Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 32

I'm somewhat alarmed to see that we have an article on every single category of the Library of Congress classification. Why? There is nothing actually to be said about the categories; we just reproduce it with internal links to the various topics. And if someone wants to find the LoC classification for a topic, they can find it quickly enough online. Hence I have found one that is tagged for wikification (since August 2007), and it would be a tedious job to do it. If there was a wikiproject full of people passionate about these articles, then it might be a different matter, but as it is I would think that the lot need deleting. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

To answer this question, you would be advised to refer this post to the creators of such articles as Library of Congress Classification:Class A -- General Works, as it is possible they have some great design to create a set of interesting and useful encyclopedic articles, otherwise this appears to be a redundant spinout list to me. Rather than asking whether these articles should be deleted, perhaps a better question is, should these lists be merged and consolidated? If there is no grand design, then the answer is probably yes, as there is mo reason that I can think of to break the classification system down into spinout lists.
Digressing from your question, I would say this example is probably a good illustration of why the scope of notability should be extended to lists as well as articles. From the point of view of categorisation, it is clear that Library of Congress Classification:Class A -- General Works is effectively a content fork from List of Library of Congress classification classes, or what ever article/list is the over-arching subject matter into which this article should be merged. If the list of Class A topics is not notable, then it probably fails WP:NOT#DIR, and should not have its own standalone list in the first place. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll find out who created the articles and approach them in a softly-softly manner in the hope of persuading them. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's another suggestion: how about requiring that all topics have been covered in multiple scholarly works in order to be included in Wikipedia? This means: no magazines, no newspapers, no Internet sites, etc. It would simplify a whole lot of things. SharkD (talk) 06:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Excellent proposal! It will definitely eliminate BLP problems (and practically all of your contributions as well). But it will be far easier to simply delete all content and start from scratch. NVO (talk) 06:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Not gonna happen. It would simplify things, but in that bad totalitarian way, like outlawing alcohol to simplify drunk driving prevention. It would mean deleting a lot of our present articles and making Wikipedia just like a paper encyclopedia. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:43, 22 Feb 2009 (UTC)
• This basically nukes 99% of all TV-, film- and videogame-related content (including the main articles) from wikipedia. Not going to happen. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Would that many people even notice? I mean, according to some sources[1][2] pop culture-related topics aren't even that popular here on Wikipedia. SharkD (talk) 02:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Not the most convincing evidence I've ever seen. If you want to to test the popularity of different articles, you can look up their access stats. For instance, Pokemon was accessed over 131,000 times in January and ranks 745 of our over 2 million articles. Test other pop culture titles if you like. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:31, 24 Feb 2009 (UTC)
• Unless by scholarly works you mean newspapers, magazines, popular WP:RS web sites, etc. it's a bad idea. This is a general purpose encyclopedia, not a digest of scholarly research. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• It would delete a lot of content and just exacerbate all the problems with reliance on English language sources being the gating factor for notability. There are of course WP's in other languages, but English is the new lingua franca, so this really is the polyglot WP. PetersV       TALK 20:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• I think it would simplify our standards, but in a bad way. A lot of stuff is notable in the popular press. And I'm not even sure that scholars are a good indicator of what's notable: it seems that scholars love jargon and coming up with concepts that bare little resemblance to reality, let alone the kinds of widely accepted theories that would be considered knowledge (rather than opinion). Randomran (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Since its accessibility to editors is a topic of some discussion I made an effort to simplify the language used in the intro, as it seemed to have gotten sort of convoluted and confusing to your average joe plumber new guy. Feel free to tweak what I've done but I'm suggesting making a vigilant effort to keep it simple. It's not a legal contract and doesn't need to be worded in that rock-solid loophole-free way. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:16, 13 Feb 2009 (UTC)

The statement "If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable" is contraversial, and conflict with the section "Notability requires objective evidence". Is there any alternative to this wording? --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

"If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable - sources may exist which have not yet been included in the article. The citations should be added promptly." something like that?-- The Red Pen of Doom 10:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, it fails WP:N. That does not mean that it is non-notable (which cannot be proven). What is does mean is that there is no objective evidence cited in the article to support the arguement that it should have its own standalone article. I have therefore deleted this section, because a statement that cannot be proven or disproven does not offer any guidance. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

"If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable" is carefully worded and not controversial - it is clearly, indisputably true. For it to be false, every unsourced article would have to be unsourceable. That is absurd. Also, an article not citing reliable secondary sources does not mean it fails WP:N. There is a minority view that sources, "the objective evidence" must be in the article, but that is not and afaik has never been in the guideline, and is something different. So I restored the sentence.John Z (talk) 12:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ, merely because this statement does not offer any guidance per se. It is a bit like saying that "Some articles that don't not cite reliable secondary sources may be notable, but on the other hand some might not". It is not a minority view that objective evidence is need, and for good reason: it is a matter of conjecture whether a topic is notable or not in the absence of reliable secondary sources. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, that is a true statement. I added it almost a year ago. You removed it a few days ago. John Z re-added it. Garion96 also re-added it. You removed it again.

