you mean by "permastub"? I think Wikipedia should have articles that will always remain short (say, 15 sentences) as long as their content is comprehensive. This seems to be the same as what you're saying, but could you please clarify with an example? Thanks, [[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]] 11:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

|-

| 8 Jun 2025

::::::Well, hit "random article" ten times and you'll see plenty. I hit one the first time, have a look at [[:Pierre Planus]]. The only thing I can turn up is mirrors of our own article, and some very basic, directory-style information on the guy. [[WP:NOT]] a team-roster directory, any more then it's any other kind. That article could not realistically be expanded beyond where it is now. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]] [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Seraphimblade 2|Please review me!]]}</small> 11:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of hospitals in the United Arab Emirates|AfD]]

| hospitals

:::::::[http://www.lequipe.fr/sdx/lqr/search?p=&fr=cb-lequipe&q=Pierre+Planus&_charset_=ISO-8859-1&submit=GO+%21&target=on L'Équipe] has sixteen articles that mention him. [http://sudouest.com Sudouest] has 31 with his name in them. This turns up the interesting fact that Planus's brother Marc is also a footballer, and has played against him. That's the sort of stuff that fills up the Saturday sports pages, and sure enough, Sudouest had an article last year entitled "Planus versus Planus". His signing with Angers must have made the pages of Ouest-France. He may not be David Beckham, but Angers are a fairly significant team within the area that Ouest-France sells, and a new signing in the off-season will have generated press. It's a stub, and like any other stub, it can be expanded. [[User:Angusmclellan|Angus McLellan]] [[User talk:Angusmclellan|(Talk)]] 11:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| UAE

| {{yes}}

::::::::Having one's name in an article does not imply non-trivial coverage, nor do random bits of trivia imply that an article is not a permastub. I'll see if I can find another example with sources I can read though. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]] [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Seraphimblade 2|Please review me!]]}</small> 11:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| ''null'' result; unclear on NLIST

|-

::::::::Here's several more hits of random article, let's see what pops up. [[:SERVO Magazine]], permastub, directory entry, I can find no secondary sources that mention the magazine. Next hit is [[:Miss BC World]], which is quite evidently notable and not a permastub. [[:Grote Nederlandse Larousse Encyclopedie]], it's a stub now, but I seem to find a lot of material in Dutch on that, so that's probably not a permastub. [[:Estimated Family Contribution]] should be merged to [[:FAFSA]] if the information can be sourced (which I'm sure it can), I'll probably do that myself shortly. It is a permastub as a standalone article though. [[:Alabama (song)]], it's a state song and I'm sure secondary sources are out there regarding its history, adoption as the state song, etc. Certainly would not be a permastub. [[:Val Fuentes]], only things I can find on him are name-drops, should be merged to his parent band. Standalone, it's a permastub. [[:Albarella]], I can't find a thing for secondary sources on that, appears to be a permastub (and borderline G11). [[:Oliver Dohnányi]], currently is a terrible mess, but there is enough secondary material for an article. Not a permastub. [[:Dexter Smith]], permastub, all I can find is some directory/statistics information and a couple of very short quotations from him in sports media. [[:Royalton Hotel]], all I can find for it at first blush are ads, but there might be something on it. That one's unclear, but certainly may be a permastub. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]] [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Seraphimblade 2|Please review me!]]}</small> 12:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| 23 Jun 2025

| [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of incidents of violence against women in Spain|AfD]]

*I am still a little unclear on what this attempts to do, but if it seems to be what I think it is, I oppose it: we should not build a guideline based on what topics we think are or are not notable. That is a purely subjective exercise that will only result in an outporing of expressions of individual likes and dislikes per [[WP:ILIKEIT]] or [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]]. I do believe (as I'm sure all of us do) that some topics are ''inherently'' notable or non-notable (such as heads of government and the scratching habits of my next-door neighbour's cat, respectively). However, I would not want these to be expressed in the form of a guideline or policy (in fact, I oppose notability being a policy at all). A suggestion to work our way down (e.g., continents are notable; countries are notable; provinces are notable; etc.) until we reach a lack of consensus would have been better, but I'm even ambivalent about and semi-opposed to that. -- [[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]] 11:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| incidents of violence against women

** The purpose of this is to check if other policies already explain the division that we want to create. [[User:Sanchom|Sancho]] ([[User_talk:Sanchom|talk]]) 11:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| Spain

| {{no}}

**I agree with this approach. We have consensus and precedent that towns and villages are notable, but things in the town like buildings, shops, local streets, etc. are not. Heads of state are notable, but the mayor of a small town generally is not. In the military, the lowest ranking soldier can be notable for valor in battle, but most officers get promoted through the ranks while leading an undistinguished and non-notable career, so there is no particular rank that confers notability. Why can't we boil these non-controversial principles down to their essence, and create a reasonable guideline that really can archive a true, broad, and stable consensus? [[User:Dhaluza|Dhaluza]] 11:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| {{no|align=left|'''delete''' result}}

***This is also an direction that would be worth following. [[User:Sanchom|Sancho]] ([[User_talk:Sanchom|talk]]) 11:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

|-

| 16 Jun 2025

:::::And how do you know what is a "perma-stub"?

| [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Carex species in Canada|AfD]]

::::::Without a [[WP:CRYSTAL]] ball? [[User:Dhaluza|Dhaluza]] 11:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| Carex species

| Canada

:::::::Well, it would be easier with a flowchart, but for a very simple test:

| {{yes}}

#Is the article currently very short or has very little information? (Yes) go to 2. (No) go to 4.

| {{no|align=left|'''delete''' result; 3/3 wanted ''X in <country>'' to be notable{{refn|Possibly 4/4 but fourth editor did not explicitly agree with nom.}}}}

#Does the article cite any secondary sources? (Yes) Go to 3. (No) go to 5.

|-

#Could those sources be used to expand and flesh out the article beyond a stub? (Yes) The article is not a permastub. (No) Go to 5.

| 6 Jun 2025

#Is most of the information in the article based off primary sources or no source whatsoever? (Yes) Ignore all primary-sourced or unsourced information and go to 5. (No) The article is not a permastub.

| [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of endemic flora of Indonesia|AfD]]

#Can more secondary source material be found with a reasonable search (Google, Google Print, other subject-specific searches?) (Yes) Examine those sources and return to 3. (No) The article is a permastub.

| endemic flora

| Indonesia

:::::::Very easy, and no crystalballery involved. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]] [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Seraphimblade 2|Please review me!]]}</small> 11:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| {{no}}

*OK, so if I read this right, would this be an example of a permastub: [[College Township, Pennsylvania]] -- [[User:Dhaluza|Dhaluza]] 13:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| {{no|align=left|'''delete''' result}}

|-

:*I'm able to find quite a few secondary sources on it, so no, that's not a permastub just because those aren't currently cited in it. Permastub means "not enough source material exists", not "not enough source material is currently cited". [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]] [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Seraphimblade 2|Please review me!]]}</small> 13:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| 6 Jun 2025

::*OK, that was probably a bad example. I took a random article walk as you suggested, and came across this one: [[Malé Ozorovce]]. Is this a better example? [[User:Dhaluza|Dhaluza]] 13:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of airlines of Pakistan|AfD]]

:::*The answer there is, probably not, I find a good deal of material, but since I can't read most of it I can't comment definitively. I posted some examples down below that I found on a random walk, hopefully those will be somewhat clear. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]] [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Seraphimblade 2|Please review me!]]}</small> 13:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| airlines

::::* I don't doubt that you can find lots of examples of articles we should not have on a random walk. But if you want to make a guideline (and especially if you want to promote it to policy) it has to be universally applicable. I think your method fails at step 5, because you are relying on the "Google Test", and although this is widely applicable, it is far from universally applicable. It obviously does not work with subjects not covered on the web, and with subjects in foreign languages, especially with a non-latin alphabet. So although you may believe in good faith that something is not notable, there could be plenty of source material in a specialized library somewhere not accessible from your keyboard. [[User:Dhaluza|Dhaluza]] 13:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| Pakistan

:::::* Really? Non-latin subjects often have the subject written in that language, thus faciliating google searches even if one can't read that language. However, finding reliable sources is a different matter entirely. Plucking a random example, the first seven or so pages of the google search for [[Aiko District, Kanagawa]] gives nothing but maps, hotels, weather and places to live - stuff that would actually be relevant to people wanting to go there and stay. jawiki has quite a bit of (unsourced) history in it, so I'd imagine the info is somewhere in some history book. I do think this is of concern though - it just doesn't seem comprehensive, but I can't find an example where this would be the case (if someone wants to try, I'd suggest starting from Oceania and working your way up.) [[User:ColourBurst|ColourBurst]] 14:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| {{no}}

::::*Well, generally with foreign subjects, if someone known and trusted to the community claims to have read a foreign-language source and can explain why it's reliable and comprehensive, I'd tend to defer to that person's judgment. However, with Fuentes, he could easily be covered under his parent band, until/unless someone found enough secondary material to justify a separate article. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]] [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Seraphimblade 2|Please review me!]]}</small> 15:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| {{yes|align=left|'''keep''' result}}

|-

| 21 May 2025

Was this a bad idea? I thought the best way to learn a classifier of topics into the categories notable and non-notable would be to first find a collection of training examples, then to extract the features from those training examples that are most discriminating as regards their class membership (notable or non-notable), then to build a classifier that performs best on our training examples as well as a set of test cases that weren't considered during our building of the classifier. Is there a better way to build this guideline? If there is a better way, or if you just don't like this idea of learning an accurate classifier, then I can request that this categorization page that I started be deleted. Let me know... [[User:Sanchom|Sancho]] ([[User_talk:Sanchom|talk]]) 13:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mass escapes from German POW camps|AfD]]

| mass escapes from POW camps

:Don't worry, there are no stupid questions. I didn't mean to suggest that your approach was a "bad idea", just that I didn't understand it. And it started a somewhat tangential, but nevertheless active discussion. [[User:Dhaluza|Dhaluza]] 15:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| Germany

| {{no}}

:I don't think examples are generally a bad idea. I posted this above, but maybe it's more appropriate here.

| {{no|align=left|'''delete''' result}}

|-

<blockquote>Here's several more hits of random article, let's see what pops up. [[:SERVO Magazine]], permastub, directory entry, I can find no secondary sources that mention the magazine. Next hit is [[:Miss BC World]], which is quite evidently notable and not a permastub. [[:Grote Nederlandse Larousse Encyclopedie]], it's a stub now, but I seem to find a lot of material in Dutch on that, so that's probably not a permastub. [[:Estimated Family Contribution]] should be merged to [[:FAFSA]] if the information can be sourced (which I'm sure it can), I'll probably do that myself shortly. It is a permastub as a standalone article though. [[:Alabama (song)]], it's a state song and I'm sure secondary sources are out there regarding its history, adoption as the state song, etc. Certainly would not be a permastub. [[:Val Fuentes]], only things I can find on him are name-drops, should be merged to his parent band. Standalone, it's a permastub. [[:Albarella]], I can't find a thing for secondary sources on that, appears to be a permastub (and borderline G11). [[:Oliver Dohnányi]], currently is a terrible mess, but there is enough secondary material for an article. Not a permastub. [[:Dexter Smith]], permastub, all I can find is some directory/statistics information and a couple of very short quotations from him in sports media. [[:Royalton Hotel]], all I can find for it at first blush are ads, but there might be something on it. That one's unclear, but certainly may be a permastub. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]] [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Seraphimblade 2|Please review me!]]}</small> 12:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)</blockquote>

| 10 Jun 2025

**Supposing I wanted to dispute your examples, I could say:

| [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cinemas in Estonia (2nd nomination)|AfD]]

1. Servo--I see no reason why there might not be articles referring to the magazine in reliable moderated robotics blogs. I accept these as a source. But i found two university official sites using it as a source, one for class assignments.

| cinemas

2. Dutch Larousse. I find refs to articles ''in'' it, but the others are just listings in library or book dealers catalogs.

| Estonia

3. EFCA is ''how to do it'', and I doubt its encyclopedic nature or the authority of the interpretation

| {{yes}}

4. Alabama, OK I cannot find a way to dispute that one.

| {{yes|align=left|'''keep''' result; 2/2 wanted ''X in <country>'' to be notable}}

5.Val Fuetes, I see a few reviews in what might be reputable online sources.

|-

6.Albarella. should be in at least 2 printed or online tourist guides. Just a lazy article that didnt bother to look.

| 29 May 2025

7. Dohnany, yes. , but people have tried to delete similar as unsourced because they dont recognize the name & assume the links are spam.

| [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Major projects in Tunisia|AfD]]

8. Dexter Smith, again, I would need to check specialized publications. Many athletes below our usual current level will have articles somewhere

| major projects

9. Royalton, there will certainly be travel guides. and given a history in 1898, printed newspaper sources.

| Tunisia

So it is possible to find agreement on some of the most notable. But not necessarily on any of the others. Its the others that are the problem.

| {{yes}}

I'm not saying my arguments are necessarily right, just that arguments can be made, I can't decide on borderline cases at an article/minute. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' 14:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| {{no|align=left|'''delete''' result; 1/1 wanted ''X in <country>'' to be notable}}

|-

:(I presume you agree on [[:Miss BC World]]). The thing with the borderline ones there is, though, they could probably all be easily dealt with, if people would just ''leave it alone'' when someone does. SERVO probably would require deletion if nothing were available on it (blogs aren't reliable, even if moderated, they have to be editorially-controlled and fact-checked. Similarly, a name-drop of the magazine on "You may want to look at this" doesn't make any source material for an article). Dutch Larousse I honestly can't comment intelligently on, since most of the source material I found I can't read. If you can, I'd defer to your judgment on that. EFCA, yes, but certainly anything which is verifiable could be merged, anything else could be left out, and the article title made into a useful redirect to [[:FAFSA]]. For Val Fuentes, I wouldn't say reviews alone are enough to write an article unless they're ''very'' in-depth, he'd still probably be better covered under his parent band. If someone can find tons of material later in the future, it always can get spun back off. Albarella, I did look. Tourist guides are probably biased sources, and shouldn't be considered reliable, everything else I could find was basically advertising. Probably handled better as a one- or two-liner mention in the parent geographic region (and, again, spun back out if better material can be found later), and in the meantime redirecting to the region. For Dohnányi, trust me, "I've never heard of it, delete" drives me just as crazy as "You hear about that everywhere, keep". For Smith, maybe he does, but he could be covered in the meantime under his team, and that article could redirect to the team. Once again, if a ton of sources come around in the future, it can always be spun back out. Royalton, same thing, probably could get a one-liner under its parent locality, redirect, and be spun out later if it turns out you're right.

| 9 May 2025

| [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of U.S. state welcome signs|AfD]]

:I'm probably as much or more a mergist as a deletionist, I've got no problem with a merge and useful redirect when possible. What we need, though, is some way to make a merge "stick", and not just have people reverse it (which I've had happen more then once), or say "The parent article is too large" (if a parent article with very little secondary sourcing is very large, it needs ''cutting'', not to have the unsourced information spread around to get even bigger). It's great that we grow so much, I just wish people would give less grief to those who cut. That's as necessary a part of editing as the writing itself is, but everyone seems to take it as some type of personal insult. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]] [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Seraphimblade 2|Please review me!]]}</small> 14:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| state welcome signs

| US

::And a thankless job it is. I have no problem with removing unsourced material that is questionable or controversial. And if there is nothing left, then the article should be deleted. But there is nothing inherently unencyclopedic about using primary source material. Yes, it's a great fancruft filter, but it is not applicable to everything. [[User:Dhaluza|Dhaluza]] 15:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| {{yes}}

::This were mentioned as possible arguments, not as the views I would actually take. The comment about Dohnányi was merely mentioned as the sort of absurd argument that unfortunately is actually seen. But the question of RS for travel guides illustrates my point that the failure to have good N guidelines will turn the discussion to RS, sorry, ATT, and will not help much in resolving disputes--we will just learn to use different words. What we really have at issue is not wording or dividing up the policies, but basic differences about what the encyclopedia should contain. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' 16:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| {{no|align=left|'''delete''' result; 7/7 wanted ''X in <country>'' to be notable}}

|-

== Stubs ==

| 3 May 2025

| [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Singapore MRT and LRT lines|AfD]]

I am puzzled by all the discussion about stubs and permastubs. If you look at paper encyclopedias, you will find very long articles and very short, even two sentence articles. If there is little to say about something, but the topic is separate from other topics and the name is something a reader might search for, then we should have a small article. There is no need to merge it to something else. We can take off the stub tag, particularly if it is going into WP 1.0 or some more stable version. --[[User:Bduke|Bduke]] 14:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| MRT and LRT lines

| Singapore

:Or we can merge it into a parent article, and redirect to that section (anchored redirects to sections are now possible, thank the developers!) That way, we've got the subject explained in context, we've added more information to an article which ''is'' about a notable subject, and the reader searching for something there still ''finds'' something. In a paper encyclopedia, "see related entry under X" type "redirects" are clumsy and awkward for the reader, as the reader may need to go pull out a whole different volume, find the other subject, find where under that subject the desired coverage is, etc. For us, redirects are ''effortless'' for the reader. If we design them properly the reader gets taken right to the heading in the other article. We do ''more'' of a service for our readers that way, since that makes the context readily available. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]] [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Seraphimblade 2|Please review me!]]}</small> 14:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| {{no}}

| ''null'' result

::Yes, but that is mixing apples and oranges. Whether to merge or split content is an editorial decision that is based on the content and how it fits with other content. It has little to do with notability, which is the filter for what content to include. We should not merge the article about your car into the article on the make/model, we should delete it. [[User:Dhaluza|Dhaluza]] 15:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

|-

| 9 May 2025

:::Very true. But what should be in a ''separate'' article of its own should be based on notability. If the information is inappropriate period, as with the car, it should simply be deleted. If it's appropriate and sourced, but just insufficient for its own article, it should be merged. If a stub has significant, clear expansion potential, it should be left alone. That's somewhat related to notability, and maybe should have a place in the MOS as well. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]] [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Seraphimblade 2|Please review me!]]}</small> 15:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fire departments in the Philippines|AfD]]

| fire departments

::::I still think you are mixing separate issues. If it's appropriate, then where it goes is an editorial decision. It can stay as a short article if there is no logical place to merge it. If there is some place it can be merged, that does not mean it should be merged just because it's short. It should be merged there only if it makes sense. Encyclopedias can have short articles, there is nothing inherently wrong with that. It's better than sticking a round peg in a square hole. [[User:Dhaluza|Dhaluza]] 15:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| Philippines

| {{yes}}

:::::I'm not seeing that, I guess...those things in ''separate'' articles should be ''separately'' notable. Those things which are not notable on their own but are relevant to a parent article should be merged to the parent article. Those things which are just totally inappropriate or non-notable should be deleted. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]] [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Seraphimblade 2|Please review me!]]}</small> 15:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| {{no|align=left|'''delete''' result; unclear on NLIST}}

|-

::::::Yes, I agree, it just has nothing to do with being short. [[User:Dhaluza|Dhaluza]] 16:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| 3 May 2025

| [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Michelin-starred restaurants in Andorra|AfD]]