It does offer guidance. There is a fundamental difference between a person, and the Wikipedia article about that person. The statement "If article X does not currently cite reliable secondary sources, then topic X must be non-notable" is false. But some people seem to think that. That statement is meant to clarify that misconception.

Like I said in this thread 11 months ago, the article Human skeleton had zero citations from its creation January 14, 2003 to December 7, 2007. Does that mean that the human skeleton was non-notable for nearly five years? No. All that means is that no Wikipedia editor added any citations to that article about an obviously notable topic for nearly five years.

Or take the article about London for example. The article was created November 11, 2001. Since the article did not cite any reliable secondary sources, does that mean that London was not notable in November 2001? --Pixelface (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

This is abundantly clear from the guidleine, even without the completely unnecessary line you readded. No one is arguing that an article without sources fails the notability guideline. The guideline is about topics. The complete WP:FAILN ssection is a much better explanation of this concept than the line in the lead, which lacks context (it has not yet been explained that notability in the Wikipedia sense depends on the existance of good sources, but already states that the lack of such sources in the article is not enough to fail it. Removing the line makes the lead (and the guideline as a whole) more fluent and logical to read. Fram (talk) 12:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Another way WP:N could be put is that every conceivable topic is notable to someone; I, for example, am notable to myself, my relatives, and my friends. The tree outside is notable to my neighbor's dog. The point is that while all topics may be notable, we need a certain notable threshold to be passed to be included as a full article on WP to avoid inclusion of "indiscriminate information". This has been determined to be based on the presence of reliable sources asserting more than just factual information on the topic. Articles may be written without those sources when they first start, so we also need to consider the presumption such sources will exist when the topic is written about. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That line is not unnecessary, and I've been around long enough to know that many editors do not see it as clearly as you do Fram. Many people argue that an article without sources "fails" this guideline. You're right, this guideline is about topics. And that's one of the reasons that this guideline should not mention "undue weight" like Randomran wants the NNC section to. Lack of sources in an article says nothing about a topic. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Is London notable or not? --Pixelface (talk) 08:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

That's definitely not what that statement means. It's meant to complement the idea that we search for sources, and have a little common sense about articles. For example, even if "Frankenstein" doesn't have sources right now, it has probably been worthy of notice to reliable third-party sources and they just need to be found. If anything, we should change the wording here to be closer to that of the section Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines. The lead isn't really meant to introduce new ideas, it's meant to summarize ideas within the main text. Randomran (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The statement "If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable" is a truism. Frankly, the section is "Notability requires objective evidence" is plain wrong. There is nothing objective about whether a subject is "worthy of notice." I'll add some disputed tags. --Pixelface (talk) 12:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted your changes Equazcion, and every change since then. Discuss your proposed changes more. --Pixelface (talk) 12:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Per my explanation above I think that would be unwise (and evidently so do other people). The simpler intro language is basically by only change. Rather than reverting "every change" since the version you approve of, since that seems to just result in people reverting you, it might be more constructive to voice the specific issues you have with the changes. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:30, 20 Feb 2009 (UTC)

When I reverted, the only changes that were reverted were yours. It was hasty of me to say that you "mangled" the intro with your changes. I apologize. The newlines made it look like you had changed much more than you did. After comparing the text, I think many of your changes were beneficial. But I think some things could still be worded better. Here's a) the text before your edit, b) the text after your edit, and c) the text I suggest.

1a) Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article.

1b) Within Wikipedia, notability refers to whether or not a topic merits its own article.

1c) (I think this should be left out altogether. I suppose we could link to Wiktionary though. This page was based on people saying "non-notable" in VFDs. Whether they meant "this is not worthy of notice" is uncertain. I'm guessing that most of the time they meant "not famous" or "not prominent" or "I'm not familiar with it." Article size is also a reason for the creation of additional articles.)

2a) The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice."

2b) Article topics need to be notable, or "worthy of notice."

2c) Many editors believe that a subject should be notable before an article can be written about it on Wikipedia. Articles about subjects that editors think are not notable are often deleted. (I think this would accurately describe common practice. With "should", there was some ambiguity between recommendation and requirement. Changing "should" to "need" made it more strict.)

3a) Notability is distinct from "fame," "importance," or "popularity," although these may positively correlate with it.

3b) It is important to note that topic notability on Wikipedia is not necessarily dependent on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic — although those may contribute.

3c) A subject does not have to be "famous" or "important" or "popular" in order to have an article, although if a subject is any of those, it might be notable. (I think this is simpler.)