I agree with [[User:Dhaluza|Dhaluza]]. There is no need to merge something that is self-contained and notable. Anyway, how do you determine what the parent article is? --[[User:Bduke|Bduke]] 16:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| Michelin-starred restaurants

:Here's an example: [[Zax (tool)]]. It's a short article, but what else needs to be said? Where would you merge it, to [[Slate]]? That makes no sense. [[User:Dhaluza|Dhaluza]] 16:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| Andorra

::That one looks like a dicdef, probably a good candidate to transwiki to Wiktionary. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]] [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Seraphimblade 2|Please review me!]]}</small> 16:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| {{yes}}

:::You're not serious, are you? Just in case you were, here is the dicdef [[Wikt:Zax]]. [[User:Dhaluza|Dhaluza]] 16:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| '''merge''' result; 1/1 wanted ''X in <country>'' to be notable

:::I think he's totally serious. I think I'll slap a prod on it right now; that's not an encyclopedia article, it's a definition. [[User:Brianyoumans|Brianyoumans]] 17:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

|-

::::I was indeed serious. It certainly looks to me like little more then a definition, what appears to you to be more? (I would encourage Brian to remove the prod, though, obviously Dhaluza does not agree.) [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]] [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Seraphimblade 2|Please review me!]]}</small> 17:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| 20 Apr 2025

:::::One is 12 words, and the other is over 100. Can you see why so many people think this nonsense is elitist? [[User:Dhaluza|Dhaluza]] 17:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of foreign exchange bureaus in Uganda|AfD]]

::::::I guess I'm not understanding what's "elitist", no. Everyone is allowed to participate in deletion discussions, policy discussions, everything else you can imagine. The only time we tend to get unilateral action from "on high" is on things that could place the product in legal jeopardy. That seems to me about as anti-elitist as you get. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]] [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Seraphimblade 2|Please review me!]]}</small> 17:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| foreign exchange bureaus

::(To respond to Bduke) Sometimes it's pretty easy to determine (for example, a non-notable album by a notable band would be merged to the band article, a non-notable book by a notable author merged to the author bio, a non-notable fictional character from a notable work of fiction merged to the fictional work's article, a non-notable corporate officer from a notable corporation merged to the corporation's article, etc.) Of course, if there is no parent article and the subject has no notability of its own, that's a good indication that deletion may be in order. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]] [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Seraphimblade 2|Please review me!]]}</small> 16:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| Uganda

:::and if there is no parent article and the subject has notability that is a good reason to keep a brief article when only a small amount of material can be written about it. --[[User:Bduke|Bduke]] 18:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| {{yes}}

::::Well...that depends how you reason notability. If you go with subjective guidelines, such as [[WP:MUSIC]], [[WP:BIO]], and the like, yes, that situation could arise. I define notability as the ability to write a comprehensive article, though I suppose sometimes an article could be comprehensive but extremely short, I would imagine that to be a rare case. (Also, unlike many who are more toward the deletionist side, I ''adore'' lists for certain purposes. The above "Zax" would probably fit very well on a "List of construction tools" or the like.) Lists would provide an acceptable solution to many short articles, so long as the concept is not overdone to the point of (removes [[WP:BEANS|beans]] from nose, this better never turn blue) the good old [[List of non-notable people]]. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]] [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Seraphimblade 2|Please review me!]]}</small> 18:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| {{no|align=left|'''delete''' result; 2/2 wanted ''X in <country>'' to be notable}}

|-

'''I encourage editors to read the section on dealing with non-notable subjects in these guidelines again. Deletion is not the only way to deal with non-notable subjects.''' Nominating [[zax (tool)]] for deletion [[WP:POINT|in order to make a point]] was poor form. The problem with that article was that no-one had yet written an article with a broader scope into which it could be merged. It is only as of today that we even have an article about the trade of [[slater]]. The zax is discussed in published works in discussions of slater's tools as a whole. '''The guidelines say very clearly to rename, refactor, or merge articles where the subject is discussed in published works as part of a broader scope, and to create any necessary broader-scope articles if they don't already exist. ''Stop treating deletion as if it were the only tool in [[Template:Page fixing tools|the toolbox]]!''''' You are Wikipedia editors. You can write ''articles'', too, as well as deletion nominations. Please ''follow'' the guidelines. [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] 04:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| 6 Apr 2025

*My nomination may have been a bit hasty; on reflection, the solution which you implemented was in fact the most sensible one. I guess I have been a bit discouraged by attempts to work through a merge, by, for instance, the hate messages I received about merging many of the Notre Dame dorm articles into a list (which I need to redo someday soon). Taking something to AFD gives a merge decision a stamp of finality and officialness which can sometimes short-circuit ugly tedious edit wars (especially ones that involve long complicated merges). And, I really hadn't seen something like [[Zax (tool)]] taken to AFD before and was curious to see how it would go; if there had been firm support for deletion/merge, I would have worked on merging more tool articles. After the AFD, I don't think I will, despite your own post-afd decision to merge. --[[User:Brianyoumans|Brianyoumans]] 05:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of animated films in the public ___domain in the United States|AfD]]

**You shouldn't AfD things just because you're "curious to see how it would go". That's even more [[WP:DISRUPT]]ive than {{tl|prod}}ing it to make a [[WP:POINT]]. [[User:Dhaluza|Dhaluza]] 05:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| animated films in the public ___domain

***Well, without a comprehensive policy on what is suitable for Wikipedia and what is not - which I think we can all agree will never be formed short of dictates from above - I'm not sure how one is supposed to determine the sense of the community about a certain type of article except by sending it to AFD (or looking at the results of past AFDs, which is frankly not an easy thing to do, I've tried - ever try looking through the archives for a particular obscure type of article? Tedious and difficult.) If the community wants to keep a particular class of article, I don't try to delete them - I don't try to get rid of run-of-the-mill high school articles any more, for instance, although I personally don't feel they have a place on Wikipedia. On the other hand, after several AFDs of elementary schools in British Columbia passed, I am now slowly prodding the other 130-odd articles (at least, the ones where I can't find any possible notability). --[[User:Brianyoumans|Brianyoumans]] 06:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| US

****Well for starters, you knew I used it as an example, another editor de-proded it, and another, though sympathetic, thought you were being too bold. Did you try discussing it further outside of AfD to draw out other opinions first? [[User:Dhaluza|Dhaluza]] 06:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| {{no}}

*****I wasn't sure whether the opinions of people here represented the opinions of editors at AFD; as it turns out, they did. I thought the process was pretty quick and efficient, really - only 4-5 people posted to the AFD discussion before I withdrew the nomination. Is that much different from asking 4-5 people their opinion on their talk pages (and getting whatever sample error from choosing people who I selected?) And I would point out that, although there were better ways to do it, the somewhat anomalous end result - the merge to [[Slater]] - seems to be a solution that no one here is complaining about, and I feel is an improvement. Let's let the subject rest, or take it to my talk page if people wish to continue to chastise me for my wicked deeds. [[User:Brianyoumans|Brianyoumans]] 06:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| {{yes|align=left|'''keep''' result}}

*Excellent job, Uncle G. You actually went to the trouble of looking it up, rather than just saying [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] and trying to get rid of it. I'd say this misguided adventure in elitism was more than poor form--just look at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_March_6#Zax_.28tool.29 AfD discussion]. Maybe this helps explain why so many people object to this Notability guideline and how it is misused. True, this case was based on a misapplication of [[WP:DICDEF]], but it is illustrative of the larger problem. [[User:Dhaluza|Dhaluza]] 05:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

|-

| 8 Apr 2025

== [[Wikipedia:Availability]] ==

| [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deadliest Canadian traffic accidents|AfD]]

| deadliest traffic accidents

I created this as a separate page, although it's mainly a renaming, in an attempt to clear a lot of things up about notability, and to hopefully replace it with a leaner, (not really) meaner policy. Ideally, we'd throw out all of the stuff that we use to explain to newcomers that "no we don't really mean the same thing by notability as the rest of the world" and make it explicitly clear that what we're talking about is a standard of availability of sources. I realize some may disagree with my characterization (those who view notability as a bar of historical significance or other higher standard than basic sourcing), but this is mainly meant to remove the subjectivity. If people really want significance as a standard, it shouldn't be conflated with sourcing. [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]] ([[User talk:Night Gyr|talk]]/[[User:Night Gyr/Over|Oy]]) 06:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| Canada

| {{yes}}

== Will our readers be interested? ==

| {{yes|align=left|'''keep''' result; 3/3 wanted ''X in <country>'' to be notable{{refn|Possibly 4/4 but fourth editor seemed unclear.}}}}

|-

As I noted in the straw poll above, I have serious issues with letting the availability of sources dictate our notability requirement (short version: the primary notability criterion confuses the concepts of notability and verifiability, and it leads to a lot of systematic bias since media coverage around the world is uneven). I have written down what I think is a better standard for notability, although I freely admit that it is highly subjective, and will be debated on a case by case basis if it were the only criterion. Here goes:

| 6 Apr 2025

:''A subject is notable if we can reasonably expect a sizable number of people to be interested in finding an article about it in an encyclopedia.''

| [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films in the public ___domain in the United States|AfD]]

I think this will include ''all'' towns and villages, as well as most islands, lakes, rivers and streams of reasonable size. People expect articles on settlements and major geographical features in encyclopedias. It will not include most car crashes because even though media might cover them, almost all people would turn to a newspaper and not an encyclopedia if they were interested in reading about such events.

| films in the public ___domain

| US

As the only notability criteria, this definition sucks of course. I can see that right now, but if you want to point it out as well, then by all means do so. If this were the only criterion, we would never have any agreement on whether or not a sizable number of readers are interested in reading about an individual elementary school (it doesn't seem we are getting one now either but never mind that). I hold this standard only as a first iteration to defining notability in the context of Wikipedia. I am very much in favor of more specific guidelines for narrower categories such as [[WP:MUSIC]]. (Note how that guideline, instead of focussing on independent media coverage, focuses on things the musician has ''released'' and ''sold'' and ''performed'', instead of what that is the type of thing which might make a person interested in seeing an encyclopedia article.) [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 07:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| {{no}}

:"Will people be interested in it" would be terrible. We don't have a means to survey and check any of these, so all we have is people's personal opinions. Why do we need a stricter criterion anyway? [[WP:NOT#PAPER]], after all. We have room for all of those things, and the car crashes too. [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]] ([[User talk:Night Gyr|talk]]/[[User:Night Gyr/Over|Oy]]) 08:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| {{yes|align=left|'''keep''' result}}

::I suggested "encyclopedic suitability" for a name-I think there should be ''some'' concept that stories are suitable for an encyclopedia, not just a newspaper. (We've currently got that going at [[WP:NOTNEWS]], but I think it could be integrated into notability, or its replacement, with just a paragraph or two.) Also, [[WP:NOT]] specifically states some things ''are'' inappropriate, whether or not they're sourced-dicdefs, directory entries, howto manuals, and so on. We certainly could always add [[WP:NOT]] the newspaper there, and it would work. This project might not be paper, but that doesn't mean there should be ''no'' scope limitation, it just means that we should cover anything that falls ''within'' that scope. It doesn't mean we can't say "Well, that really falls ''outside'' our scope." [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]] [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Seraphimblade 2|Please review me!]]}</small> 08:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)

|-

:::Why do things have to fall outside our scope? Dicdefs, howtos, etc. are a matter of content -- not enough content, or the wrong kind of content for an encyclopedia article. But if a ''topic'' has sufficient content available for an encylopedic article, rather than original research or pure plot summary, for example, [[WP:NOT#PAPER]] says that we don't have to limit the ''topics'' we cover. Every tiny town in the united states, for example. [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]] ([[User talk:Night Gyr|talk]]/[[User:Night Gyr/Over|Oy]]) 09:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| 19 Mar 2025

::::Generally, unless there's some ''secondary'' coverage, pure coverage from statistics/census data/etc., maybe with GPS coordinates, ''is'' a directory entry. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]] [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Seraphimblade 2|Please review me!]]}</small> 09:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Albanian film chronicles|AfD]]

:::::Census data is secondary (since we're looking at it as description of the town, rather than writing about the census), it's just unanalytical. But you're right about many of our bare town articles being more directoryish. [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]] ([[User talk:Night Gyr|talk]]/[[User:Night Gyr/Over|Oy]]) 10:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| film chronicles

::::::"Primary" doesn't ''only'' mean "non-independent", though that's one way a source can be primary and that's a common error. A source is not necessarily secondary because it's independent. Raw statistics without interpretation are by definition a primary source (and also generally an independent one). Of course, if the Census Bureau then publishes a report ''interpreting'' those statistics (or a sociologist does so in a peer-reviewed study, or the NYT comments, or...) then those would be secondary sources. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]] [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Seraphimblade 2|Please review me!]]}</small> 10:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| Albania

:Another problem with this concept is its circularity. Wikipedia, by its very existence, has already redefined what people look for in an encyclopedia. (I admit that I look here for TV episode guides, for instance.) We have a high enough profile that people will come here looking for whatever we provide; if we got rid of [[WP:WINAD]], people would use Wikipedia as a dictionary.

| {{no}}

| {{no|align=left|'''delete''' result}}

:If the idea is to restrict Wikipedia to things people would be interested in finding in a ''traditional'' encyclopedia, then it really just boils down to "articles must be encyclopedic", using readers' interest as a measure of what is encyclopedic. Since, as Night Gyr points out, we can't really measure readers' interest, I don't find that helpful. <font face="Trebuchet MS, Trebuchet"><i><b>[[User:Celithemis|<font color="red">&mdash;Cel</font>]][[User talk:Celithemis|<font color="black">ithemis</font>]]</b></i></font> 18:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)

|-

::In many ways a valid point. I realize that the definition involves a lot of hand-waving. But we can for instance assume that if there is a musician with numerous released albums which sell reasonably well, there will be readers interested in reading about that person. Therefore, a musician which releases albums which sell well passes the [[WP:MUSIC]] guideline. Due to the sales, the musician will probably also receive the "non trivial references" in published sources. ''However'', I think that it is ''not'' the sources we might gather which make the musician notable. It is the released albums which sold well which make their creator notable. (Sources do make the article ''verifiable'' however, which is also very important, but a different story.) I feel that the basic goal the community aimed for when constructing category-specific notability guidelines was distinguishing the subjects which readers ''do'' care about reading from subjects which the readers ''don't'' care about reading and where such articles would only make Wikipedia look like a random website where anyone could post their private resumes. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 06:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| 3 Mar 2025

:::You nailed it. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 09:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highway rest areas in North Korea|AfD]]

:::Disagree with Jeff. I'm sure people are interested in reading a lot of things that aren't suitable for placement here. I know a lot of people who would be interested in reading the Seattle bus schedule, a directory of websites that sell music, the full text of ''Les Miserables'', song lyrics, dictionary definitions, and a thousand other things. What we're doing is building a ''reference work''. That means, above all, we must have ''references''. We are also building a tertiary work, with a strict prohibition on original research, which also indicates that the vast majority of our sources should be secondary. This guideline assures we stay within scope. Yes, [[WP:NOT]] paper, but how quickly those who throw that overlook on the very same page that [[WP:NOT]] indiscriminate either. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]] [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Seraphimblade 2|Please review me!]]}</small> 09:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| highway rest areas

::::I do disagree with you - references are absolutely necessary for accuracy, but have nothing to do with the things you mentioned. This guideline has nothing to do with staying in scope - if it did, it would have realistic expectations for "notability" instead of arbitrary hurdles. The subject-specific guidelines handle notability much better because of this. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 09:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| N Korea

:::::I guess I'm unclear on how ''this'' guideline is arbitrary (it requires that an article have sources, we're required to work from sources, I guess I see that as easily keeping us within scope), while the other guidelines (two gold records? Why not platinum? Why not one? Why not five? A "large fan base or cult following"? Who decides large?). Personally, I liked your "sufficient" idea, so long as we can agree on a definition of what's sufficient. "Non-trivial" is the ''only'' thing I see having any degree of arbitrariness or interpretation to it left in this guideline. I agree with you that a lot of people ''misinterpret'' notability (ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT, ITSPOPULAR/ITSOBSCURE, and many other similar ones), but that's the fault of the person, not the guideline. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]] [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Seraphimblade 2|Please review me!]]}</small> 09:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| {{yes}}

::::::Because sources don't indicate notability. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 09:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| {{no|align=left|'''delete''' result; 3/3 wanted ''X in <country>'' to be notable}}

:::::::Then, what does? And more importantly, how would we write about a sourceless topic without using original research? [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]] [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Seraphimblade 2|Please review me!]]}</small> 09:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

|-

::::::::It depends on the subject. And I'm not saying we should keep sourceless articles around, I'm saying that we shouldn't be removing them because of notability concerns, but rather verifiability issues. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 10:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| 11 Feb 2025

:::::::::So rename the page to [[Wikipedia:Applying policy to AfD]]. Done. [[User:Nifboy|Nifboy]] 12:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mountain passes in Turkey|AfD]]

::::::::::What about [[Wikipedia:Encyclopedic suitability]]? [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]] [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Seraphimblade 2|Please review me!]]}</small> 12:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| mountain passes

:::::::::::No, because it again implies something that isn't true. I'd be fine with a rename to that if we rewrote the whole page - one section pointing to WP:ATT, the other to the subject-specific guidelines, but as currently written, it has nothing to do with policy. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 13:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| Turkey

| {{no}}

== The one thing we seem to agree on... ==

| '''merge''' result

|-

We need a page for, if nothing else, discussing AfD. There are a number of pages that discuss [[WP:NOT|what]] [[WP:OUTCOMES|gets]] [[WP:CSD|deleted]], and then there are the pages that describe [[WP:ATT|what we]] [[WP:NPOV|want in]] [[WP:BLP|an article]]. Lastly, there's a lot of [[WP:CLEANUP|sand]] in between where [[WP:AFD|we draw lines]].

| 8 Mar 2025

| [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of schools in the Netherlands|AfD]]

What we ''don't'' agree on is whether the criteria, as written, does a good job of tying all these pages together. [[User:Nifboy|Nifboy]] 20:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| schools

:However, letting someone crow "DELETE! Non-notable!" with no further explanation or ''policy-based argument'' and considering that a valid !vote is silly and unprofessional, in fact it is totally counter to the goal of a real encyclopedia. Making rules is easy, getting people to ''follow'' rules is not. We could have the most precise and exacting notability rule ever, but if everyone is allowed to say "It's not notable because I say so" and be accepted, then it does absolutely nothing but look nice. [[User:74.38.32.195|74.38.32.195]] 12:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| Netherlands

| {{no}}

== please put up yiddish interwiki link ==

| {{yes|align=left|'''keep''' result}}

|-

like this: <nowiki>[[yi:װיקיפּעדיע:מערקווערדיג]]</nowiki> thanks--[[User:Yidisheryid|yidi]] 06:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| 25 Feb 2025

: Done. <font face="monospace">[[User:Dgies|<font color="#00F" size="+1">'''&mdash;dgies'''</font>]]^{[[User talk:Dgies|t]]}_{[[Special:Contributions/Dgies|c]]}</font> 22:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fire departments in the United States|AfD]]

| fire departments

== Rewrite this page completely. ==

| US

| {{no}}

Per above, there's a few things we now know:

| {{no|align=left|'''delete''' result}}

|-

#There's really no consensus for this as written or proposed to be written.