What do you think? --Pixelface (talk) 12:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has developed a body of policies and guidelines to further our goal of creating a free encyclopedia. Policies are considered a standard that all editors should follow, whereas guidelines are more advisory in nature.

Amazingly, Wikipeida policies do not define what topics are suitable for inclusion as a standalone article. Instead, WP:What Wikipedia is not makes it clear that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and just because a topic may exist or is useful does not automatically make it suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia.

To differentiate between what is indiscriminate, and what is not, Wikipedia employs the concept of '"Notability", an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article. The principal underlying notability is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability.

Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence. By chance or by design, it is the same reliable sources that generations past have used to expand our knowledge of the world around us by understanding the research and works created by notable thinkers of the past, described by the metaphor "Standing on the Shoulders of Giants".

Since WP:What Wikipedia is not and WP:Notability are closely linked, such that they can be described different sides of same coin, I propose that the guideline Wikipedia:Notability should be promoted to a Policy in order to strengthen the First of the Five Pillars that define the character of Wikipedia.

Please make your views known at Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Reevaluation. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I oppose this "notability" guideline becoming policy on this website. To be encyclopedic means to be the comprehensive source for all information. I have seen how this guideline has been used as a stalkinghorse for those who simply dislike certain topics, and proceed under this pretext to "speedy delete" things that they do not consider notable in their POV. I think that this is also a pretext for censorship as well.--Drboisclair (talk) 20:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Although I also oppose making this page a policy, it is for different reasons, and there are several incorrect assumptions in your comment. First, although a general encyclopedia like Wikipedia must contain "information from ... all branches of knowledge", it is not the function of an encyclopedia to be a repository of all possible types of information. Second, although this guideline is cited by some as justification to delete articles based on personal dislike of the subject, this is not the fault of the guideline and actually constitutes misuse of the guideline (see Wikipedia:Notability#Notability requires objective evidence). Third, this guideline has nothing to do with speedy deletion; in fact, speedy deletion criterion A7 explicitly notes that the criterion is "distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability". Fourth, deleting articles on topics that are not covered by reliable sources in the real-world does not constitute censorship (unless the topic is censored in the real-world, but then there's nothing we can do), especially since "notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia [and] do not regulate the content of articles (see Wikipedia:Notability#Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

[removing material that I have second thoughts about]. I am, at least, grateful to you that you oppose this pseudo-guideline being made policy: in that we agree 100%. I disagree as do others about something being "encyclopedic." Another thing that I would like to point out is that Wikipedia's internet power is being #1 in Google searches because it is as comprehensive and exhaustive as it is. I oppose this "Notability" kick, which is the latest trend: a few years ago the NPOV principle, which per se is perfectly laudable, was the thing on everyone's mind. Any truth or fact is something that should be included in the ultimate ENCYCLOPEDIA, WIKIPEDIA.--Drboisclair (talk) 17:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Since you oppose it being elevated to a policy, perhaps you might consider opposing this action in the RFC.--Drboisclair (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to establish a criterion for notability for the tropical cyclone WikiProject, and I thought I should get some input from you guys. Currently there is a bit of a gray area, in that some editors believe most any storm can get an article. The thread is located here. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to call people's attention to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Cotterill, as we have an editor there who is quite strongly insisting that a large number of trivial references to a person (paid ads in promotional publications, reprinted press releases in small newspapers, etc.) in themselves (he admits) don't show notability, but the existence of many of them all add together to equal sources demonstrating notability. He seems to have convinced some others to go along with this idea. Since this seems to be a major contradiction to my understanding of how things work here, I would like some clarification, please. DreamGuy (talk) 15:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

No they do not. Chillum 15:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This of course is a distortion of what was actually said in the discussion. The sources referred to are independent of the artist. The articles may have been generated by press releases sent by the artist or his reps, but they are nonetheless independent and not "paid ads" or "reprinted press releases." My main point was that if the article had only one such source it would be trivial. But many sources such as this (again, all independent of the artist), plus some other sources (an independent magazine article and a TV appearance) point to notability. This is an interpretation of Wiki policy, as pointed out by Tyrenius on DreamGuy's talk page (a point he again ignored, choosing instead to argue his interpretation again). In the end, most (not all) of the "keeps" were based on an interpretation of Wiki policy. It is perfectly acceptable to close as delete based on convincing arguments leading to this. I would make absolutely no objection were this the case. But to categorically decide that my argument was not based on policy is an incorrect reason to close as delete. freshacconci talktalk 18:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not a distortion of what you said. You couldn't get any more clear , as you got it down to a completely unambiguous claim of "Multiple trivial sources count. I'm sorry, but that's the way it is." And you are wrong. Please take the time to learn from your mistake instead of insisting you are right. DreamGuy (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to say the same thing to you. It is a distortion. You blithely ignored Tyrenius' quite correct comments that all of this is based on interpretation, as I indicated in the discussion and you conveniently left out here. I even quoted the guidelines and explained how I am interpreting them. That is how you have distorted this. To insist that I do not understand Wiki policy, or that the other "keeps" did not understand policy is incorrect as Tyrenius told you. You found one admin. who agrees with you, and given his rather curt response above, it's clear that he has a very specific idea of how an admin. should deal with issues. In any case, I left a message on his talk page asking him to review his decision. A non consensus should have been the closing decision. Again, my opinion. freshacconci talktalk 19:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Tyrenius wasn't even talking about that, he was talking about earlier arguments that he either did not read properly or which he has a difference of opinion on. In fact he never even said any of those people were right, just that he thought it was slightly debatable instead of completely proven. It's pretty desperate to complain about one admin supporting me (while ignoring all the editors) while at the same time trying to twist some other admin's unrelated claims into some sort of major support for yourself, especially when they are so strongly and soundly disputed by so many other people. You should drop the wikilawyering and just accept that you were misinformed. DreamGuy (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit it: you're pretty funny. You're so hell-bent on turning this into a contest to "win". Why is that? Wikipedia isn't about winning or losing. I see an issue that needs resolving. That's all. If you'd take the time to look at my contributions, you'd see that I tend to be a deletionist who errs on the side of clear notability. And I'm interested in serious art. Not glass frogs. I would have been perfectly fine with a delete, had the closing admin's reasons been a bit more in tune with what was being said on the page. I see it as no consensus, but if Chillum looked at the debate, found the "deletes" to have made a stronger case and closed it as such, so be it. I would still think he was wrong, but I would move on. But would you? I could repeat ad nauseum that I am not misinformed and I know perfectly well what Tyrenius was referring to. But of course, that would be a bit futile when dealing with an editor such as you. In any case, I've made my point and I'm waiting Chillum's response. Take care, freshacconci talktalk 19:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I see it is an issue that needs resolving, and the issue here is some people who are stubbornly determined to violate pretty clear cut policies and misrepresent what they say. The kinds of things you and others were arguing are not merely questionable, but downright the opposite of what our policies actually say. DreamGuy (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Well there's always the possiblity that those policies do not actually reflect community wide consensus. If someone feels that multiple "trivial" references qualify as evidence of notability, who are you to tell them any different? --Pixelface (talk)

DreamGuy left a post on my talk page which included the text, "The few people who have voted Keep have done so with arguments that completely ignore Wikipedia policy." I replied to this, "I can't agree with your statement ... as arguments have been made with specific reference to wikipedia policy. That you disagree with other editors' interpretation of policy is not a cause to say they have ignored it." DreamGuy's response to that was that editors had "a calculated desire to ignore policy."[3] He deleted the posts with an edit summary along the same lines.[4] I stand by my statement. DreamGuy's behaviour and attitude to other editors shows cause for concern. Ty 22:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I stand by my response. There's a difference between mere differing opinions on policy and things that are outright direct contradictions of policy. If anything, the reactions to the article being deleted and to having their falsehoods exposed only goes to prove what I was saying. Thank goodness an admin other than you handled the closing of this AFD. DreamGuy (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review is over here, guys; you're welcome to contest at your leisure. Nifboy (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The closing admin. Chillum has already indicated that there would be no prejudice against recreation if notability is established. MichaelQSchmidt has been hard at work doing just that. I have no doubt that the article is salvagable as notability looks clear. I don't think taking it to deletion review is necessary. freshacconci talktalk 19:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm struggling to understand some concerns that have been expressed on an AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Software Craftsmanship). In this case, the topic has been the primary subject of books written by at least 4 authors and published by 3 different mainstream publishers. However, it is argued in the AFD that because some of the authors of these books are signatories of the "Software Craftsmanship" manifesto (i.e., they have either been involved with creating the idea or were early supporters who helped popularize the idea) that their books are not independent sources.

This strikes me as absurd; how can a book about an abstract concept be either independent or not independent of it? Such a book will, by its very nature, only be written by somebody who agrees with the concept. Is this how the independence requirement is supposed to be interpreted? Or is this a too-strict reading of it? JulesH (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikpedia covers subjects that “others have already written about”. By “others”, we mean people unconnected with the subject. “Others” cannot include people involved with the creation, development or possible benefits of the subject. For a publication, including a book, both the authors and the publishers must be independent of the subject. Their intention to benefit from book sales is OK. Any intention to benefit from more widespread publicity of the subject is not.