| 9 Feb 2025

# We can't really come to an agreement on this using the current template.

| [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of treaties of Turkey|AfD]]

| treaties

So I'm proposing a radical change to this entire page. The page is to exist at [[Wikipedia:Article inclusion]] (this text actually exists there now, and this should become a redirect) It should be in three sections. The first, the intro/lead section:

| Turkey

| {{yes}}

:"Wikipedia has a series of tests that Wikipedians use to judge whether an article's subject is worthy of inclusion. These tests, based on various policies and guidelines reached by consensus, form Wikipedia's standards on encyclopedic inclusion."

| {{yes|align=left|'''keep''' result; unclear on NLIST}}

|-

The second section:

| 15 Feb 2025

| [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mutual-fund families in Canada|AfD]]

:"All articles on Wikipedia must abide by our policy on [[WP:ATT|attribution]] - articles should be well-sourced and verifiable, preferably with independent third party [[WP:RS|reliable secondary sources]].

| mutual-fund families

:"All articles on Wikipedia should generally meet a standard for notability for the subject matter it falls into. For example, a musical act's notability is judged by [[WP:MUSIC|our guidelines for music subjects]], while web-content is governed by our [[WP:WEB|internet guidelines]]. In the absence of a subject-specific guideline, sufficient third party information on which to base an article is generally enough to establish notability."

| Canada

::"[[WP:BLP|Biographical articles on living people]] are held to a much stricter standard, due to legal and ethical concerns. While there are many nuances to articles concerning living people, the guiding principle, especially for controversial figures, is "Do no harm."

| {{no}}

:"Most importantly, [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is an encyclopedia]], and subjects must have encyclopedic value. As Wikipedia is not a web host, a directory, or a dictionary, it is possible that some contributions may belong in other Wikimedia projects, such as [[Wiktionary]] or a [[Wikia]] site."

| {{no|align=left|'''delete''' result}}

|-

The third section:

| 1 Feb 2025

| [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cities, towns and villages in the Maldives|AfD]]

:"Articles that do not meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion are handled in a variety of different ways.

| cities, towns and villages

:*"If the information is useful in a different article, or a number of smaller articles may be useful as a larger treatment on a subject, [[Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages|merging]] may be the most appropriate option."

| Maldives

:*"Articles concerning unencyclopedic topics or subjects may be handled via [[WP:DP|deletion]]. [[WP:PROD|Proposed deletion]] is a form of deletion for uncontroversial subjects, [[WP:AFD|articles for deletion]] is a forum for discussion of an article's encyclopedic worth, and many articles qualify for [[WP:CSD|speedy deletion]] if they do not assert basic notability, lack context, or are believed to be [[spam]]."

| {{no}}

| '''redirect''' result

And that's IT. Finis. Done. Add some links to the bottom, don't tag the page, and we've reached a workable compromise - the subject-specific guidelines continue to act as the arbiters of notability, we have a page that reflects our policies for inclusion, and there shouldn't be any problems. So why not? --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 14:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

|-

| 21 Jan 2025

:The problem is, this is an ''un''workable compromise. Others would see the compromise (including me) as far simpler.

| [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of airlines of Lebanon|AfD]]

| airlines

:First and only section:

| Lebanon

| {{no}}

:An article's subject is appropriate for Wikipedia if sufficient secondary source coverage is available to write a comprehensive, non-stub article on it. All articles written on subjects which do not fit this guideline should be merged into a parent topic or deleted as appropriate. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]] [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Seraphimblade 2|Please review me!]]}</small> 14:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| {{yes|align=left|'''keep''' result}}

::<s>"My way or the highway?"</s> So how is it unworkable? [[User:Nifboy|Nifboy]] 14:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

|-

| 22 Jan 2025

::::I think it's important to note that sources should be both independent of the subject (to avoid autobiographical bias) and have multiple sources that weren't written essentially simultaneously (to weed out things like sports articles about day-to-day games and local minor crime stories that were written about in multiple local papers). I think it also should indicate that it's possible to have an exception to the guideline, but such exceptions should have a strong rationale for why they are kept despite not meeting the guideline.

| [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Caravanserais of Iran|AfD]]

:::::That's where the individual guidelines come in. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 15:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| Caravanserais

::I like Seraphimblade's version because it's pretty concise and easier to understand, but I'd want to modify it slightly to address the issues I mentioned above. I could probably get behind something like this -

| Iran

| {{no}}

::"An article's subject is appropriate for Wikipedia if sufficient independently written secondary source coverage is available to write a comprehensive, non-stub article on it. Such sources should be independent of the subject to avoid autobiographical bias, and should not all be written in the same one or two day period (to avoid things like local sporting events and crime stories that might have multiple independent articles about them at the time of the event). Articles written on subjects which do not meet this minimal sourcing guideline should be merged into a parent topic or deleted as appropriate unless a strong reason for an exception is presented."

| '''merge''' result

|-

::That's just a possible suggestion, but it would get to about the minimal bar I'd prefer to see. If Jeff's much longer version could be modified to address the multiple independent non-simultaneous sourcing issues I mentioned, then I could probably support it too (although I think it's a big long). I'm also ok with the current guideline as is, since it meets my minimal general sourcing recommendations for keeping articles. [[User:Dugwiki|Dugwiki]] 15:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| 10 Jan 2025

| [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of hospital fires in Romania during the COVID-19 pandemic|AfD]]

:::I'd go for that as well. My main concern is eliminating the concept that subjective "secondary" guidelines can provide an ''exception'' to the sourcing requirement. We should work from secondary sources, no matter any other considerations. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]] [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Seraphimblade 2|Please review me!]]}</small> 15:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| hospital fires during the COVID-19 pandemic

::::Again - for ''establishing notability'', sources are not the be-all end-all. I cannot stress this enough, and I cannot be clearer on it. Articles that are notable but still lack secondary sources will still be deleted for failing the core policies, so your concerns are unarranted. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 15:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| Romania

:::The idea is not to have an overreaching notability guideline - a one-size-fits-all approach doesn't work. I don't mind similar wording in the intro (I'm going to try and incorporate it now), but the idea is not to have a one-size-fits-all, but note that article inclusion is based on a number of factors. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 15:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| {{yes}}

:::I have gone and added some of what you wrote above. The last sentence duplicated information in the final section, and your nod to recentism is, IMO, unnecessary, as it's covered adequately elsewhere, but I think it ties together the section nicely. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 15:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| {{no|align=left|'''delete''' result; 1/1 wanted ''X in <country>'' to be notable}}

:Jeff's version seems like a good start, but note that [[WP:RS]] is now a redirect to [[WP:ATT]]. I prefer Jeff's version to SeraphimBlade's because I've seen the future, and it sucks as far as relying on [[WP:N]] goes. The webification of government means that any guideline which rests solely on the availability of independent reporting runs in to the [[OFSTED]] problem: every school and kindergarten in the UK is notable because OFSTED writes statutory reports on them. Regulatory agencies abound, and although most do not make their reports available on the web&mdash;not yet&mdash;they will. If a health inspectorate did, every kebab shop and curry house in Hackney might suddenly be notable. As written, every UK care home, and every temp nursing agency, and many more health service entities, would be notable. The statutory reports are on the web, and they are comprehensive. So let's not pin all our hopes on a sufficiency of independent sources. Mentioning NOT, and ENC, and ATT, and BLP, and so on, is a much broader approach, and less open to abuse. [[User:Angusmclellan|Angus McLellan]] [[User talk:Angusmclellan|(Talk)]] 15:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

|-

::OFSTED reports are primary, as would be health inspection reports, so those wouldn't much matter. What we should be looking for is that someone who ''is not affiliated with'' the subject, and ''is not required'' to write about the subject, did so, in depth. Web or not shouldn't matter though, we should certainly be able to use offline sources as well as online to establish that. The only requirement is they should be secondary. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]] [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Seraphimblade 2|Please review me!]]}</small> 15:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| 29 Dec 2024

:::OFSTED reports aren't really primary for the purposes of sourcing - they're secondary for the subjects they're writing about. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 15:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of diplomatic relations of Ireland|AfD]]

::As for WP:RS, I forgot about that. But it's apparently going to some FAQ, so that can be fixed when the time comes. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 15:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| diplomatic relations

:::OFSTED reports would be primary per [[WP:ATT]] (and the normal academic definition of a primary source). They're a government report on a government entity. An example of a secondary source would be a sociologist using an OFSTED report as part of a study of a school, or a newspaper mentioning the results in context with an article. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]] [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Seraphimblade 2|Please review me!]]}</small> 15:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| Ireland

::::Reading the section at WP:ATT, I disagree, but that's really neither here nor there for the purposes of this discussion. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 15:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| {{no}}

| {{no|align=left|'''delete''' result}}

(Major edit conflict - I'll add it and then return) I have concerns that the phrase "sources should be independent of the subject" keeps being said without realising that this removes a great deal of material from articles and articles themselves that are perfectly encyclopedic. It over-complicates things and is far from what we actually do. I agree about autobiographical details. These should be avoided. I agree that some non-independent sources are biased or advertising. However in many cases they are just more accurate and more detailed than independent sources. One example I know about is that some readers want to know about a Scout organisation in a particular country. I do not come from the US, so let me talk about the Boy Scouts of America (BSA). Readers want quite a bit of detail and we provide it. Secondary sources, are by and large incomplete and inaccurate. This is not surprising. Why should a newspaper or magazine article go to a lot of detail? Books will only cover parts of what is needed such as biographies of key people. To get accurate material we go to BSA sources. These are perfectly OK. The crucial point is that independent sources should be required if anyone challenges anything in an article. Until they do, almost any kind of source is adequate to avoid OR. Verification is needed if a statement is challenged. I suggest the same should be done about suitability criteria. Let the Projects define it. Put their pages that do so in a category and let them stand until someone comes along and challenges one of them as leading to inclusion of material that is unsuitable for an encyclopedia. In fact the challenge would be best as a specific AfD proposal that challenged a Project's criteria. A successful AfD would lead the Project to modify their criteria.

|-

| 30 Dec 2024

A few other points:

| [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of investment banks in Uganda|AfD]]

* what does "''is not required'' to write about the subject" really mean? A newspaper editor says to a reporter "Go and write about X". Sources are sources. Use them until the information is challenged.

| investment banks

* what is wrong with some primary sources if they give information that should be in the article. Again, use until challenged.

| Uganda

* The notions of primary and secondary sources are blurred. In science articles we use original research papers as well as review papers. Even review papers often include new work by the author or work that is cited as "personal communication".

| {{yes}}

* [[User:Angusmclellan|Angus McLellan]] is essentially correct. If we rely on sources, we will have articles that are really not encyclopedic. We need to decide on encyclopedic and then find sources to write an article. A good start is a whole series of things, like "teams in major leagues (defining that term specifically)", "country and state associations of international movements, but not individual groups/chapters/whatever in one town or village" and so on. All need debating by people who know the subject.

| '''merge''' result; 1/1 wanted ''X in <country>'' to be notable

*[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]]'s ideas are closer to what I think is needed than anything I have seen so far. --[[User:Bduke|Bduke]] 16:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

|-

| 23 Dec 2024

Several things were added while I was writing the above leading to an edit conflict. I agree with [[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] in the new discussion. --[[User:Bduke|Bduke]] 16:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of accounting schools in Pakistan|AfD]]

:This still does not address the subjectivity issue. Nothing I've seen, other than a single, uniform notability guideline, based on secondary sourcing and secondary sourcing only, addresses the subjectivity issue. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]] [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Seraphimblade 2|Please review me!]]}</small> 16:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| accounting schools

::Notability is inherently subjective, so this isn't an issue. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 17:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| Pakistan

:Regarding your concerns about independent sources, I should clarify that better and will do so following my reply here - I need to make it clear that the secondary is necessary ''only'' to establish notability. Regardless, pointing to WP:ATT is the important step there, so feel free to reword it. Regarding 'is not required', I don't know where that's coming from. Hopefully, I can get your continued support. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 17:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| {{no}}

| {{no|align=left|'''delete''' result}}

(edit conflict again - in response to [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]]) A single uniform guideline does not do it either. First, we decide what we are going to write articles about. Second, but more importantly, it is likely to be too brief to cover everything and we still have to decide whether the sources are reliable, or non-trivial. I remain convinced that consensus is the only way. We are writing an encyclopedia. We include stuff that is encyclopedic, with sources. Someone comes along and says "This kind of stuff is not encyclopedic". We discuss it and come to a consensus. We also already have a great deal of stuff that does exactly that - "a school play ground soccer team is not encyclopedic" and so on and on. We codify and build on what we have. Material based on "secondary sourcing and secondary sourcing only" can still be not encyclopedic. It may simply be too local or too trivial. --[[User:Bduke|Bduke]] 17:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

|-

| 21 Nov 2024

:But we should still write down an agreed definition or set of definitions for ''what "encyclopedic" actually means'', instead of letting it be totally subjective, ranging from "I like it" to "6000 hits is kinda nice", "it's known in my hometown", "10 books were written", etc. even if it's not a single brief guideline, but a whole bunch of subject-specific guidelines. Relying entirely on unwritten rules is not a good idea. If we decide that X is non-notable and should be deleted simply because it makes our tummies queasy when we read it... Discuss and come to a consensus, but have consensually-agreed ''rules'' that provide rational, logical bounds for what can and cannot be a notability criterion. We cannot just have a free-for-all that changes with the wind and the phase of the moon. [[User:74.38.32.195|74.38.32.195]] 20:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wars involving South Korea|AfD]]

::Above I have suggested that WikiProjects have a set of criteria and they stay until challenged at AfD. There could be other "subject" pages that are not covered by WikiProjects, although they are getting fewer by the day as more Projects are created. Anything not covered by a Project can be handled by AfD. Let people who know about a topic propose criteria. There are too many AfDs with inappropriate comments because the editor making them does not understand the topic. --[[User:Bduke|Bduke]] 20:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| wars

:::But "I like/don't like it" should never, ever be a good criterion. Also, N criteria should best be proposed on the N-related pages, not on AFD discussions. Also, are you saying that you (or whomever) may dismiss criteria simply because you think the proposer does not know enough, without any other argument or challenge to the proposed criterion itself? [[User:74.38.32.195|74.38.32.195]] 22:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| S Korea

::::That is essentially what I said. There would be N-related pages with criteria. However some articles may slip through the cracks and AfD could handle them. I understand AfD or Vfd predates WP:V and dealt with deletions perfectly well. No, I am not saying what you suggest about dismissing criteria. I am suggesting that good criteria will come from people who understand the area and the range of articles that exist and could exist. I think this is true whether we are talking about webcomics or quantum theory. I am not asking for "experts" to determine this. I am talking about the people who participate in a project because they are enthusiastic about the area. For example I am an expert, of a kind, on physical chemistry, having taught it for 40 years, but I am an enthusiast on wine but not an expert. I know about the articles on wine that do exist and might exist and I have some ideas about how detailed criteria could be written to allow some wine topics and disallow others. The criteria would need to gain consensus by the Wine Project, which has members who also have this enthusiasm and together have a broad international view of wine. Others would need to respect this by doing some serious work before rejecting the criteria, and not just say "It is'nt like the criteria for comics" or even "It is'nt like the criteria for food". We already have a lot of detailed criteria of the kind I am talking about scattered around, and it is often respected on AfD. We need to formalise that process and expand it, building consensus in the Projects and where necessary more widely. --[[User:Bduke|Bduke]] 22:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

| {{no}}

:::::Let me share with you a bit of history, specifically [[WP:WEB]], which started off as the "webcomic inclusion criteria", and is probably the noisiest sub-N guideline in existence. [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics]] was started when someone in the webcomics community suggested that all webcomics with 100 or more comics should have a Wikipedia article.

| {{yes|align=left|'''keep''' result}}

:::::We (in the loosest sense) haven't gotten along since. [[User:Nifboy|Nifboy]] 23:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

|}

:::::But how would one handle the AFD discussions when no N guidelines are in place for the topic yet? The thing is we cannot allow "I like it/I hate it" to be used. It's too subjective and free-for-all-y. Also, if a good criterion comes from a non-expert, it will still be considered, right? Expert contributions should be valued, yes, but less-than-expert people can still make a good contrib here and there. You also said that there are criteria scattered around -- should these perhaps be collected, formalized, and put together into a comprehensive "notability rulebook" of some sort covering all sorts of topics, with [[WP:N]] serving as a primer and "table of contents" to it? I'd also suggest it should provide pointers and procedure perhaps for dealing with topics where no subject-specific guideline set exists. [[User:74.38.32.195|74.38.32.195]] 21:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

{{Reflist-talk}}<!-- Template:Reflist-talk creates a section-level reference list box. Please add comments and references for this section's discussion above this template. When a new discussion begins, the new section will be added below this template. Add a new {{Reflist-talk}} at the end of that section if needed. -->

:In particular the people interested in Webcomics have not agreed ever since. The debates on this articles at AfD show a consistently great disagreement about both the basic principles and their applications. If even in this one pioneer area there is no consensus, how can we expect to build a policy from individual subjects? The arguments about schools is another example--the basic ideas of what ought to be in included have never been resolved, and the same repetitive views are repeated time after time. There is a particular scientific subject--not chemistry--where many of the qualified specialists have very high standards for inclusion--much more so than those in other sciences--one even expressed the view that almost all university professors in the field are not notable--including himself. Shall we therefore base our selection accordingly, with sharp variation by subject? How narrow shall we go? The Wodehouse specialists may want standards of their own, and so may the Buffyverse fans. The people interested in different sports seem to have different standards. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' 23:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

(Not sure where in the thread to put this, so I'll put it here at the bottom) There seems to be a some disagreement over whether OFSTED is secondary or primary, but that discussion is sidetracking the problem presented: that there will be a systematic bias in how many sources we have available between different countries and regions. OK, instead of OFSTED, let's look the ''Bergen Byleksikon'' (Bergen City Encyclopedia, definitely not a primary source) which gives a comprehensive coverage of all the geographical features in [[Bergen, Norway]] (which is my home town). This book has entries on

#Every school in the city, including elementary schools. (Entries for high schools are longer.)

#Every street, road, driveway, and alley in the city, with an description of where the road runs, and at least a short history describing when the road was named, and why it was named as it was.

Would this mean that every street, road, driveway and alley in Bergen is notable? I know there are some who regularly call for the inclusion of such articles, but in general AFD precedent has been to delete minor roads. Saying that all these roads became much more notable in 1994 when that book was published (thereby creating a secondary source was made which gave non-trivial independent coverage) simply does not make sense. Saying that the roads in Bergen are notable while the roads in [[Hamar]] are not notable because there is no ''Hamar Byleksikon'' simply makes no sense. Nothing changed about the roads themselves when ''Bergen Byleksikon'' was published. Whether or not those roads or streets are notable today, if they were not notable in 1987 they are not notable in 2007 either. The roads play an equally significant or insignificant role in Bergen as they do in Hamar. The difference between them, whether or not a source is published, does not do a good job of discriminating the notable from non-notable stuff in this situation. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 23:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

== Notability criterion should involve sourcing? ==

Hi.