Your “More sources” posts seem to be answering the “no independent secondary sources” issue.[5] --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't / won't speak specifically to the AFD in question... but the independence requirement is important to avoid simply quoting what the source itself says. A big part of it is keeping WP:NPOV, WP:COI, and other promotions out of Wikipedia, let alone WP:FRINGE theories. We need sources that can provide verifiable facts that aren't going to just parrot and promote the subject. There are tons of people who are independent of Adam Smith who have written about him, or people independent of the U.S. Government who have written about it. There's danger in *exclusively* quoting Adam Smith and his supporters on Adam Smith, or the U.S. Government and its supporters on the U.S. Government. We need someone who has a healthy enough distance to offer some kind of analysis -- not necessarily criticism, but someone who can at least identify the main point of the subject, instead of merely quoting everything as God-given truth. Otherwise Wikipedia becomes a repository for everything that everyone ever said, with zero chance of ever offering any balance or evaluation of what they said. Randomran (talk) 02:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This is one of the worst policies on Wikipedia, frankly. It requires editors to be psychics. How can we know whether a person or event who is currently prominent in the news will remain prominent? Sometimes long-term notability or lack thereof will be clear by the nature of the event, but many times it is not. "wait until notability is clear" is not a realistic solution on a wiki with hundreds of thousands of user that can be updated in real time. It also may detract from article quality, since people are more likely to have the resources and motivation to write articles on current things while they're still "fresh". 140.247.126.18 (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not think you are referring to this guideline, which is the one that says that once something does become notable, it remains notable, and is the rule used by which historic events remain notable, and, for example, all the prior Senators justify articles, not just the present incumbents. I suspect you are referring to WP:NOT#NEWS, and the problem you raise is very real, and would best be discussed there. DGG (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability just means that something that is once notable is always notable. John and Lorena Bobbitt comes to mind -- nobody would give two bits about them now. But DGG is right that the WP:NOT#NEWS issue is an important caveat, so that a bystander who gets interviewed in a couple of papers doesn't suddenly become notable as "a blue-collar citizen in the township of Springfield who has commented on the current recession." Randomran (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTE and WP:NOT#NEWS need to work in concert... an event or a person should not be declared notable just because they are currently making a splash in the news. There is the difference between notariety and notability. Blueboar (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Over http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Reevaluation#Inclusion WhatisFeelings? (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Much like the previous debate, in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YouTube cat abuse incident and in the current deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 4, a number of protagonists insist that multiple press stories equal notability, irrespective of the "historical notability" requirement set out at WP:NOT#NEWS.

I should like to propose an amendment to the General notability guideline of WP:N such that it caveats the general notability guidelines by excluding that which is covered by WP:NOT and perhaps especially by WP:NOT#NEWS.

I respect that the next section of WP:N says "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability" but I somehow don't think that message is getting through. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This one is close. The way I see it, it comes down to primary and secondary sources. Are the multiple sources press reports (primary), or press stories (secondary)? If it is a story, you would be able to describe the story without repeating the basic facts. The repetition of information does not turn primary source information into secondary source information. It takes what we would call substantial original research to turn primary source material into secondary source material. The press stories to be stories, not reports, they have to make substantial commentary. I looked at several (not all) of the sources and links. Generally, they are repetition of information. Transformational elements include mostly just lots of strong adjectives. To get past the burst of news reports, there needs to be a story at a different level, and from a reputable source (not a blog, not a radio talk show).

In this case, there are transformational elements in the news, there are lots of reports, and there is strong emotion involved. It is no surprise that interested editors take a different view to others taking a cold, distant perspective on the subject.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong here with WP:N or WP:NOT#NEWS. WP:N doesn’t need to repeat WP:NOT#NEWS any more than it already does. There are going to be fights on the boundaries, wherever they are. I’d suggest that someone interested should have it userfied on the basis that reputable secondary sources will in time appear. I’d expect to first see a good secondary sources in the editorial pages of a major newspaper. Material on the front and early pages is rarely secondary source material. In fact, most good newspapers try to achieve “bias free” reporting, which means cold collation and repetition of the facts. Analysis is found inside, or elsewhere. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

As pointed out in the discussion, WP:N is contradictory in that immediately before it says "Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence". Policies should be clear and concise, certainly not contradictory, and relying on terms like "historically significant" when there's no time machines is clearly problematic. WikiScrubber (talk) 14:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

We do need to clarify the wording if there's any room at all for editors to try to wikilawyer with these rules to try to support minor, trivial references when they clearly do not. It's unfortunate that if you leave any wiggle room at all for some people that they twist and turn and try to face the entirely wrong direction. DreamGuy (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, how do you decide which direction is the wrong one to face? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Editor time is the scarce resource... space and bandwidth are cheap commodities. That is to say if we can have clear policy (e.g. multiple non-trivial articles in reliable sources) then letting borderline articles like this slip through without 50k+ of discussion is almost certainly the better of two evils. Remember there is a natural limit on people willing to write encyclopedic articles so it wouldn't incite armageddon, and we can always take article quality and interest (edits/editors) into account in AfD's more than we do currently.

In this particular instance there are a lot of people who know about the issue and will be surprised to find it isn't treated by Wikipedia. There's also the question of whether stories like this don't deserve a fair treatment somewhere (which is something they won't find anywhere else on the Internet). WikiScrubber (talk) 00:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe that's what WikiNews is for... -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tagishsimon that the content of this page reflecting WP:NOT#NEWS isn't particularly clear. The content is there, under the header "Notability requires objective evidence," but this recent event shows that it's not in the general consciousness as an objective test to apply when estimating notability. In particular, it's not clear to many editors that the "Short Burst of Stories Test" is actually an exception to the Primary Notability Criterion. (...which I've just learned is now called the "General Notability Guideline" (WP:GNG). What'll they think of next?)

Do others think it would be a good idea to clarify the "Short Burst of Stories Test," explicitly note its grounding in WP:NOT#NEWS, and affirm that it is a valid exception to the GNG? Tagishsimon, does this suggestion address your concern in starting this talk page section? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok so I've been BOLD and created the WP:SBST shortcut to an anchor at the relevant point of WP:V. It seems to work quite nicely. Not sure what exactly constitutes a "short burst" but the event happened 15 Feb and was still filtering through to Europe 5 days later on the 20th. 72 hours? 5 days? a week? don't specify? (Incidentally thanks to Tagishsimon for mentioning this in the DR, even if we didn't pick it up straight away). WikiScrubber (talk) 05:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm also withdrawing my DR nom, assuming that's even possible, as new information suggests that this incident will be ephemeral after all (unless the vigilantes get to them!). WikiScrubber (talk) 05:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

How short is short? A week? A day or two? Everyone wrote one story about it? I would hold that if a story has more than three articles in a major news outlet (e.g. the BBC) over the span of a week that that's about the borderline for me. Anything less than a week is clearly too transient to be notable. SDY (talk) 05:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If it can hold a news story for 2 weeks with some level of coverage beyond just passing mention such as part of a larger article or a 10-second blurb on newscast then it probably is worthy. It's quite easy when there is no major news story the press wishes to cover to last a week easily.じんない 23:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion taking place over at the List of South Park episodes concerning the notability of the majority of the South Park articles, and the possibility of merging any non-notable articles into newly recreated season pages (with the possibility of being recreated regardless of the episode merge given the length of the "List of" page...see Talk:List of South Park episodes#Reformatting pages for the discussion on simply reformatting the "List of" page). More opinions are wanted and needed at the talk page so that we can get a better idea of the consensus. Thank you.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Does each episode of a popular TV show have to achieve notability via these guidelines to merit its own article? I mean, I remember reading somewhere Jimmy Wales saying that if people wanted to, they could start an article on their high school, or something. But right now there's a discussion as to whether certain first season episodes of South Park, like "Pinkeye" and "Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo"that already have their own article really merit them. I mean, it's South Park. Isn't the show itself noteworthy enough for each episode to merit an article if someone wants to write one? I've read the General guidelines, but shouldn't TV episodes have their own, much as Films do? Nightscream (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Episode articles have over seven years of precedent. Episodes of South Park are notable. The episodes are the show. There is no South Park without episodes. Articles about episodes of South Park put up for deletion have been overwhelmingly kept.[6] WikiProject South Park might agree on something, but the proper place for the discussion to take place is Talk:List of South Park episodes, and there is no merge discussion there. Alastairward's edits[7][8] to List of South Park episodes are totally unsupported and should be reverted. There is absolutely no reason to create holes in Wikipedia's coverage. WP:EPISODE is currently a content guideline, although in the past I've suggested turning it into a notability guideline. --Pixelface (talk) 07:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