I noticed this on [[WP:ATT]]: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true.. On the old [[WP:V]] page, it said "The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth.". So, it's official policy:

"''The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true''."

So, according to this, I think then that a source-based notability criterion for topics where there are no subject-specific criteria, like the one we have now, would make sense given Wikipedia's Official Policies. [[User:74.38.32.195|74.38.32.195]] 22:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

:I suggest that this is talking about including the material. Of course it has to be sourced to be verified. Notability is somewhat different. It is the prior decision. Should we even consider adding this by trying to verify it through sources? The problem to me is that material can be "attributable to a reliable published source" but we still do not want to have it in the encyclopedia. This is why there is so much discussion about notability. We all agree that we are adding verifiable stuff, not necessarily true stuff. We agree stuff should be sourced. We do not seem to agree about what fits into an encyclopedia, although we agree about a lot that does not fit and about a lot that clearly does fit. We are undecided about criteria for a relatively small amount of stuff in the middle; the stuff that often turns up on AfD. --[[User:Bduke|Bduke]] 23:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

::Part of the problem with this Notability guideline is that it conflates what should be included with sourcing. We already have the [[WP:ATT]] policy that deals with sources, so covering the same ground here is redundant at best. And a guideline should not modify policy, so there is no sense defining Notability in terms of sourcing. Despite the repeated drum beating over multiple secondary sources, they are valuable, but not essential. UncleG merged zax into [[slater]] using one tertiary source, not multiple secondary sources, in the example we just saw, so let's drop that red-herring. [[User:Dhaluza|Dhaluza]] 00:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

:Again, notability is different from verifiability. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 04:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

:::To reply to Dhaluza, you can write articles that meet all the tenants of [[WP:ATT]] but which are routinely considered inappropriate for inclusion. For instance, you can write an article about a local sports match that has multiple articles from the sports pages of the related cities, but we don't have articles about such games. WP:N is intended to present a minimal standard for the quantity and quality of references which otherwise meet WP:ATT and thus provide a minimal rule-of-thumb guideline that articles should meet. It is not redundant with WP:ATT, since WP:ATT deals with the reliability of various types of sources while WP:N is more of an extension of [[WP:NOT]] in that it handles articles which are verifiably accurate but which should nonetheless probably not be included in Wikipedia. [[User:Dugwiki|Dugwiki]] 08:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

== Can't find info online proves what? ==

There's an AfD going on for [[Fazal Mohammed]] right now, and it illustrates one of the problems with this guideline. Basically, wikipedian sit at their computers and use google to decide the fate of articles, which leads to bias. There are a few mentions of Fazal on the web, but not enough to satisfy notability. He's from Trinidad, and he died in the 40's; of course he isn't going to have a large presence on the web. This page talks about how [[Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is generally permanent|notability is generally permanent]], then basically makes it impossible to save articles about subjects that are pre internet and not from the devoloped world. Can't we do better than this? - [[User:Peregrine Fisher|Peregrine Fisher]] 00:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

:The problem you point out is real, but this article is not a good example, because it does not include even one source. If the person is worthy of inclusion, there must be something to verify their existence and claim to notability. [[User:Dhaluza|Dhaluza]] 00:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

::Basically, Dhaluza said it. The "fate of articles" doesn't rely solely on Google; if you can provide appropriate secondary sources, such as magazine articles, reviews and so on, to demonstrate the notability of this person, then the article will be kept. Google is only used as a fall-back option for those articles with no sources, to test whether there may be sources out there that haven't been added to the article yet; an article will ''never'' be deleted solely on the basis of a low ghit-count when there are sources in the article to demonstrate notability. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Walton_monarchist89|<font color="Purple">'''Wal'''</font>]][[User talk:Walton_monarchist89|<font color="silver">'''ton'''</font>]] <small>^{<font color="Purple">[[WP:BRoy|Vivat Regina!]]</font>}</small></font> 01:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

:Ditto the other responses. ''Verifiability'' is an important characteristic, in my view more important than notability, for any Wikipedia article. Even if a subject is notable, lack of verifiability can still doom an article. (This does lead to a systematic bias as well, but for something as important as verifiability, that is a price we must pay.) However, I think there is a fairly good chance that one might find some paper sources for the article if someone has access to a local library. Even if the article is eventually deleted for lack of verifiability, but someone then finds sources to verify the article, then the situation has changed, and that will be a definite thing people will care about on a DRV nomination. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 02:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

== Fundamental misunderstanding of consensus ==

If we try to dig down to the root of the problem with this guideline, past the disputes over tags, and wording, I think you find a fundamental misunderstanding of how a consensus based organization works, and how that applies to a wiki. People who can quote chapter and verse about how you can't write a WP article without sourcing, seem to completely miss the corollary that you can't write WP policy and guidelines without consensus. Just as in journalism where "you can't write the, story you want to, you have to write the story you have the sources for" in a consensus based organization, you can't write the policy you want to, you can only write the policy you have consensus for.

Since policy has to reflect consensus, you can't beat people over the head with it, and maintain consensus. So it's futile to think you can get your ideas written into a WP policy or guideline, then quote that at AfD claiming it represents consensus, and get away with it for very long. That's just not going to fly. And I think that's what has happened here. Enough people saw enough nonsense at AfD, traced it back to the source, and said that's enough!

So I think it's time for people here to get off their soapboxes, and start listening to the different points of view, and look for common ground. If this guideline is going to survive at all, it's time to stop pushing pet theories, and see if there is anything we can agree on. [[User:Dhaluza|Dhaluza]] 01:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

:I think the point is more that this shouldn't survive. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 04:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

== not a guideline; essay is appropriate ==

How is it that WP:N is considered a guideline?

It is not a guideline, because it does not offer guidance.

It has not been shown to have consensus, recently, or ever.

However, it is obviously important, not actually wrong, and so it should not be marked as rejected. The main problem derives from its status.

WP:N should be tagged as an essay. As an essay, it can serve its purpose at least as well as it has ever done. As an essay, without attempting to claim official status, it is less likely to confuse. A problem with the hint of official status is that WP:N gets referred to in place of core policies. Pages should be deleted due to sourcing problems, not due “non-notability” per se. [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] 13:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

*Indeed. I've also noticed a shift in interpretation of "notability" over the last year. It used to mean "verifiability" (objective), but now means importance (subjective). The problem is that a group can reject an article because it is not important to them, even though it may be important to a minor group.

*For example, [[WP:SCI]] can reject an article for not meeting ''scientific'' notability, even though it may meet minority notability elsewhere

*Jimmy Wales used to say that the the criteria for inclusion is verifiability (notability).[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-September/006663.html], and that singular views can have their own article pages.[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-September/006653.html]. Not any more. --[[User:84.9.191.165|84.9.191.165]] 16:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

**I'm not sure if this is the right move ''yet'', but there's plenty to suggest it may end up being the right one. The consensus of various parts of this have always been tenuous. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 16:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

*You're confusing "guidelines" with "official policy". Policy claims official status, guidelines do not. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><font color="#0000DD">&gt;<font color="#0066FF">R<font color="#0099FF">a<font color="#00CCFF">d<font color="#00EEFF">i</font>a</font>n</font>t</font>&lt;</font></b>]] 16:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

***No, I am not. The confusion has already occurred and is systemic. [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] 23:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

**Well, guidelines are to some degree prescriptive. They're basically policy that IAR might apply a little more often to. However, I've generally seen a broad consensus behind this, that we ''should'' have multiple non-trivial sources about a subject to have an article on it. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]}</small> 16:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

***Where? --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 16:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

****Hang out at Afd's or any of the 9/11 conspiracy theory articles for awhile, and you'll see that it's widely cited. Please don't mess with it. </font><small><span style="border: 1px solid #F06A0F">[[User:Morton_devonshire|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:blue"> &nbsp;MortonDevonshire&nbsp;</span>''']][[User talk:Morton_devonshire|<span style="background-color:#F06A0F; color:white">&nbsp;Yo&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small><font color="#ffffff"> · </font> 17:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

*****I spend a good deal of time there. I wouldn't at all use a consistent Truther barrage as evidence of much, either. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 17:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

:I think one way to look at this is that if an article fails to meet the primary notability criteria then that is a "red flag" that the article, in fact, probably has serious problems with verifiability and bias and run into problems with the policy WP:NOT. Failing to meet WP:N isn't necessarily as ''serious'' an issue as failing to meet a policy, but when an article fails to meet WP:N the burden of evidence to keep the article can shift to those who want to keep it. It is easier to convince editors in afd to keep an article intact which meets WP:N than it is to convince editors to keep an article which fails WP:N. And since in the bottom line it is editorial and admin consensus that determines whether or not an article should be deleted, failing WP:N is a strong indication that an article could potentially be deleted by consensus if nominated. [[User:Dugwiki|Dugwiki]] 19:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

::None of this requires WP:N to be a guideline. I might agree with your statements, but the reality is that many refer to WP:N simply as a criteria for deletion. [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] 23:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

:::You misunderstand what guidelines are. Please read [[WP:PPP]]. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><font color="#0000DD">&gt;<font color="#0066FF">R<font color="#0099FF">a<font color="#00CCFF">d<font color="#00EEFF">i</font>a</font>n</font>t</font>&lt;</font></b>]] 08:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

===tag===

The disputed tag was removed without concensus. The guideline tag was added repeatedly without consensus. Past discussions have failed to demonstrate concensus, and indeed demonstrated non-consensus. The main contributors here are trying to extend policy under the guideline tag. I say it is instruction creep that is obscuring core policy, confusing to anybody not already well versed in its nuances, and a key culprit in the "there are too many rules" argument. There are plenty of comments showing that the wider community are not nearly so impressed with WP:N, or are confused. The absence of contributions by those who consider notability to be ill-advised cause should not be interpreted as meaning that they have chainged their minds. Where is the argument justifying the guideline tag? <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/SmokeyJoe|contribs]]) 00:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

When Minderbinder reverted my essay tagging, he referred to it as a "demotion". I think it shouldn’t be looked at it this way. A guideline and an essay are quite distinct things (I am using real-world usage here, which is the usage a newcomer would assume).

A guideline should be straightforward and easy to follow. Unlike a good guideline, a good essay may contain logic, reasoning, arguments and recommendations. An essay, unlike a guideline, tries to be persuasive.

WP:N is not straightforward and easy to follow. It is tortured. The clumsy word sequence “multiple non-trivial published works” should be enough to demonstrate this. What it says, and what its authors think it says are two different things. Possibly, the reason it is tortured is that it is an essay trying to be a guideline. It argues that non-standard definition of notable is an important criterion that should be followed, but in trying to be a guideline, it tries to do this assuming that its central argument is an established fact.

As an essay, I believe WP:N will have the freedom to evolve into a coherent, readable, widely supported opinion that is more likely to be understood that the existing version.

[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] 08:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:This is a long-standing guideline. If you have issue with it, perhaps you should considering adding a straw-poll here to judge if consensus exists against having it considered a guideline. Please do not, however, take it upon yourself to re-label this page an "essay" when consensus for such a change has clearly not been established on the talk page. Thank you.--[[User:Jersey Devil|Jersey Devil]] 23:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

::“Straw-poll”?: We had a very well publicized, very well subscribed straw poll recently (February?). The result was unambiguously not consensus in favour. “Discard” was a leading response. However, there undeniably a lot of well intentioned, sensible work behind WP:N, and marking it as {{tl|rejected}} or {{tl|no-consensus}} just didn’t seem right. And so it was left as disputed for several. Disputed is not a sensible tag to be left indefinitely. I, like others, have argued that it should be labeled {{tl|essay}}. As an essay, it can still be referred to, used, improved, but will no longer be so likely to be blindly cited as a criteria for deletion.

::“Long standing guideline”: During the widely subscribed straw polling, it was noted that WP:N NEVER had consensus.

::“Please do not, however, take it upon yourself”: Am I not senior enough? Is there some heirarchy of authority that needs to be followed?

::“consensus for such a change has clearly not been established”: Here, you are wrong. In the straw poll, consensus for change was apparent. Consensus against the status quo was clear. Consensus for the guideline status was NEVER established.

::[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] 00:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

::: Joe, what happened during March? When the good-old-boy crew returned to WP:N to delete the progress from early March few people remained to maintain the progress. It is good to see so many people involved again. With the current interest it might be a good time to work together for a middle ground which won't just be deleted when people lose interest. I'd like to see some agreement on wording at WP:N and a decision on the purpose and need of the notablity subguidelines. Do we have the energy? --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] 00:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

::::Hi Kevin. March? I have a busy life. I can’t promise to contribute a lot of time. I think wikipedia is fantastic, especially on providing information on obscure topics. My problem with notability is that there is a tendency for it to be misused, particularly where it is stifling wikipedia’s growth in obscure areas.

::::I don’t actually have much of a problem with the intention of WP:N, though I think it is awfully structured and written. I don’t see a need for WP:N; existing policies suffice; but, if it is to exist, then I’d like to see its misuse reduced. I’ve given this a lot of thought, and my considered opinion is that the root of the problem is that WP:N is an essay trying to fit into the mould of a guideline. Maybe, if it is freed from being in the wrong mould, then it will be able to improve, become readable, coherent, and less prone to misinterpretation.

:::: [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] 01:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, by reverting the disputedpolicy tag, do you mean that you are insisting that there is not even a dispute? [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] 07:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

*There doesn't appear to be one; rather, there appears to be confusion over what "guideline" and "essay" mean. All this talk of "I'd like it to be labeled a <foo>" or "this needs to be a <foo>" is irrelevant; what matters i whether it ''is'' a <foo>. See also [[WP:POL]] and [[WP:PPP]]. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><font color="#0000DD">&gt;<font color="#0066FF">R<font color="#0099FF">a<font color="#00CCFF">d<font color="#00EEFF">i</font>a</font>n</font>t</font>&lt;</font></b>]] 08:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Radiant,

The dispute is that on one side, I argue that WP:N is not a guideline, but an essay, and on the other certain editors insist that it is a guideline.

If it doesn’t really look like a dispute, it is because no one is answering my challenges.

You state: “what matters is whether it ''is'' a <foo>”

I agree, it matters. WP:N is an essay. It is opinionated (not based on fact or policy). It asserts the opinion “All topics should meet a minimum threshold of notability”. This opinion is not followed. I suspect that you are well aware that many existing pages fail WP:N’s test, even pages that survive AfD.

Would you like to dispute that WP:N functions as a guideline?

I am familiar with WP:POL, I accept it for now, although regarding the section “The differences between policies, guidelines, essays, etc”: it is not very good, I think it is unclear, a refinement is warrented, and I disagree with some of your contributions. Leaving that for another day, and working with today’s text:

“A guideline is any page that is … and (2) authorized by consensus”

* WP:N has not been authorized by consensus.

* I find no inconsistency between WP:N and the description of an essay.

I hadn’t read WP:PPP before. It might help me if you could tell me its relevance to this discussion.

[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] 00:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

*No, it is based both on fact ([[WP:AFD]] et al) and policy ([[WP:NOT]], [[WP:CSD]]). That there are exceptions is not the point, because both the definition of "guideline" and [[WP:IAR]] explicitly allow for exceptions. The page is both actionable (per its text) and consensual (per this talk page). [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><font color="#0000DD">&gt;<font color="#0066FF">R<font color="#0099FF">a<font color="#00CCFF">d<font color="#00EEFF">i</font>a</font>n</font>t</font>&lt;</font></b>]] 08:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

My arguments seem to have no traction at all. Am I off the mark, on my own, or is groupthink at work? If WP:N is consensual, let's demonstrate it with a poll (below). [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] 12:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

== Attempt number #424 ==

Because I don't see fine-tuning so much as fundamental disagreement over what articles should (not) be included (nor am I particularly attached to any of the [[WT:N#Trying to cut through the distractions and reach a conclusion|available options]]), here's yet another attempt at approaching this from a different direction:

:''The most widely used method of demonstrating a topic's notability is by assessing the available sources.''

Full stop. This can be broken down by asking for sources that are ''more'' [[WP:RS|reliable]], [[WP:WIAFA|comprehensive]], independent, etc, without establishing baselines for how much, how reliable, how non-trivial, because, if nothing else, we can't seem to agree on what baseline to use. [[User:Nifboy|Nifboy]] 05:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:Hrm. I like the simplicity (which is the idea here, at least for me), but I'm afraid that might be ''too'' simple. That seems to be in effect asking "Well, do you [[WP:ILIKEIT|like]] the article, or [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT|don't you]]?" Some type of objective standard is needed. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]}</small> 05:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

::Actually, if you replace those links to go to [[WP:GA]] and [[WP:NOR]], respectively, you have something close to what I'm trying to get at. AfD (particularly large, controversial ones) is at its best when, like PR or FAC, (sourcing) concerns are being addressed, rather than a batch of users simply making a one-time judgment and never again considering the issue. [[User:Nifboy|Nifboy]] 05:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:::Actually, "can this article reach GA standards at some point?" is a standard I proposed earlier in the discussion. (Don't blame you if you missed it, it's a big chunk of text to say the least.) [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]}</small> 06:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

::::Can reach GA standards is probably a bad standard because... well, ... how can we know? As a way to decide, that would be too subjective. As for Nifboy's proposal, I don't like that it says that this is the "most widely used method" - I'm really not sure that's true. Most often, sources are discussed in AfDs to help address whether the article can be sourced, which is a ''separate'' issue from the topic's notability. Sometimes, when notability is a question, it is addressed via sourceability. Many other times, it is addressed via other evidence that a topic is notable. I might support saying "The most general method of demonstrating a topic's notability is by assessing the available sources." [[User:Mangojuice|Mango]][[Special:Contributions/Mangojuice|<span style="color:orange">'''juice'''</span>]]^{[[User talk:Mangojuice|talk]]} 14:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::(edit conflict: Reply to Seraphim) I saw that, but "GA-worthy" is a standard I don't think has traction. I'm referring more towards the process, where, if everyone's satisfied with the sources (or [[:Template:IncGuide|whatever method]] is used to determine notability), the article is kept. That everyone interprets FAC, GA requirements differently is to me an indication that we can't make everyone see N the same way. [[User:Nifboy|Nifboy]] 14:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::(reply to Mango) I knew, and am blaming the English language for, that "widely used" was going to cause problems; I said it because I felt sourcing was the most common issue brought up in AfD, and the one applicable to pretty much all articles. "General" is okay, and I might go with "widely applicable" depending on my mood. [[User:Nifboy|Nifboy]] 14:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

::::::Is there some ''other'' way of demonstrating notability other than assessing the available sources? The only alternative that comes to mind is personal knowledge, and I think we should prefer "here's a source" over "I've heard of it." The subject-specific guidelines don't really contain methods ''other'' than assessing sources, they just contain specific guidelines for how to analyze the available sources to determine whether the conclusion should be "notable" or "not notable." To sum, I think you could achieve your goal by just saying ''A topic's notability is demonstrated by assessing the available sources.'' [[User:PubliusFL|PubliusFL]] 19:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::::I am intentionally distinguishing the method as described here from pretty much everything else listed at {{tl|Notabilityguide}}. [[User:Nifboy|Nifboy]] 00:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