"There is no South Park without episodes. " And there is no newspaper without the daily newspaper, and no magazine without the weekly or monthly issue, but we don't ahve articles on those issues. Episodes of South Park may be notable on their own, but episodes of TV series are not automatically notable at all and usually get grouped into season articles. All efforts to get looser guidelines for episodes have failed due to a lack of consensus. Fram (talk) 07:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia also has no policy explicitly inviting articles about those issues, yet it does have a policy explicitly inviting articles about television episodes, going back over seven years. Personally, I've never seen anyone want articles for issues of magazines or editions of newspapers. But Wikipedia does have several articles about magazine articles. How can a television show be notable, yet the episodes be non-notable? That makes no sense. How can even one of the aired episodes be non-notable if the show is notable? I don't believe your claim that episodes are usually grouped into season articles. Perhaps that's how they do things in WikiProject Anime and Manga. Perhaps one or two editors have tried that for other series. There's never been a notability guideline for episodes, so I don't see how you can say "All efforts to get looser guidelines for episodes have failed due to a lack of consensus." There's no need for "looser guidelines." WP:EPISODE is a content guideline. Episodes are already explicitly covered by policy: Wikipedia is not paper. --Pixelface (talk) 09:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Fram's point is that notability is not inherited. Every topic must be independently notable if it is to be the subject of its own standalone article. You are correct that there is not a seperate notability guideline for episodes, but also there is no exemption from WP:N or WP:NOT#PLOT for television episodes that I am aware of. I would agree with him that "All efforts to get looser guidelines for episodes have failed due to a lack of consensus". In anycase, it makes no sense, as these topics are covered extensively in the media and academia, so I do not see why would want to treat them any differently from other subject areas. Wikipedia is not paper, but that does not mean we need to fill it trash either. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing to "inherit" when it comes to episodes. That's like saying fingers are notable, yet each individual finger must be independently notable in order to have its own article. Are fingers notable? Yes. Is a ring finger a finger? Yes. You cannot say a television show is notable and then automatically assume that each episode is non-notable. If a television show has episodes for nearly every article, there is absolutely no reason to have no article for some of those episodes. That makes Wikipedia incomplete and lacking.

You know that WP:NOT#PLOT is disputed Gavin. I know you know that because you removed the {{disputedtag}} above it back in June — just like you removed the {{disputedtag}}s from this page. Your claim that television episodes are "trash" is nothing but your ill-informed opinion, nothing more — and it just reveals your hidden agenda. --Pixelface (talk) 08:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflicted)It does not have a policy "explicitly inviting" those articles: the page you link to is a very early discussion page, where the idea of having articles on episodes was suggested and at the time supported. Please read the actual policy WP:NOTPAPER: it only says that no article should be excluded on the false ground that we would run out of space: nothing more, nothing less. As for "looser guidelines"; there have been attempts to create a guideline for episodes which would be less strict than the general notability guideline, and all efforts to do so have failed. As it stands, the notability guideline for episodes is the same as the notability guideline for all other articles except those with a specific guideline (like WP:BIO).

"How can a television show be notable, yet the episodes be non-notable? That makes no sense. " Well, it does. A village can be notable without its buildings or its inhabitants or its streets (or all of them) being notable. A company can be notable without its products or employees being notable. A book can be notable without its chapters being notable (even it is was at first serialized in e.g. a newspaper). A comic strip can be notable without the daily comics being notable in themselves (yet the comic exists solely of those daily strips). An individual episode of e.g. Neighbours is (with very rare exceptions) not notable, yet Neighbours is very notable. Notability is not inherited, and notability of the total does not translate into notability for the parts (or vice versa: a company with one notable employee is not necessarily a notable company).

Finally, the actual content guideline WP:EPISODE states "Create page for the television programme. Once there's enough verifiable information independent of the show itself, then: Create a page for each series/season, or a "List of episodes" page with every season/series. If there is enough verifiable information from secondary sources about individual episodes, then: Create pages for outstanding episodes." So you may state that "I don't believe your claim that episodes are usually grouped into season articles.", but it is current practice as described in the guideline (and this has been a central part of it for at least three years, see [9]). List of Dallas episodes, Storylines of Neighbours, Big Brother 4 (U.S.), List of The Office (UK TV series) episodes, List of Babar episodes (season one), SpongeBob SquarePants (season 1), List of Numb3rs episodes (season 1), List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 9), Stargate SG-1 (season 1)... Yes, there are also many shows with articles for many or even all episodes, but most of these should be merged anyway for being almost nothing but plot summaries and being against the guideline. Fram (talk) 09:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I've read WP:NOT#PAPER, thank you. It's derived from meta, where Jimbo Wales supported the creation of episode articles. That's why people created articles for television episodes, going back over seven years.

I don't think your analogy of a show's episodes to villages and the buildings/inhabitants/streets is apt. Speaking of settlements, I think a more apt analogy would be New York City and it's five boroughs.

I don't think your analogy of a show's episodes to a company and it's products/employees is apt. Speaking of companies, I think a more apt analogy would be Sony and it's acquisitions.

I don't think your analogy to a book and its chapters is apt. Speaking of books, I think a more apt analogy would be The Green Mile. It was released in six separate volumes and I personally think each volume is notable. They were later collected and republished together.