::::::::I guess I don't see how it distinguishes. Is there anything listed at {{tl|Notabilityguide}} that ''doesn't'' rely on assessing the available sources? Seems like all the sub guidelines just talk about what types of sources are particularly relevant and how to interpret them. [[User:PubliusFL|PubliusFL]] 16:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

:I actually kind of like this. I'm not sold if we're trying to make it have primacy over the other guidelines, but this is probably a better wording than what I've been talking up. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 14:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

::The first draft I wrote had a second sentence: "[[:Template:IncGuide|At right]] are some other methods used for assessing the notability of specific classes of articles." I'm sure that people will !vote based on one, the other, or both; more power to them. [[User:Nifboy|Nifboy]] 14:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:''The most widely used method of demonstrating a topic's notability is by assessing the available sources'' is a true statement, but that statement alone is too vague to be useful as a guideline. What about the sources are we trying to evaluate? How do editors go about assessing sources to see if something is notable? There's no actual guidance in that statement at all. So while it might be a good starting point, you need to go further into detail on just what it is you're looking for when you assess an article's potential sources. [[User:Dugwiki|Dugwiki]] 20:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

::I haven't completely planned out how the rest of the page will look with a new criteria, but I imagine it's going to be one part liberal references to [[WP:RS]] and one part the criteria that are already there only with the implication that the ''more'' substantial, independant, etc, sources are, the more likely the topic is notable. [[User:Nifboy|Nifboy]] 00:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

:::Could go for that, to some degree, but we need ''something'' objective to use as a guide, be it GA or otherwise. Something like RS gives criteria for how to determine if a source is reliable, we could certainly provide some criteria to determine if it's substantial. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]}</small> 06:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

::::I could agree that enough for a stub ''may'' be enough, and enough for a GA is ''definitely'' enough. But I doubt we can be much more exact than that, and yet represent the broad spectrum of community opinion. [[User:Mangojuice|Mango]][[Special:Contributions/Mangojuice|<span style="color:orange">'''juice'''</span>]]^{[[User talk:Mangojuice|talk]]} 14:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::Again, what ''is'' "enough for a GA"? I still don't understand how that tells us anything. GA says the article must cover all major aspects of the subject and all significant points of view. But you can only tell what the "major aspects" and "significant POVs" are by looking at the available source material. In which case ''any'' amount of reliable source material is enough for a GA. It's circular. GA talks about how broadly an article addresses the source material that's out there, not how much source material must ''be'' out there. That is, the purpose of the GA criteria is to compare an article against the available source material and see whether the article covers the subject well. If the article adequately addresses whatever can be sourced about the subject, it's a GA. I think it's a misconception of the GA criteria to try to bring them into the process of establishing notability. [[User:PubliusFL|PubliusFL]] 16:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

::::::Well, it wouldn't necessarily ''have'' to be the GA criteria specifically. I do think, though, that criteria ''similar'' to the GA criteria would help to say "Unless enough source material exists to one day write an article to (insert standards), it must be merged, redirected, or deleted, as appropriate." Now, of course, that wouldn't mean articles not ''currently'' meeting such standards would be deleted. But if there's good reason to believe that a thorough, comprehensive, well-written, non-stub article can never exist on a subject from the amount of source material available, we shouldn't have that article. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]}</small> 23:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

== Sufficient? Necessary? Both? ==

I think a lot of confusion is going on here because it's not even clear what kind of rule people want to be working towards. Without going into detail, could people just chime up and say which type of rule they'd like to see here? I don't mean for this to be a poll to settle the future of this guideline, but I think this may uncover some disagreements that aren't being made clear to one another. Please choose: '''Sufficient''' - a rule of the form "If topic X has these properties then it is notable," '''Necessary''' - a rule of the form "If topic X ''doesn't'' have these properties then it is ''not'' notable," or '''Both''' - a rule of the form "If topic X has properties Y then it is notable, and if topic X doesn't have properties Y then it is not notable." [[User:Mangojuice|Mango]][[Special:Contributions/Mangojuice|<span style="color:orange">'''juice'''</span>]]^{[[User talk:Mangojuice|talk]]} 14:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

* I support a '''sufficient''' rule. I don't support a '''both rule'''. I'm mixed on a '''necessary''' rule. [[User:Mangojuice|Mango]][[Special:Contributions/Mangojuice|<span style="color:orange">'''juice'''</span>]]^{[[User talk:Mangojuice|talk]]} 14:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

*Sufficient is the only sensible, realistic one. Necessary puts up too many arbitrary, unrealistic roadblocks, and both doesn't seem to shift from necessary much. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 14:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

**Given that articles on non-notable topics are regularly deleted, and the requirements are necessary for the possibility of an encyclopedic article being created on the topic, and that there is a tag at the top of the page that a guideline is not set in stone and has the occasional exception, so pasting a certain word here is not going to change the fact that they are necessary, the only roadblocks are to prevent unencyclopedic articles, and they are not even roadblocks, they are more like inspections after the fact which do not require anyone to stop and which can be easily waived. —[[User:Centrx|Centrx]]→[[User talk:Centrx|''talk'']]&nbsp;&bull; 14:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

***For ''notability'', they are not necessary. This is a fact that seems to get glossed over a little too much in these discussions. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 17:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

****Find a better name if you want, but the fact remains. —[[User:Centrx|Centrx]]→[[User talk:Centrx|''talk'']]&nbsp;&bull; 03:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

*'''Necessary''' Considering the amount of content added and the ease at whtch it is done rules for inclusion must ''demand'' "X". There must be a clear minimum threshold that is easily understood esp by new editors. Guidlines for something as rocky as Notability must show that if an article or subject does not meet certain standards then it is subject to deletion. If not then a cyclic argument canbe made that it "could" be notable. [[User:NeoFreak|NeoFreak]] 15:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

**Such cyclic arguments are best answered through two words: "Prove it." I don't feel its necessary to add arbitrary and undoubtedly controversial requirements. -- [[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]] 16:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

***Sure but remember that articles are really only subject to deletion at AfD if the consensus is that they are irreparably in violation of policy for the foreseeable future. Therefor we need a definite criteria i.e. "if you don't meet X it ''is'' non-notable". [[User:NeoFreak|NeoFreak]] 17:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

****If the article for a topic lacks sources, it does not logically follow that the topic is non-notable. We simply cannot definitively state that a topic is ''not'' notable unless we are aware of the content of every reliable published work in existence. If an article lacks sources and we are unable to find sources for it, the only thing we can logically conclude is that "we cannot ''prove'' that the topic is notable". If we cannot prove that a topic is notable, we should not have an article on that topic (thus, we either merge or delete).

****The critical step to overcoming objections of "could be notable" is to carry out a good-faith search for sources. I will hazard a guess that over 95% of AfD discussions where the article doesn't prove the topic's notability and the nominator makes (and provides evidence of) a good-faith effort to find sources would result in deletion. The few exceptions will be cases where the nominator didn't have access to certain resources (e.g., [[JSTOR]]). The only question that remains is: what consitutes a good-faith search? I'd say a search of Google, Google News, Google Books, and Google Scholar suffices. Browsing through those results should take a few minutes at most, but can avoid a lot of headache and resentment when people do poorly-researched nominations. -- [[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]] 22:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

*WP:N, by itself, '''Sufficient'''. In conjunction with {{tl|Notabilityguide}}, '''Necessary'''. [[User:Nifboy|Nifboy]] 15:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

*In his two sentences, Jeff has succinctly captured my view. Thanks. I also should note that a guideline based in ''necessity'' that relies on the presentation of sources is not logically possible, unless we add other arbitrary criteria. We can prove that a topic is notable if we find sources. We ''cannot'' prove that a topic has no sources ... maybe we just can't find them. -- [[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]] 16:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

**Your last sentence is pure genius as well, I wish I had thought of it myself. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 17:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

*'''Necessary''', with {{tl|notabilityguide}} being '''advisory only''' as to when something is likely to pass N, no subguideline in itself being either sufficient or necessary. True, we can't ''prove'' that a subject has no sources. However, at some point, we can apply the rule of reason, and say "I tried this, this, and this in order to find sources, and came up (empty handed/only a few name drops/etc.)" By that logic, we shouldn't remove unverifiable information either, because no matter how ludicrous it may seem, we can never ''prove'' there's not something out there verifying it. However, as [[WP:V]] has always said, the burden of proof is on those wishing to add or retain information, not on those wishing to remove it. The same is true here. It's not "Prove that this article can never be given a decent, encyclopedic treatment." It is, instead, "Someone doubts that this subject can ever receive a decent, encyclopedic treatment. If you disagree and wish to keep it, prove them wrong." And we can always allow recreation, in the occasional case that we're wrong and someone comes back and says "Look, I found 12 whole books and two articles in [[:Nature (journal)|Nature]] about this!" However, it is not necessarily sufficient, although in most cases it would be so. A lot of things may technically pass N and still fail NOT or NPOV (as in POV forks, where the POV is reliably existent but the article exists simply to "spotlight" it.) [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]}</small> 21:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

**Please note my response to NeoFreak above. You seem to have misinterpreted my position. Inability to prove that a topic is notable after a reasonable search (or, as I've termed it above, a good-faith search) ''is'' a reason to merge or delete. I never would wish to see a standard of ''"Prove that this article can never be FA"'' or something similar. That is an impossible task. However, I also don't want the standard to be ''"You have 5 days to source this or it's gone"''. A less antagonistic and more collaborative nomination would state: ''"The article unsourced. I tried to source it, but couldn't. If you can't source it either, then delete."'' Unfortunately, the second step, which takes only a few minutes, is too often skipped. I agree with your last sentence, but don't think anyone on this page has challenged it. An article must pass [[WP:N]] in order to merit inclusion, but that doesn't make it exempt from other policies like [[WP:NOT]] (i.e., it's a necessary condition). The confusion, I think, results from the conflation of two issues.

::#Are sources sufficient or necessary to prove notability? I believe the presence of multiple reliable sources should be "sufficient" to prove notability.

::#Is conformance with [[WP:N]] a necessary or sufficient condition to inclusion in Wikipedia? Here, policy dictates that conformance to [[WP:N]] is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition. -- [[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]] 22:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

::::Well, I was more stating my own position than responding to yours (or anyone's). However, I would say that your approach is a good one. It's certainly a good idea to check for sources before nominating for deletion, and in many cases when I've been initially considering nominating for deletion, I have instead found that a good number of sources exist. And that's fine! My only objective is to keep articles on subjects which can be given a good, thorough, encyclopedic treatment, and to merge or delete the rest. I think the main issue is just to make a good guideline as to what ''does'' indicate that a subject can be given such treatment and should be kept (or alternatively cannot and should be removed). Multiple reliable sources are certainly one consideration, but if the amount of source material available allows no more to be written than a three-paragraph stub, we've still got a problem. Some consideration needs to be given to ''depth'' of coverage as well. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]}</small> 23:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::It really would help this discussion, which is about the guideline, if you recognised that "if the amount of source material available allows no more to be written than a three-paragraph stub, we've still got a problem" does not have consensus support. There are many editors who are quite happy to follow all paper encyclopedias and have short articles. Your continual assertion that stubs are bad and should be merged or deleted is not helpfull, as it is not central to this discussion and just makes people irritated. --[[User:Bduke|Bduke]] 23:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

::::::The last I checked, everyone is allowed to express an opinion. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]}</small> 23:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::::Indeed, but you assert it as if it was obvious and not an opinion. I merely asked you to recognise that there is no consensus for your opinion and perhaps recognise that we might reach agreement on the central point if you stopped going on about stubs being bad. It is not helpfull. It is difficult enough to keep up with this debate unless one spends all of your time on WP here. --[[User:Bduke|Bduke]] 00:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

::::::::Well, I think you misrepresent my position a bit. Stubs are ''fine''. I have no trouble with stubs, a lot of wonderful articles started out as stubs. What I have trouble with are ''permastubs'', basically articles that consist of a few paragraphs (some not even that!) and ''cannot'' be improved, because there's just nothing to improve them with. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]}</small> 00:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::No, I do not misunderstand your position. There is no consensus that short articles which cannot be lengthened are a problem. Some material is fine as it is. You are implying that lengthening a stub makes it improve. Yes, in some cases, even many cases, it does, but not in all. What you call permastubs and I call short articles are fine in many cases. What is important is that discussion of notability or article inclusion is different from discussing whether these articles can be improved. Once we decide to have an article, we write it and then improve it if there are good sources. My opinion is that the inability to reach a broad consensus here is because people are confusing inclusion criteria for articles with verifiability of content and sources. --[[User:Bduke|Bduke]] 03:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

::::::::::I don't believe there's any "confusion" there at all. I'm stating that "how far can it be improved" (or, if you prefer, "how much quality source material is available", the two are essentially the same question), should ''be'' the question asked when deciding whether to keep an article. There's no confusion there-the two should be one and the same. You're welcome to disagree, of course, but that is not a product of confusion. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]}</small> 06:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I am agreeing with the very first comment on this talk page:-

:<nowiki>== Notability is not needed by particular article-content ==</nowiki><br>

:These and all the notability guidelines are for allowable ''article topics'' within Wikipedia, not for allowable ''content'' within a legitimate Wikipedia article. Although issues of article-content are sometimes discussed, on talk-pages, in terms of the content's "notability", that is not exactly "notability" in the sense of these guidelines, which do not directly apply to such matters: "Notability", in the sense of these guidelines, is ''not'' needed in order for particular information to be included in a Wikipedia article. For such article-content issues, see the guidelines on [[WP:V|verifiability]], [[WP:RS|reliable sources]], and [[WP:TRIV|trivia]]. (Note also, though, that within Wikipedia's guidelines, generally, the term "notability" means what it means in the notability guidelines.)

I think we are trying to do too much. Notability is about whether we write an article. It is not about whether it can be improved or all the other things that core policies speak to. We should stick to that. The confusion is that some people want to do essentially what I am suggesting and others such as you want to deal with sources and all the other things about writing and improving articles. We are never going to agree. --[[User:Bduke|Bduke]] 07:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

:Well...actually, we may ''already'' agree to some extent. Notability has always been a way of dealing with the question "Under what circumstances is it appropriate for us to have an article on something?" This guideline ''already'' deals with sourcing, in requiring multiple non-trivial independent reliable sources. Basically, what we're doing here is discussing two questions-"What if such sourcing does not exist, but it is verifiable that the topic passes a sub-guideline such as [[WP:MUSIC]] or [[WP:WEB]]?" (Alternatively and perhaps just as importantly, "What if such sourcing is available but the topic does not pass its applicable sub-guideline?") and "What exactly ''does'' constitute an appropriate level of sourcing, anyway?" Those are questions very relevant to a discussion here, and to the guideline's purpose. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]}</small> 08:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

== Nutshell ==

Taking my cue from {{user|Jeepday}}'s great suggestion at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ATemplates_for_deletion%2FTemplate%3Apnc&diff=123817525&oldid=123803469 Template:pnc deletion discussion], I'd like to spur a discussion on a WP:N {{tl|Nutshell}}. A well-developed nutshell could provide a solid middle ground for both sides of the {{tl|pnc}} debate. My first suggestion for nutshell text:<blockquote>Since Wikipedia is [[WP:NOT#IINFO|not an indiscriminate collection of information]], nor a [[Wikipedia:Spam|vehicle for advertisment]], articles should clearly demonstrate the importance or significance of the subject using [[WP:V|verifiable]] claims from [[WP:RS|reliable, external sources]].</blockquote>Thoughts? &mdash; [[User:Scientizzle|Scien]]''[[User talk:Scientizzle|tizzle]]'' 16:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

*I don't mind a nutshell, I do mind whatever's in the nutshell being carried over to the individual guidelines without consensus at those places. That's really the crux of the {{tl|pnc}} argument at this stage. As for a nutshell, I'm not sure if we can agree on a wording for the nutshell until we agree on a wording for the part in dispute. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 17:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

As at least a couple of people like the Nutshell idea, here is a proposed version. Notice that I have borrowed from the text suggestions of both [[User:Scientizzle|Scien]] and [[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] Please feel free to make changes. [[User:Jeepday|Jeepday]] 02:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

{{nutshell

|A notable topic should be the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject.

|In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view and is credible

|Articles should clearly demonstrate the importance or significance of the subject using [[WP:V|verifiable]] claims from [[WP:RS|reliable, external sources]]}}

I'd move the third point to the top, since, arguably, demonstrating the importance or significance of the topic using proper sources is the most important message to get across to newbies. &mdash; [[User:Scientizzle|Scien]]''[[User talk:Scientizzle|tizzle]]'' 04:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

{{nutshell

|Articles should clearly demonstrate the importance or significance of the subject using [[WP:V|verifiable]] claims from [[WP:RS|reliable, external sources]]

|In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]] and is credible

|A notable topic should be the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject}}

“using proper sources is the most important message to get across to newbies” is exactly where I am coming from. Point them to WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:RS. Don’t talk about WP:N when deleting newbie pages. Remember that AfD is an intense learning experience for the newbie seeing his first article torn down. What’s my problem with WP:N? In attempting to encapsulate key policies, it confuses. I am not saying that WP:N is wrong in theory, just that in practice it does more harm than good. [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] 05:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

*That is a rather big nutshell. Can we trim it some? [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><font color="#0000DD">&gt;<font color="#0066FF">R<font color="#0099FF">a<font color="#00CCFF">d<font color="#00EEFF">i</font>a</font>n</font>t</font>&lt;</font></b>]] 08:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to ask - what is this trying to accomplish? We couldn't agree on a PNC, so we abandon that and try a template that has the no-agreement PNC in it. The PNC template may be headed for deletion, and didn't catch on in most places, so we abandon that and try for a nutshell that has the ''same problems''? What are we trying to do here? --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 15:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

:Well, I for one, PNC template or no, see a greater need for simple clarity on ''all'' the notability guidelines. A nutshell is a simple way to outline a take-home message for newbies who have not experienced the depths of notability discourse (or may not have the grasp of English through which to understand the verbosity and endless caveats of this page) and need to know if their favorite __[whatever]__ merits an article. This isn't the PNC template; I'm proposing this only here, though I would be happy to see a consensus version adopted across all guidelines for the same reasons I just stated, and making no claims that this is to be foundational. Rather, it's a distillation of what this page already says, and what seems most sensible to express in broad strokes. That said, here's a slimmer version for Radiant... &mdash; [[User:Scientizzle|Scien]]''[[User talk:Scientizzle|tizzle]]'' 15:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

{{nutshell

|Articles should clearly demonstrate the importance or significance of the subject using [[WP:V|verifiable]] claims from [[WP:RS|reliable, external sources]] that are independent of the subject, preferably using multiple non-trivial published works that present a [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]].}}

* That looks pretty good [[User:Scientizzle|Scien]], if nobody complains about for a couple more days lets put it on the Guideline. [[User:Jeepday|Jeepday]] 13:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

*This nutshell is untrue for notability. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 13:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

**Care to elaborate? Properly asserting notability should be, I'd think, a primary directive of this page. [[WP:CSD]] clearly states that ''no'' such assertion is grounds for speedy deletion. Weak assertions (whether in language or substance) are what leads to prods & AfDs. This page, and all the notability guidelines, give a framework for effectively demonstrating notability. Incorporated within the nutshell are are links to [[WP:V]] & [[WP:RS]], the foundation upon which article claims are ultimately judged. What is "untrue"? &mdash; [[User:Scientizzle|Scien]]''[[User talk:Scientizzle|tizzle]]'' 16:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

***The entire basis, that the use of WP:V and RP:RS sources are what constitute notability. This is the same issue this continued conflict is based off of, and just a reworking of language that has been rejected recently. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 16:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

===Ready to post to Article ===

{{nutshell

|Articles should clearly demonstrate the importance or significance of the subject using [[WP:V|verifiable]] claims from [[WP:RS|reliable, external sources]] that are independent of the subject, preferably using multiple non-trivial published works that present a [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]].}}

This nutshell has been discussed and appears ready to post to the main article. The concerns of most editors have been addressed but [[User:Badlydrawnjeff]] remains in opposition, his opposition is not to the nutshell's representation of the current policy, but to the current policy it's self. NutShells reflect current policy they don't set it, so I have posted the template to the article. [[User:Jeepday|Jeepday]] 13:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

:Yet the nutshell doesn't actually reflect current policy - you've effectively nutshelled a disputed section. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 13:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

:: [[User:Badlydrawnjeff]] your participation in this discussion appears to be limited to [[Wikipedia:What is a troll|trolling]] you have not added a single helpful addition in spite of the fact that you started your involvement in the Nutshell talk with ''"I don't mind a nutshell, I do mind whatever's in the nutshell being carried over to the individual guidelines without consensus at those places."'' The nature of Wikipedia is that everything is in flux all the time we can not wait to ''"agree on a wording for the nutshell until we agree on a wording for the part in dispute"'' because it is always going to be subject to change. If/When an agreed upon change has been made to the policy we can update the {{tl|Nutshell}} if/when it is required. [[User:Jeepday|Jeepday]] 13:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

:::Well, that's an absolutely wonderful response. Thanks for that. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 13:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

:::: I can't completely agree that Jeff hasn't made a single constructive comment, but it might be better not to toss in so many comments which do tend to disrupt the flow. Please try to learn something from the 57 critical comments at your RfA [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Badlydrawnjeff 2]]. Following the letter of the rules is not always following the spirit. When people get pushed to the edge of civility, you might ask yourself why you bring out that reaction.--[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] 14:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::I'd suggest the same of you. Thanks for not continuing your disruptive line of commentary toward me. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 17:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I propose that we consider the following modified version of the nutshell. I had a problem using the word "important", and "external" seemed to introduce a word not used in the guideline.

{{nutshell

|Articles should clearly demonstrate the encyclopedic suitability of the subject using [[WP:V|verifiable]] claims from [[WP:RS|reliable published source material]] that is independent of the subject, preferably using multiple non-trivial published works that present a [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]].}}

--[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] 14:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

* I like Kevin's rewording and agree that it would seem to be more in line with the current version of the policy. [[User:Jeepday|Jeepday]] 16:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

** This is great! Jeep and the Falcon have been bold and gotten the discussion primed. Now we are all thinking together to build a consensus. Cheers! --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] 17:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

:It seems to me there's an [unintended] cart before horse problem with the language: it's encyclopedic ''because'' it verifiable through reliable sources, not because those reliable sources verify the subject as being encyclopedic in nature—the construction above logically implies that there is something not listed in the nutshell that is required in those reliable sources to make it encyclopedic; we're back to confusion over whether it is subjective and whether notability means fame and importance. I'm not sure if that 100% clear but I would rearrange the language as follows: {{nutshell

|Articles should clearly demonstrate the encyclopedic suitability of the subject by [[WP:V|verifying]] the article's claims through[[WP:RS|reliable published source material]] that is independent of the subject, preferably using multiple non-trivial published works that present a [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]].}}--[[User:Fuhghettaboutit|Fuhghettaboutit]] 17:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

::: Falcon rather boldly suggested the following

{{nutshell|A topic is notable if it has received non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable published works that are independent of the subject. Lack of such coverage may suggest that the topic is more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic.}}

::: I reverted his boldness, because he had not talked about the changes and his suggestion does not include wiki links to supporting Policy. I have invited ([[User_talk:Black_Falcon#WP:N]]) Falcon to join us here in talking about proposed changes. [[User:Jeepday|Jeepday]] 17:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

:::: I have a feeling of déjà vu here ... I mistakenly thought I'd already commented on the nutshell. Anyway, I'll comment now. I must disagree with the wording of the nutshell above. First, it overemphasises the relationship between importance and notability. Second, "non-trivial" was never intended to apply to published works themselves, but rather to the quantity and quality of coverage. Third, I feel it's a mistake to conflate NPOV and notability. It's a requirement that Wikipedia ''articles'' be neutral, but not necessarily that all of their sources be neutral. Also, I don't see the point of having a nutshell on a guideline page where the wording of the guideline is still under dispute. A nutshell can and should be introduced once the wording of the notability criterion has consensus support, but to do it before then just creates two sentences within the guideline that fall under dispute.

:::: The version I introduced is simply the wording I support. I considered removing the nutshell itself, but decided not to do so without discussion. As for the wikilinks issue ... it was carelessness on my part, for which I apologise. Here's the text with wikilinks: -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' ^{''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''} 17:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

{{nutshell|A topic is notable if it has received non-trivial coverage in multiple [[WP:RS|reliable published works]] that are independent of the subject. Lack of such coverage may suggest that the topic is [[WP:MERGE|more suitable]] for inclusion in an article on a broader topic.}}

:::::I'm not against removing the nutshell at all. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 17:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

::::: Falcon, you make a good point about [[WP:NPOV]] while an important policy is not as boldly discussed in [[WP:N]] but your suggested changes remove all Policy links from this guideline nutshell and replace them with other guideline links. Both [[WP:V]] and [[WP:NPOV]] are core policy. You are correct in that merging is a large part of the guideline as it currently is. [[user:Fuhghettaboutit]] also made a suggestion for wording change but as I see it the change from "using" to "by" in his suggestion deflates the need to actually list the reference on the article. So I am doing the wiki thing here and taking from Falcon and Kevin to propose this joint nutshell. It leaves the policy [[WP:V]] but removes the policy [[WP:NPOV]] and replaces it with suggestion to [[WP:MERGE]]. While leaving the guideline [[WP:RS]] that everyone seems in agreement should be here. [[User:Jeepday|Jeepday]] 18:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

{{nutshell

|Articles should clearly demonstrate the encyclopedic suitability of the subject using [[WP:V|verifiable]] claims from [[WP:RS|reliable published source material]] that is independent of the subject. Lack of such coverage may suggest that the topic is [[WP:MERGE|more suitable]] for inclusion in an article on a broader topic or [[WP:V#Burden_of_evidence|deletion]].}}

::::::The problem is that none of this is factual. Maybe people don't care about that, but I do - 1) Articles, ''for notability'', do not have to use those things to achieve them. 2) Lack of coverage does not mean that merging is the more suitable solution - sometimes the answer is merging, sometimes it's deletion, sometimes it's neither. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 18:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::::I think that's a substantial improvement, but I still don't think it effectively captures the essence of "notability". A topic is notable if it is the subject of non-trivial coverage ... that's the only thing needed to claim a topic is notable. Notability applies to the topics of articles and not to their content, which is where [[WP:V]] is relevant. I think this is what Jeff was getting at in his 1st point. However, I disagree with his 2nd point. Lack of coverage implies either merging, deleting, or redirecting ... there really is no other option. If a topic has no sources, it fails both [[WP:V]] ''and'' [[WP:N]]. However, I wouldn't mind if people considered merging before deleting. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' ^{''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''} 18:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::::: I addeded "or [[WP:V#Burden_of_evidence|deletion]]" to the end of the nutshell above. Now life is calling have to go. [[User:Jeepday|Jeepday]] 18:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

::::::::Well, the implication that there's only one option is not true is more my point, and there's nothing saying that if someone encounters such an article that they ''have'' to do one of those three things if they believe that there may be ways to source it even if they don't know how. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 18:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::Oh, in that case I ''do'' agree with you. I think we should remove the nutshell for now. Putting aside the issue of what it should state (I still disagree that WP:N and WP:V should be conflated), there's also the issue that [[WP:N]] is currently disputed. We can't have an acceptable consensus-supported nutshell until the dispute is resolved. However, I don't want to remove it (as it essentially constitutes a 2nd revert) without discussing it here first. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' ^{''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''} 19:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

::::::::::It's been my position that the nutshell shouldn't exist until we resolve the wording dispute anyway, so you have my support. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 19:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

: I prefer the clear phrasing of "importance or significance of the subject" to the rather muddled "encyclopedic suitability of the subject." --[[User:Dragonfiend|Dragonfiend]] 19:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

== "reliable" ==

''"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow attributable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. ''

Does it really? Frankly, I don't understand a word of this, and especially not how this can be a definition of "reliable". --[[User:91.148.159.4|91.148.159.4]] 17:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

:All that means is that an article should provide references that can reliably be counted on to verify the information in the article. If no reference at all is provided, there's no obvious method for editors to verify the info other than doing their own original research. If a reference cites a source that has questionable independence or has questionable fact checking or overall accuracy, then that reference likewise would probably not be considered reliable. For example, since anyone can post anything they like to an internet forum with no regard for fact checking or accuracy, you can't normally consider internet forums to be "reliable" sources of information. Likewise you have to take with a grain of salt information on a subject that is self-published, such as relying solely on a company's own adveritising and website for information about the company itself.

:So it's simply saying that when you are trying to assess a subjects notability, you should look at the sources in the article that could be considered generally reliable. [[User:Dugwiki|Dugwiki]] 17:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

::Thanks for explaining this! What you are saying is very sensible, and I'm sure everybody agrees that this is what the text ''should'' be saying. My problem is that I don't see how the current text ''is'' saying it. The sentence starts as a definition of "reliable" (when applied to a source), and ends as a call for "integrity"? Maybe I'm missing something, but if we look up the word [http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=sv&q=define:integrity&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 "integrity"], it seems to be defined as "moral soundness", and "honesty and consistent uprightness of character". So it appears that the text is saying: " A source is "reliable" ... if you need to be honest in order to use it " ? --[[User:91.148.159.4|91.148.159.4]] 22:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

::: I'll have to agree that some of our wording gets a bit inbred to the context of the debate. A fresh look from an "outsider" is a very good idea. I've had some nice discussions with User:91.148 today and looked at his contributions which are diversified and substantial. We need some fresh blood here at the WP:N wasteland. Cheers! --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] 23:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

::::Thanks, you're very kind! Which doesn't mean I want to plunge in the endless and convoluted debates surrounding policies. But I hope my remarks are useful in a way, as a reminder that while the process of ''writing'' a text is cool, it should also be good for ''reading'' in the end of the day. :) I hope you can address this sentence somehow. I guess I would understand perfectly well what the author meant, why he wrote it like this and how it might be clarified if I were to study the "evolution" of the sentence in the page history, but I don't have any eneregy left for this today. --[[User:91.148.159.4|91.148.159.4]] 00:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

== Unpublished Texts ==

This [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mozart_Was_a_Red|conversation]] about an AfD seems to point to the need to consider adding guidelines about unpublished texts. [[User:Fixer1234|Fixer1234]] 01:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

== A different view ==

Let us step back and ask "How do other encyclopedias determine article inclusion or notability?" Well they use experts, often an editorial board that decides what articles will go into the encyclopedia and then which experts will write them. The two uses of experts are different. We have a problem with article inclusion criteria because we do not use experts and have not reached a consensus of how to do it. On how to write the article we have. I am not going to argue for the use of experts. It is not the Wikipedia way. If I wanted that, as an academic, I would go to Citizendium. I am not doing that.

So what is the Wikipedia way? It is using people who care and using them to seek consensus. It works for article content with some backup core policies of [[WP:V]], [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:NOR]], [[WP:RS]] and so on. We should be using people who care and consensus for article inclusion also. Attempts to write agreed guidelines are not going to work. Instead of experts getting together to decide whether we need an article on X, we should use our editors who care about the broad topic that X is in and know about the area. We should have more subject guidelines and trust WikiProjects more. Combined with the core policies and a robust AfD system, this will take care of article inclusion.

I know that people are going to jump in and argue that participants of WikiProjects will try to protect articles in their area and allow all kinds of rubbish in. What is the evidence for this? I do not see it. I am active in several WikiProjects and find the opposite. The Project often has it own criteria and the members are concerned about quality. Let me give two rather different projects. The first, the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Wine|Wine Project]] is fairly new and started when there was already a mass of articles on wine, wineries and wine companies. The project wrote [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a wine guide]] and are working to clean up wine articles by merging or deletion. The other, the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting|Scouting Project]], started in early 2006 when the coverage of Scouting in WP was poor. It has also developed criteria and regularly merges (often mostly out of existence) articles on individual troops, individual Gang Shows, or merit badges, and many individual camp sites into larger articles. It discourages articles on non-notable topics and educates editors to move towards higher quality. All the Projects I work in do the same. We should be trusting our equivalent of subject experts, the editors who care and know about a topic and work together to improve its coverage on Wikipedia. --[[User:Bduke|Bduke]] 03:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

:I'm biased, because the only time I saw something even remotely similar happen was... Goddess, that was [http://www.websnark.com/archives/2004/11/a_modest_webcom.html two and a half years ago]? Regardless, it led to the creation of WP:COMIC, then WP:WEB, and a lot of the usual arguing (including an ArbCom case) until the original proposal was recanted and the following suggestion was to [http://www.websnark.com/archives/2005/09/a_revised_modes.html move off Wikipedia] for ''all'' the topic's needs. The only other project I'm involved in [[WP:VG#Deletion|maintains a deletion list]] but doesn't get involved beyond that. [[User:Nifboy|Nifboy]] 15:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

::I will note that our activity on webcomics has largely made us a laughingstock in the sizeable webcomic community, and that we still don't handle it properly. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 15:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

:::On those [[The Whiteboard|rare instances]] which aren't an emotionally charged, spiteful "circle of friends" endeavor, I care. The rest, I do not. [[User:Nifboy|Nifboy]] 17:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

::::I know nothjing of our efforts on webcomics or of any relevant Project. I would welcome more information about how we fail. However, if as jeff says, we still do not handler it well, that is not an argument against my proposal as all current guidelines and policies are not working either. --[[User:Bduke|Bduke]] 22:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

:Brian's thoughts are very sensible, and are much in keeping with the spirit of wiki. Trust the contibutors. Keep the rules simple. Don't over-regulate or you'll stifle investment. [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] 21:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I can go find it, if anyone wants, but [[WP:ROADS]] was caught red-handed using a "newsletter" sent to all their members to canvass AfDs on roads, and many projects post AfD discussions on the project noticeboars. Canvassing is soliciting from a non-neutral ___location. Members of a Wikiproject are by definition a non-neutral ___location, as only those who [[WP:ILIKEIT|like]] that subject will tend to sign up. It sounds like some projects are doing a commendable job of overcoming that issue, and that is wonderful! But many others (Pokemon, schools, trains, any of those anyone?) will simply fold their arms and say "Keep anything that relates to our area!" That is unacceptable, and leaving such decisions ''solely'' in their hands would be disastrous. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]}</small> 22:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

: I am not proposing "leaving such decisions ''solely'' in their hands". There is still AfD and if the article does not follow policy, such as having no good sources etc., or even if other editors think the Project is keeping crap, then there will be consensus to delete. In fact that is pretty much how it works at present. I would also add that it has been determined that putting a neutral piece of information on a Project page about a AfD proposal is not canvassing and nor is using the deletion sorting pages. I do not think that labelling the main people who care about a topic and have some knowledge of it as non-neutral is helpfull. As Wikipedia gets bigger and bigger, the Projects are becoming our greatest strength. However, perhaps we could use some other mechanism such as [[WP:RFC]] to pull WikiProjects into line if they are being non-neutral. My experience is that Projects are bending over backwards to show that they are following NPOV and I have not come across a Project that says "Keep anything that relates to our area!". If they do, we have other mechanisms to stop them. --[[User:Bduke|Bduke]] 23:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

::Hrmmmmmm! Actually, your proposed RFC on projects, I believe, has some merit whether or not we were allowing them to make content decisions and guidelines. (The larger ones often ''de facto'' can do that anyway, I do imagine we'd be rid of a lot of Pokecruft if not for [[WP:POKEMON]]). I think Wikiprojects can often be wonderful, and I've seen tremendously good work out of them, but if we're going to ask them to set content policies (or even significantly influence them within their specific area), we need a way to make sure that those guidelines are in line with the core policies and standards. That's not so big a deal for some projects (I'm in [[WP:CITIES]] myself, but cities are pretty unmistakably acceptable for inclusion, and there's tons of sources on any city I can think of), but others will have to have good and clear ways for dealing with the borderline areas, and that'll have to be something besides "Eh, throw everything you can find in." Maybe we can more widely publicize the examples of the projects you cite, and hope others will follow suit? [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]}</small> 03:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

: "I know that people are going to jump in and argue that participants of WikiProjects will try to protect articles in their area and allow all kinds of rubbish in. What is the evidence for this?" - Browsing through [[Category:All_articles_lacking_sources]] shows a few articles that are not great and are part of projects. AGF makes me say that these articles will be improved or deleted, but I've seen plenty of poorly sourced, poorly written, articles remain unchanged since their creation, with no indication that they'll be improved. If it's an article about a real life 'thing' that has some sources it's possible for someone -perhaps even me- to have a go at article improvement, but often stubs stay stubs because they only have a primary source (the thing appears in episode 68 of series three of some show) or because the thing has no usable sources. EG: Football (soccer) players will get bare biographical details on some official club site, and a whole bunch more stuff on some fan blog. (I'm not attacking the soccer wikiproject, they appear to be happy to delete articles and they appear to be working hard to improve wikipedia.) [[User:DanBeale|<span style="color:yellow;background:black; ">Dan Beale</span>]] 10:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I did not get back on this. I have been tied up. The points that [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] makes are good ones, although I suspect a lot of Pokecruft preceeds [[WP:POKEMON]]) and I think "Eh, throw everything you can find in." is not at all common. We need a mechanism for guidelines, written for Projects on criteria for article inclusion, to be open to wider debate to ensure they are not incompatable with policies. I'll ask the good folks over at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Council]] to discuss it, but I'm still very busy. --[[User:Bduke|Bduke]] 23:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

== Dispute at [[Wikipedia:Television episodes]] ==

There is a dispute at [[WP:EPISODE]] regarding whether the guideline is a style guideline or a notability guideline. The page became a guideline following discussion [[Wikipedia talk:Television episodes#Note|here]]. It seems clear to me that the consensus was to accept this as a ''style guideline'', but another user has disagreed with me. If you wish to comment, please do so [[Wikipedia talk:Television episodes#Disputed tag|here]]. Thank you, [[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]] 19:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

:: I agree. Perhaps we need a style template similar to the Incguide, and a guideline tage which identifies style guidelines specifically the way that the notability guideline tag is specific. --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] 03:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

*There is no practical difference between a "style guideline" and a "notability guideline" or even a "pineapple guideline". The only reason we use those terms is because [[CAT:G]] was getting overly large. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><font color="#0000DD">&gt;<font color="#0066FF">R<font color="#0099FF">a<font color="#00CCFF">d<font color="#00EEFF">i</font>a</font>n</font>t</font>&lt;</font></b>]] 09:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

*** If we are getting too many guidelines to list them effectively in one place, isn't that a clue that CREEP is rampant?--[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] 16:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

****I would welcome you to join with [[WP:LAP]] which attempts to clear that up. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><font color="#0000DD">&gt;<font color="#0066FF">R<font color="#0099FF">a<font color="#00CCFF">d<font color="#00EEFF">i</font>a</font>n</font>t</font>&lt;</font></b>]] 08:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

== Political parties ==

I propose the construction of a separate subpage for judging notability of [[political party|political parties]]. Notability in politics is clearly different from the procedure when judging notability on companies and commercial chains. A significant difference lies in that political parties (generally speaking) contest elections, a criteria that is widely different than presence in a market. --[[User:Soman|Soman]] 08:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

== Notability for murder victims ==

See [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jocelyne Couture-Nowak]]. The problem is that there are multiple sources about this person specifically. It's obvious that these sources have written about her to put a human face on a tragedy by choosing a victim to write about, rather than because she's famous or important on her own, but the notability policy says that fame and importance are irrelevant. According to the policy, this murder victim is notable merely because of the multiple sources, regardless of why they are written.

I won't be surprised if the article does end up being deleted anyway. There have been a lot of comments saying she isn't notable. But by the definition in [[WP:N]], she is, and if it's deleted, it will be deleted by ignoring the policy rather than by following it.

I think that [[WP:N]] should be fixed to not count such people as notable, so we don't need to ignore the policy to get rid of problematic articles like this. [[User:Ken Arromdee|Ken Arromdee]] 13:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

:Well, the proper discussion would eventually occur at WP:BIO, which covers biographies, but, as a rule, this is probably a poor idea. These really need to be handled case-by-case - a murder victim who gets only local coverage ''probably'' shouldn't be considered notable. The murder victim of a story that's become a major one internationally ''probably'' should. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 14:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

::This murder is the Virginia Tech shooting. It is a major story. But I don't think every person killed deserves an article. Besides, adding an "and got lots of coverage" requirement is still a change in the policy; currently it only requires multiple independent sources. [[User:Ken Arromdee|Ken Arromdee]] 14:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

:::Yeah, I'm familiar with the AfD. I don't think every person ever murdered should get an article either, but certainly some should. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 14:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

::Something else to keep in mind here is note 3 of the guideline - "Several journals simultaneously publishing articles about an occurrence, does not always constitute independent works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works." This note is intended to help weed out things like biographies of murder victims of otherwise possibly notable crimes by recommending that we should examine the time span of publication for the references and whether the references are actually relying on the same basic sources. A biography about a murder victim runs the risk of falling afoul of this technical part of WP:N, because it's likely that a) the references will all be published in the same very brief time span, and b) the references will rely in great part on the same underlying sources.

::Now in this particular case I actually recommended a "weak keep" on the afd. Mainly it looks like it might be very borderline notable, so I'm giving it a margin of benefit of the doubt. But frankly I also wouldn't mind seeing this and similar articles compiled into a single article directly related to the event because individual articles on all the victims seems a bit unnecessary. [[User:Dugwiki|Dugwiki]] 17:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

:::I'm in agreement with Dugwiki. The article is a case that basically passess the notability guideline, but I also favour a shorter mention in the main article. In response to the comment by [[User:Ken Arromdee|Ken Arromdee]], I do '''not''' think the notability criterion should be modified specifically to exclude such cases. I think it's clear in this case that those who wish to see the article deleted are choosing to ignore the notability guideline. <small>I also wish editors would explicitly recognise that they ''are'' invoking [[WP:IAR]] and that "delete per [[WP:N]]" is inapplicable in this case.</small> Such cases are best handled on a case-by-case basis. -- [[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]] 17:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

== "The" criterion? ==

I just saw this: "''The'' criterion for notability, shared by many of the subject-specific notability guidelines and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not,..." But wait, aren't the subject-specific guidelines there to provide more criteria? "The" criterion makes it sound like this is the ''only'' notability criterion! [[User:Mike4ty4|mike4ty4]] 02:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

* I would support a change to "A" criterion. --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] 02:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

::That sentence was recently changed from "the '''primary''' notability criterion..." to "the notability criterion" (apparently without discussion). That changed the meaning of the sentence resulting in the above. I have added ''primary'' back to the sentence.--[[User:Fuhghettaboutit|Fuhghettaboutit]] 00:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

::: Welcome to the revolving door. It has been changed from primary, to general, to central, to the more recent omission of any word. You might want to read back through the discussion and look at the pnc template discussion including the ongoing TfD. It is referred to at various sub-guidelines under various names at various times. Welcome to continuity central aka: Wikipedia. --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] 00:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

:::Fuhghettaboutit, having looked up “eviscerate”, I see you feel strongly for the inclusion of “primary”. Can you explain what you think is meant by “the primary notability criterion” that is not meant by “the notability criterion”. [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] 13:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

* "Primary" in the "Primary Notability Criterion", I believe, derives from [[User:Uncle G/On notability]], where Uncle G discusses primary and secondary criteria. WP:N doesn't explicitly refer to secondary criteria, leaving the residual "primary" as redundant, adding nothing, but possibly confusing. "Primary" can be easily interpreted as implying things that were not intended. Similarly, "General" is redundant in the absence of "specific" criteria. In the interest of simpler, easier to understand English, it can often be a good idea to consider removing unnecessary adjectives.

[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] 12:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

::Since there are other notability bases set forth in the subject-specific guidelines, and the sentence itself specifically references those other guidelines, taking out the one word which acknowledges that fact is not removing surplusage but instead renders the sentence self-contradictory, confusing and, in fact, incorrect.

::If it's to say "the criterion for notability is..." (thus implying exclusivity), the sentence cannot work in its present form. I guess the whole tail end can be removed and a footnote added with something like: "There are subject-specific guidelines which include the notability criterion as defined here, as well as additional notability criteria, tailored to the subject covered."

::Nevertheless, I think this really is the "primary" criterion by long standing consensus and the fact that ''something like it'' is a requirement of verifiability and what verifiability means in actual practice.; ''primary'' fits like a glove and it should be included right up front so that confusion is avoided. Sourcing is the only way to actually achieve verifiability (which is not negotiable). So even if "notability" in its current form was gotten rid of entirely, we would still need a mechanism for deletion of unverified and apparently unverifiable content. We might call it something else but the heart of this criterion would have to be retained regardless—this is not true of the additional criteria in the subject specific guidelines. That's why this criteria is dominant and should be explicit about its central position.--[[User:Fuhghettaboutit|Fuhghettaboutit]] 14:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

:::“''we would still need a mechanism for deletion of unverified and apparently unverifiable content''”

:::Why? Is WP:V unclear? Remove all unverified content. If the article is then empty, create a redirect if possible or prod it for deletion. Referring a page of unverified content to AfD with reference to WP:N obfuscates the overriding importance of WP:V. [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] 00:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

== Guideline status ==

[[Wikipedia:Notability]] has consensus support as a guideline. (This is not to say that WP:N does or does not have certain problems requiring further work.) '''Yes''' or '''No'''? [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] 12:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

*I don't think a poll is going to solve anything as much as a frank discussion will. The last poll we had in March seemed to indicate that a) people want WP:N to be a guideline of some sort, and b) the "traditional" wording that's causing the problems has a 2-1 consensus AGAINST it on a pure head count. So no, I don't think this currently has consensus as a guideline, and I think it needs to be demoted until we can come to a consensus on how to make it palatable again. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 12:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

* I'll assume good faith in Jeff's tally, but among the opposition to the specific wording there were a broad range of views. No other wording received the support that the traditional wording received. It seems like a coalition can be formed for a compromise, and it seems that the wording at the template is palatable to a broad range, although not a full majority. A valid question is, what constitutes consensus in the absence of a majority for any specific wording? {{unsigned|Kevin Murray}}

**You don't have to assume good faith in my tally, the numbers are there for everyone to see in the MArch archive. At no time did I say that any wording recieved any significant support ''in favor'', however, but that there is a strong consensus ''in opposition'' to where we're at now. The wording is ''not'' palatable to a broad range, however - there's no evidence to suggest as such. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 17:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

*** There seems to be a general consensus that there should be ''some'' notability guideline. But there's no particular consensus around this current version. The bigger problem is that notability is ''already'' presented as ''policy'' in probably the majority of AFD discussions. It's a guideline with exteremely weak or no consensus, and something needs to be done to stop the rampant abuse of it at AFD. --[[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] 21:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

****Something being presented frequently ''helps'' to demonstrate consensus. That's not an "abuse," that's exactly how policy is made. Granted, there are some pretty non-negotiable policies (NPOV and BLP come to mind), but for the most part, this one seems to demonstrate a consensus that should be apparent-we want decent, well-sourced articles. Having a good deal of coverage available tends to promote [[WP:NPOV|neutrality]] (more than one source is out there to draw viewpoints and observations from, and they're not from potentially biased sources), prevent [[WP:NOR|original research]] (being able to state "There are tons of sources cited, your original interpretation is supported by none of them" is effective at that), and of course enhances [[WP:V|verifiability]] (if quite a few sources are cited, chances are someone coming across the article can verify at least several of them). It follows logically from core policies, because the articles which meet this guideline are most likely to comply with those core policies, as shown above. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]}</small> 01:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

****Well, you're right, it does have to stop, especially since there's no consensus for the wording, but that's what we're trying tofix. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 01:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

*We don't decide guidelines by voting on them. If a guideline is worded incorrectly, we fix the problem rather than "demoting" it. As both Jeff and Jay state, there is general consensus that this page should exist in some form. So the problems with this page should be fixed by editing, not by removing it. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><font color="#0000DD">&gt;<font color="#0066FF">R<font color="#0099FF">a<font color="#00CCFF">d<font color="#00EEFF">i</font>a</font>n</font>t</font>&lt;</font></b>]] 09:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

** A consensus (which you asserted exists) can be tested by a vote.

** As previously discussed (February), many believe this should be scrapped, many believed it needed rebuilding, some consider it essential. You are quick to assert “general consensus”. A snapshot of the talk page is a biased sampling. Having stated opposition, the opposers may find better things to do while committed proponents potter on.

** The status issue is separate from the quality of expression/readability issue. Assuming that a coming version will actually say what the authors think it says, a distinct question is: Should it be a guideline that all all users should follow?

** If the guideline status question should be postponed until the wording “is generally accepted among editors”, then in the meantime, the tag {{tl|disputedpolicy}} is appropriate. [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] 00:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

* '''No''', this page should not be marked as a guideline. It is not, and never has been, consensual. Existing policies (see [[WP:5P]]) suffice. The organisation of acceptable content on single or multiple pages should be decided on a case by case basis by the contributors involved. WP:N, as a rule to be imposed, is instruction creep and should be abandoned. However, the core ideas of WP:N are certainly informative and worth considering, and so should be presented as an essay. [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] 00:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

**Been there, done that. The common usage of "notability" in many deletion debates daily shows that it is indeed generally accepted among editors. And by asking ''"Should it be a guideline that all all users should follow"'' you show misunderstanding of how guidelines work, because they aren't binding. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><font color="#0000DD">&gt;<font color="#0066FF">R<font color="#0099FF">a<font color="#00CCFF">d<font color="#00EEFF">i</font>a</font>n</font>t</font>&lt;</font></b>]] 08:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

***Too often, seen in many AfD, nominations state little more than "not notable", or fails WP:N. Often, the entire article is unreferenced, thus clearly failing WP:V. The apparent message for the newbie seeing his article deleted is that he should restrict his contributions to “notable” subjects, where the message should be that he should limit his contributions to verifiable subjects. This is what I mean by “WP:N is misused”.

***The question "Should it be a guideline that all users should follow" uses the text of the guideline tag. Do you mean to say that the text of the guideline should not be taken seriously? Would you support the insertion of “not binding” in the guideline text?

***There are many guidelines. Generally, they seem to work well. But WP:N seems unique. It formulates a rule not based on policy, a rule that is sporadically applied and in some placed blatantly ignored. I agree with you that WP:N is consistent with WP:AFD, WP:NOT and WP:CSD. I am not opposed to the theory of WP:N so much as its misuse. Given that it is misused, and unnecessary, I think that it would be better if WP:N did not carry an official looking tag bearing the words “a standard that all users should follow”. [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] 09:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

****The fact that it's not ''binding'' doesn't mean it's ''meaningless''. The reason it's a guideline is because it's guiding people to what they should be doing. There are many subjects which are verifiable, and yet inappropriate for inclusion. We shouldn't tell new users that "anything verifiable is suitable for inclusion", because that's not the case. Guidelines mean "We usually do it this way, but we do every once in a while find a reason to make an exception." [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]}</small> 10:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

*****I do understand all that. But there is still the occurrence of: "DELETE! Non-notable!" with no further explanation. How about adding notes along the lines of [[User:Uncle_G/On_notability#Giving rationales at AFD]]? [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] 10:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

******[[WP:AADD]] is rather heavily used these days to counter those occurences. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><font color="#0000DD">&gt;<font color="#0066FF">R<font color="#0099FF">a<font color="#00CCFF">d<font color="#00EEFF">i</font>a</font>n</font>t</font>&lt;</font></b>]] 10:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

== I'm Concerned about losing good articles ==

A lot of articles about MMORPGs are being deleted on the grounds of lack of notability. There is a shortage of mainsteam press on MMORPGs, as they expand primarily through review sites and word of mouth. Some of these games have half a million players and are up for speedy delete, regular delete, or demands to "prove" notability.

In my estimation the notability guidlines are just that:GUIDLINES. We should be giving some of these articles a little slack, or re-write what notability is. The present system isn't working. People are treating the guidlines like law, and we are losing very important articles because of it. If I had my way each of the 40 or so MMORPG articles deleted over the past week would have the deletion reviewed. The situation is bad, in my humble opinion, and I hope somebody will take a look into this. Thanks for listening. [[User:Matt Brennen|Matt Brennen]] 03:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

:I disagree. If they are really that important, then ''someone'' somewhere will write about them. There are several great game magazines out there like ''Games for Windows'', ''Computer Games'', and ''PC Gamer''. If you can't even find a mention of an MMORPG in one of those magazines, let alone the thousands of publications available in any decent public library's periodical databases (like ProQuest, Infotrac, or LexisNexis), then perhaps the MMORPG in question is not really that "massive." In that case, such a Miniscule Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game is not appropriate for Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a soapbox where MMORPG fans can promote their favorite obscure game. See official policy [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]]. See also the policies on [[Wikipedia:No original research]] and [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]]. Also, the problem with the lack of sources for obscure games is that the risk of legal liability has an inverse relationship to the number of sources; that is, the less sources, the more likely that one or more assertions in the article is just wrong (see policy [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]]). The notorious [[John Seigenthaler]] episode underscores the need for such policies. If you do not like such policies, perhaps Wikipedia may not be the best use of your time. These strict content policies have been formulated through several megabytes worth of debate among Wikipedia's administrators and active editors.

:Second, if you do not know how to use ProQuest, Infotrac, LexisNexis, EBSCO, and the like, I suggest you ask a librarian. They will be happy to assist you. That's how I've dug up all kinds of interesting sources for Wikipedia. See my work on [[Lawyer]] for an example of what a properly sourced Wikipedia article should look like. --[[User:Coolcaesar|Coolcaesar]] 06:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

::[[WP:NOT#OR|Wikipedia is not here to be the first publisher on something]]. Ever. That's not just part of the notability guidelines, it's core policy. If no one has written about those MMORPGs in reliable independent sources, we are not to be the first. [[Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not popularity|Notability is not popularity]]. It is reliably-sourced material being available. This is not the place to "correct" any lack of sourcing, we simply mirror sources. We mirror a total lack of sources with a total lack of an article. If you believe sources are lacking on a particular subject, contact some sources who write about games to tell them that's what you want to read about! [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]}</small> 08:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

:::That doesn't mean that the MMORPG articles should be deleted; rather, what it means is that the reliable source standards for MMORPGs should be revised. We *have* sources that are reliable, or that should with any sane rule be considered reliable, we just need to recognize them as such.

:::Web comics suffer the same problem. [[User:Ken Arromdee|Ken Arromdee]] 20:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

::::What "sources" might you speak of? I know with webcomics, the "sources" that were generally given as defensible had no hint of fact-checking or editorial control. Are there editorially controlled, fact-checked sources available for these MMORPGs? If so, they're probably reliable and they're fine. If not, they're not, no matter how much anyone may [[WP:ILIKEIT|want to]] have the articles. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]}</small> 20:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

== Lists of Victims ==

With all of the stuff around the [[Virginia Tech massacre]] and the keeping of [[List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre]], are [[List of Victims of (insert event here)]] articles OK as long as the victims are ''collectively'' notable? And yes, I do know that consensus can change. [[User:UnfriendlyFire|UnfriendlyFire]] 06:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

:Depends. "List of victims of X" articles are essentially extensions of the main article. I think the only concern is to make sure that the victims are indeed collectively notable and that the resulting article does not stand in violation of [[WP:NOT#MEMORIAL]] or [[WP:NOT#DIRECTORY]]. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' ^{''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''} 06:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

::Personally, I'd rather see any listing of victims as part of the main article ... but that's a merging decision up to the editors involved in those articles. I think from the standpoint of [[Wikipedia:Notability]], there is no problem to a "List of victims" who are collectively notable. From the standpoint of other policies, I think it largely depends on how the article is written and how available sources are utilised. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' ^{''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''} 06:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

::as I have been saying at the Afd discussions each individual one of them has or is gathering ore than 21 independent sources of individual media coverage, which , according to the general N rule, would make them notable in their own right, in which case a category would be also appropriate. If so, the list wpould be more appropriate in the main article. (I do seem to be in a minority about this, however)'''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' 07:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

:::The "21 sources" may each have only a passing mention of the individual victim in a collective list. We have often kept victim lists for shooting sprees, but have generally not done so for plane crashes or terrorist bombings or people in WTC1 or WTC2. I have commented that in a serial event such as a spree killing, each victim has a chance to interact with the killer (such as blocking the door at the cost of his own life, by giving a "Christian witness," jumping out a window, attacking the killer, while in bombings or most plane crashes (not Flight 93), they were purely in the wrong place at the wrong time and their actions or lack thereof generally had no bearing on the outcome. [[User:Edison|Edison]] 02:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

== The PNC is not well-written ==

<blockquote>

"''A notable topic has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject''."

</blockquote>

“non-trivial published works” is confused. I am sure that what was meant was that the “depth of coverage”, of the subject, in the published work.

As previosuly discussed, the word choice “trivial” is unfortunate because it carries a connotation of worthlessness, a connotation for which there is no need. A better word is “incidental”.

“Published works” should be substituted by “secondary sources”. It is [[secondary sources]] that prove by their existance that the subject is notable.

What’s with the past tense for the topic?

Do we really need the word notable? Anything ever noted must be notable.

I suggest:

"A topic is worthy of its own article if it has been the subject of non-incidental coverage in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the subject."

[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] 06:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

:I actually find that to be a significant improvement. I do, however, have three comments. First, I'd replace "worth of its own article" with "notable". As the guideline is titled [[Wikipedia:Notability]], we should define what we mean by that. Second, changing "published works" to "secondary sources" makes the part about the sources being "independent of the subject" redundant. Secondary sources are, by definition, independent of the subject. Third, I don't think we should change non-trivial to non-incidental. The latter has many more interpretations and leaves open the question "incidental (or non-incidental) to what?" Thus, I'd recommend this: -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' ^{''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''} 07:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

::''A topic is notable if it has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple [[WP:RS|reliable]] secondary sources.''

:::I believe "independent of the subject" is probably a good idea to leave in. You and I know offhand that "secondary" includes by definition "independent", but some people don't. It also needs to say "and independent of each other", to weed out, for example, 20 papers republishing the same [[:Associated Press]] column-that's ''one'' source (the original AP piece), not 20. As to "incidental" rather than "trivial", I like that, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that ''anything'' that's been the subject of non-incidental coverage should be covered in its own article. In many cases that would, if nothing else, violate [[WP:NOT]]. I also don't like the term "worthy", particularly, that seems to imply a value judgment, which we shouldn't be in the business of making. All we're seeking to ask is "Do enough sources exist on this subject to write a decent article, or not?" [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]}</small> 08:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

::::You have a good point about leaving in "independent of the subject". I think we can best cover identical or near-identical republishings in a comment clarifying the meaning of "multiple". So, how about one of these two revised versions: the first explicitly emphasises that sources must be secondary, but is somewhat redundant near the end; the second is less explicit in its emphasis on the secondary nature of sources, but drops the redundancy and emphasises that works must be published (maybe a link to [[WP:OR]] or [[WP:V]] would be appropriate?): -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' ^{''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''} 09:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::''A topic is notable if it has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple [[WP:RS|reliable]] secondary sources that are independent of the subject.''

:::::''A topic is notable if it has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple [[WP:RS|reliable]] published works that are independent of the subject.''

::::::I think either of those would work just fine. Let's wait for some more input, though. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]}</small> 09:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

:It still doesn't address notability. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 11:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

::How do you figure "''A topic is notable if...''" doesn't address notability? That seems about as direct a method of addressing it as you can get? [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]}</small> 11:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

:::It's still assuming the same faulty premise that has been discussed ad nauseum. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 11:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

::::Well, if we must get legalistic, that still ''addresses'' notability, it just does so in a way you dislike. If I say "All article topics that start with B are notable, and all that start with any other letter are not", I'm still ''addressing'' the question of notability, albeit in a manner no one else would be likely to agree with. Black Falcon's suggestion certainly ''addresses'' the question of notability. Why is the premise faulty? [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]}</small> 11:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

::::We've talked about this so much already - the amount of sources is not what creates notability. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 11:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::I agree! The amount of sources is not what creates notability ... but it is what enables us to ''prove'' notability. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' ^{''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''} 16:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

::::::Well, no, not really. Or, let's put it this way - "multiple, non-trivial, independent sources" do nothing of the sort - some sources can, and other situations of notability don't need sources to be ''proven'' in terms of ''notability''. It's that confusion between what is notable and what is verifiable that rears it's ugly head time and time again. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 17:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

:Let's keep the "multiple": Obviously we need sources, and important topics will have multiple sources, independent of each other."Secondary sources that are independent of the subject" is good. --[[User:Dragonfiend|Dragonfiend]] 17:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

::Why do we "obviously" need sources for ''notability''? --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 17:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

:::How else can we prove that others have considered a topic "worthy of note" without pointing to instances were others have addressed that topic? -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' ^{''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''} 18:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

::::Because the idea that the only way someone can do something of note is by, say, a "reliable source," which is usually the mainstream or specialty press, covering it is not true - you can establish notability through a number of ways depending on what you're talking about. The sources are necessary for verifiability purposes, but they do not establish notability. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 18:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::I don't disagree with that. Sources themselves don't establish notability ... they reflect it. However, the only way I see that Wikipedia editors can ''prove'' that a subject is notable is by pointing out that there are published works about it. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' ^{''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''} 18:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

:(De-indenting for my proposal) Okay. For the sake of argument, let's assume that's true - so why "multiple, non-trivial?" I don't know why I didn't think of this sooner: why not simply say "Notability of an article's subject is based upon a consensually-reached criteria for that topic. It is expected that editors adding that information do do using our policies regarding [[WP:V|verifiability]] and [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]." This way, we're hitting upon everyone's complaints while not losing sight of what some people are insistent should be here. Thoughts? --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 20:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

::But notability is still determined by ''being noted'' (or at least, demonstrated so.) The more reliably something has been noted, the more it's provably notable. So, no, it has nothing to do with consensus here, it's determined totally outside, by what reliable sources choose to write (and not to write) about. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]}</small> 21:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

:::Well, no, it isn't. We've been through this, though. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 21:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I also like dropping “independent of the subject”. It implies that [[Human]] is not notable because all sources were created by humans.

I almost like Balck Falcons idea of clarifying that “multiple” will disallow non-independent secondary sources, but I thik he has the gist of it wrong. Identical republishings from independent publishers should be OK to demonstrate notability. What is not OK is when the secondary sources are published by publishers/editors that are not independent of the subject.

I confess to not understanding badlydrawnjeff’s arguments.about linking notability and sources. What does notability without reliable secondary sources matter? If you can’t verify your measure of notability, what’s the point?

I still dislike “trivial” as it sounds like a value judgement on the writing, writer or publisher. Check the meaning of “trivial”. I don’t see that “incidental” leaves open the question of “to what”. Incidental is an adverb to coverage. What was covered? The topic, what else could it be?

If we must use “notable”, can we say “sufficiently notable”, acknowledging that there may be a continuum of degrees of notability, and that we are here defining a measure of a degree of notability?

I suggest:

<blockquote>

''A topic is sufficiently notable for wikipedia if it has been the subject of non-incidental coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources.''

</blockquote>

[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] 01:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

:I'd like to help you understand, so bear with me - in short, notability is separate from verifiability. Something can be notable (i.e., a major achievement, an association, etc) without being verifiable, much like something can be verifiable (i.e., a person in a phone book, a blog) without being notable. By introducing sourcing into the equation, we're effectively removing that line and saying that "if it's verifiable, it's notable - but we're going to go beyond what's required by policy anyway to establish it," when we have perfectly good working guidelines already that ''generally'' handle notability (i.e., what makes an article's subject worth including) well. So we shouldn't confuse the two, and we ''certainly'' shouldn't be requiring an arbitrary number of sources along with a bunch of roadblocks, especially with the amount of bitching about "lawyering" we're getting. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 01:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

::Do you have in-principle opposition to a notability criterion? If there is going to be a notability criterion, why shouldn’t it be expressed as a subset of verifiability? [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] 10:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

:::To an overbearing one? Yes, because it's been proven not to work and soundly rejected by the community. Why shouldn't it be expressed as a subset? Because it's ''not'' a subset - they're two separate ideas, as I explained above. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]]<small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 12:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

::::Proven not to work and soundly rejected by the community? That’s what I thought too, and what I’ve been trying to argue at length above. But due to lack of support or sympathy, I think I have to give up. Given that a notability criterion is going to be imposed, albeit only as a non-binding guideline with exceptions allowed, I don’t see any other choice than for wikipedia-notability to be defined except according sources.

::::“Notability of an article's subject is based upon a consensually-reached criteria for that topic.” is an alternative that I would support ahead of having the guideline WP:N. Effectively, it trusts contributors to judge for themselves. It seems appropriately wiki.

::::I do see a difference between notability and verifiability. (Sufficient) Notability is now being defined by the identification of two reliable secondary sources addressing (covering) the subject in non-trivial depth. Verification of facts depends on primary sources, whether explicitly, or primary sources embedded in secondary sources. I know that WP:V doesn’t precisely say this. WP:V carries implicit principles of notability. [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] 09:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The PNC sounds fine to me. [[User:Edison|Edison]] 02:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

:Can you tell me what "non-trivial published works" means to you? [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] 03:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

::I don't know which version of the PNC Edison was referring to, but to me, "non-trivial published works" in any version is meaningless. We should be judging the triviality or non-triviality of coverage in the works rather than the works themselves. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' ^{''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''} 14:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"Sufficiently notable" and "Non-incidental" are fine by me. We should keep "independent" as per Seraphimblade above. --[[User:Dragonfiend|Dragonfiend]] 04:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

<blockquote>

''A topic is sufficiently notable for wikipedia if it has been the subject of non-incidental coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.''

</blockquote>

:27 words. Four levels. But linearly structured. Seems impossible to misunderstand. [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] 04:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

::Well, since the old one seems to be a point of contention, let me make a proposal of my own.

::''A topic's notability is determined by the amount and depth of coverage in [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] which are independent of the subject, and the number of such sources available.''

::No more lawyering that "two always means multiple", no more lawyering that "a paragraph is non-trivial!" Basically, that properly puts the burden of proof, as WP:V suggests, on those who make a claim. Someone who wishes to delete an article must actually ''look at the sources'' and make a case as to why they're insufficient. On the other hand, those who wish to keep will need something more substantial than "Got a paragraph in the local paper twice, that's multiple non-trivial." [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]}</small> 04:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

:::For what it's worth, I'm fine with the existing guidline, but not opposed to switching in a few synonyms if we think they're more newbie friendly. --[[User:Dragonfiend|Dragonfiend]] 04:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

::::Well, I'm fine with the existing one myself, but nothing wrong with making a few improvements. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]}</small> 04:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::Ummm ... as much as people might hate the old criterion, at least it was clear. The suggested version only states that "notability is determined by ..." and yet does not actually state at what point notability is proven. That pretty much makes AfD a subjective free-for-all (more than the usual, I mean). I don't view that proposed change as an improvement to the existing wording. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' ^{''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''} 14:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

::::::Also, I think it's idealistic that "someone who wishes to delete an article" will "actually ''look at the sources'' and make a case as to why they're insufficient". Rather, I imagine that articles with 20 sources will be nominated with the text: "NN. Delete." Since there is no objective standard by which to judge anymore, any argument to keep or delete will be equally "valid". -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' ^{''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''} 15:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::::I'm not sure which "suggested version" you're disagreeing with here, Black Falcon. Seraphimblade's ''A topic's notability is determined by the amount and depth of coverage in [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] which are independent of the subject, and the number of such sources available''? I don't like that one either, muyself. --[[User:Dragonfiend|Dragonfiend]] 15:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

::That's very close to what I've been showing, and I don't oppose it as long as it's not treated as "primary" or "more important" than anything else. Call it a general criterion, and don't try to force it on anything else, and my opposition drops. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 12:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

== Proposed policy change at [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons]] ==

A modification to the deletion policy regarding biographies of living persons has been proposed. The proposal seeks to reverse the default retention of biographical articles that attain "no consensus" results at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion]]. That is, it seeks to make deletion the default action for AfD discussions of biographical articles that do not reach consensus. Comments regarding the proposal are welcome and may be made [[WT:BLP#Reversing the presumption in favor of retention|here]]. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' ^{''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''} 19:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

== Substantial? ==

Any objection to removing the definition of "substantial" in [[WP:N#The notability criterion]]? The current version does not use the word, and it's incongruous to define a word that's not in the criterion.--<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 03:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

:At the risk of having a conversation with myself, I think "substantial" just needs to be changed to "subject". If no-one objects, I will make the change.--<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 03:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I object. It seems that although the PNC template has been removed, the text from the template was the most agreed upon recent version of the prime, general, central etc. criterion. I suggest stabilizing that before modifying the supporting paragraphs. --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] 05:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

:This is false. The text from the template was never agreed upon. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 11:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

:: It is not false! I said: ''"the text from the template was the most agreed upon recent version."'' Let's cut the propaganda. --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] 15:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

:::There's no propaganda - the texdt in the template was overwhelmingly rejected. Read the March archives. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 15:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

== "Coverage" ==

"Coverage" is a vague, ill-defined term and in fact implies "newspaper" or "radio station", not "historical books", etc. It should not be used here. —[[User:Centrx|Centrx]]→[[User talk:Centrx|''talk'']]&nbsp;&bull; 20:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

:I don't really see that. Coverage regers to the amount that or degree to which an object is covered/addressed. It has nothing to do with the source of the coverage. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' ^{''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''} 20:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

::I wouldn't object to a clearer term being used if one can be suggested, but "coverage" really can have a pretty broad meaning. Something can be covered on the BBC, in a scholarly report, in a 500-year-old book ("The recently rediscovered texts, written in a medieval monastery, cover every detail of the reign of seven kings..."). I don't really see it as being exclusive of any particular ''type'' of sourcing, so long as such sources are published and verifiable (and that really is a requirement). [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]}</small> 02:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

== Student Newspapers ==

I've noticed [[The California Aggie]] has been tagged with notability. Is there any set criteria for newspapers anywhere? It seems to me that official student newspapers should be considered notable. Any thoughts, or links to an official newspaper policy? [[User:Matt91486|matt91486]] 03:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

:If third-party sources don't substantially cover the newspaper, then it is not notable enough to have its own article. Merge it in to the main article about the school. —[[User:Centrx|Centrx]]→[[User talk:Centrx|''talk'']]&nbsp;&bull; 03:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

== Tigerman ==

[http://www.tigerman.us The Tigerman Saga]

This is a valid work of fiction, and has been heavily edited on the page (search Tigerman in wikipedia), and is threatening to be pulled.

It received a full page editorial write up, in Nightflying Magazine, that has a circulation of over 80,000 per month. It got raves. They also published it as a full page write up in their online version of their magazine.

It sells nothing, it is not commercial, and it's sole purpose is to entertain viewers with extremely elaborate 3d digital Illustrations, and an innovative story. I have seen nothing like it on the internet, and is truly groundbreaking. It has links to the National Wildlife Humane Society (a non-profit endangered species org of sanctuaries that rescue endangered species, mostly big cats).

It is valid literature, and valid art. It is in e-form, and although there is a DVD of it that can be purchased (proceeds to endangered species only), it is also available in that same audio visual format for free download.

OK, my name is not Hemingway, nor Tolkien, but since nothing is being offered for sale, then it has NO commercial nature whatsoever. If you want a book by Tolkien or Hemingway, that cannot be said. I have also seen HUGE wikipedia pages on comic books that are totally obscure, out of print and unattainable.

I have an animal sanctuary myself, and am the subject of a National Geographic Explorer special, for a rescue of a couple of tigers that the government confiscated.

What makes an illustrated online book any less important in the literary artworld, than one that is on paper?

With the deep messages of conservation and wildlife preservation, it is an important e-book, and deleting it means that wikipedia will not read it but cast judgement based soley on someone named Xtreme racer. There are no copyright violations, and as author I m giving my work away freely.

I devoted 10 months of hard work into this piece of literature, and have seen much other artists, and writers work elaborated on wikipedia. You may find a link to me, Catman, on the Almman Brothers Website... Wikipedia sees fit to provide and enormous page concerning their artistic contributions, and I have not seen Xtreme racer pruning their site and threatening deletion.

[[User:Thecatman1|Thecatman1]] 03:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

More about me

[http://www.catman1.com/tigerman/aboutauthor/ Catman Webb, About The Author]

==Disputed wording or inclusion of the notability criterion==

<blockquote>

<small>A topic is notable if it has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.</small></blockquote>

Given that it seems we must have a notability test, I don't consider the wording or inclusion of the notability criterion to be disputed any more. Who does? [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] 08:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not to say that further refinement might not be a good idea. I still think that "sufficiently notable" ["for wikipedia" is implied] is better because then we would not be redefining in absolute terms the meaning of notable. I'd like to see the explanatory note for secondary sources link to a good definition of secondary sources, as is done in the criterion itself. I don't much like "primary" in "primary criterion", though I am pretty happy if it is left out of the section header. Maybe its OK in the normal text if others really do feel it fits like a glove. I felt it might confuse with primary/secondary sources, but I don't think it actually does. But none of these concerns are that serious to me. [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] 08:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

:The wording does not reflect community consensus, thus the tag. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 12:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

:: bdjeff, could I trouble you to light a(nother) candle instead of cursing the dark? The latest (4/23) language I saw you propose was: "Notability of an article's subject is based upon a consensually-reached criteria for that topic. It is expected that editors adding that information do so using our policies regarding verifiability and reliable sources." I don't find that helpful at all: I don't understand your distinction between "subject" and "topic", I don't understand your reference to "that information" (I assume you mean "information on the subject's notability," but I don't know for sure), but would welcome further enlightenment on your proposal, or a different, positive proposal. But I do think we tend more easily to reach consensus incrementally instead of radically: what is the ONE WORD in the current text you would most like to change (is it "multiple"?), and to what? (Then we can move on to the second word . . .) [[User:UnitedStatesian|UnitedStatesian]] 16:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

:::I assume that, if we were to discuss such wording, we could adjust as we went. For one, "topic" and "subject" are interchangeable - I was trying to reduce use of the word "subject" and inadvertently created some confusion. Secondary, by "that information," I meant "information on the subject of the article," i.e., "It is expected that editors adding information to [[Foo]] do so..." As for incremental consensus, the radical change ''was'' this PNC. No incrementalism existed in the establishment of it, and consensus is clear that the current wording lacks support. My problem words with the current criterion? "is," "subject," "non-trivial," "multiple," "secondary". None of those words in the current criterion reflect the reality of consensus or help distinguish whether something is notable or not. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 16:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

:::: I too dislike "non-trivial" but we have not been able to form consensus on another word. I would support an alternative. --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] 16:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

:::: I think that the word "subject" is misleading, but the problem is mitigated in the bullet points, substantially reducing my objection. --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] 16:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

:::: I don't see the need for including "secondary." Primary sources which are not primary research may establish notability, based on the notability of the [[primary source]]. Clearly this adds more subjectivity, but it seems impossible to have a purely objective standard for inclusion. --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] 16:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::Keeping in mind that ''none'' of the wording has consensus support, the only issue I have with your comment here is that "subject" is somehow mitigated in the bullet points - I'm not seeing it. Perhaps you mean the section in non-trivial that says that it need not be the only subject, but it doesn't solve the issue, especially in terms of notability - a series of "trivial" mentions can establish notability, such as mentions in greater articles about important things, a few sentences about a related subject, etc. One or two may not establish much, but if you have 5 "trivial" mentions that say five different things, it establishes the importance. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 16:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

: I feel that the current version allows enough flexibility within the bullet points to address extraordinary circumstances where multiple sources are not available. While I have preferred other versions, I feel this is fairly close. I wouldn't go so far as to say that it has demonstrated consensus, but it has my support. However, quoting this at sub-pages without the bullet points will be misleading. --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] 14:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)