I don't think your analogy to a comic strip and it's daily strips is apt either. One person can create a daily strip in minutes, hours. Some strips don't really have storylines. Many strips don't have long story arcs. One that does is For Better or For Worse. So people summarized the storylines of that strip. When the summary got too long, it was split off into History of For Better or For Worse. That was nominated for deletion for "failing" WP:NOT#PLOT, since it was just a plot summary. But it was kept at AFD. That shows WP:NOT#PLOT does not actually represent consensus. After it was kept, the nominator redirected the article, and then Benjiboi brought it up at ANI, and then Black Kite, a party of E&C2, took it DRV, and then the article was (IMO wrongly) deleted, because of WP:NOT#PLOT — which people in the AFD didn't care about. But Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. And DRV is not AFD round 2. Policies are supposed to flow from consensus, not consensus from policies.

The productions costs and number of people involved in producing an episode of a television show are drastically different than drawing a daily comic strip. You can also summarize many strips in one sentence. There would be no reason to have articles for daily comic strips. The number of readers/viewers is also different. Now, some television shows are aired daily — for example, Neighbours. The show has been on the air for 25 years and over 5,600 episodes have aired. That the show is still being broadcast indicates that people do think that individual episodes are notable. In the United States, if people don't think episodes of a show are worthy of notice, the show gets cancelled. Members of the Soap Opera WikiProject have decided to make articles about characters and storylines of Neighbours, rather than articles for individual episodes. One episode of a soap opera typically has many multiple ongoing storylines. Since Neighbours is a notable show, people consider major characters and storylines of the show notable as well. When nominated for deletion, articles about soap opera characters and storylines are kept at AFD[10] [11] [12], even if just a plot summary — even more evidence that WP:NOT#PLOT does not reflect consensus. Reality shows are typically given List of episode articles or season articles.

As of now, Wikipedia:Television episodes has had a total of 213 edits[13]. It began as a centralized discussion, but was moved to Wikipedia:Television episodes on April 16, 2007 by Radiant! — the same editor who rewrote WP:N in September 2006 and tagged WP:N a guideline 16 days later and then edit-warred over the guideline tag[14]. WP:EPISODE has never been a notability guideline, even though some editors act like it is.

I still don't believe your claim that episodes are usually grouped into season articles. Last time I checked (which was a while ago), Wikipedia had over 8,500 articles for individual television episodes. Look at my evidence in E&C2. That number is a drop in the bucket. And yet some people are bound and determined to get rid of all of them. Why? Perhaps they think television is "trash", like Gavin.collins seemed to imply above. Last time I checked, Category:Living_people (which you nominated for deletion Fram) had over 320,000 articles in it. Do you think readers are more likely to recognize a random television episode or a random BLP? Which causes more harm to Wikipedia? False statements in a BLP or false statements about what happens in a television episode?

Speaking of Stargate SG-1, the editor who redirected the individual episode articles for that show, Sgeureka, didn't start doing that until after (and during) the Arbcom case E&C1 began, where he was listed as an involved party. The action of redirecting those articles was anything but uncontroversial, as I mentioned at his RFA. There's a current discussion to unmerge those episode articles.

Episode articles are frequently kept at AFD. X-Files in February (nominated by Sceptre, an involved party of E&C1 and E&C2). Frasier in January (nominated by Sgeureka, an involved party of E&C1). Incidentally, Sceptre and Sgeureka are two of the editors who have "certified" my current user RFC. Sceptre was indefinitely blocked twice in 2008. And Sgeureka volunteered to proxy for TTN if TTN were to be placed under editing restrictions (which he was, for 6 months, after E&C2).

Your feeling that most episode articles should be merged is an opinion shared only among an extremely small minority of hardline editors, most who were parties of either E&C1 or E&C2. And typically from outside the United States. As of September 4, 2006[15], 52.1% of edits came from people living in the US, 15.9% in the UK, 7.3% in Canada, 4.4% in Australia, 1.8% in Germany, 1.6% in The Netherlands, 1.0% in France, and 15.8% from other countries.

Perhaps there shouldn't be articles for every episode of The Smurfs that Hanna-Barbera produced. Many episodes had two fifteen-minutes stories. Television series that people deem children's shows often have a difficult time. Few animated series have individual articles for episodes. Perhaps some people have the strange idea that coverage of that series would somehow "hurt" Wikipedia's reputation. But some have noted that Wikipedia is without peer when it comes to coverage of "pop culture", yet that status is dwindling. And some want Wikia to take that place, but I oppose those attempts to monetize Wikipedia's fiction content.

This thread was about South Park. But Wilhelmina Will has been in that area before, disrupting it because TTN edited some articles Wilhelmina Will was interested in.

Policies and guidelines are not rules to be followed blindly. First of all, you don't know who wrote them. Would you put all your trust in an article without citations? Then why would you put all your trust in a page marked policy or guideline without citations? It usually turns out that someone just changed it because they felt like it. They're not gospel, and shouldn't be treated as such. --Pixelface (talk) 05:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't the country of editing is relevant at all, and neither is a comparison with BLP (where you ignore the reasons why I nominated the cat for deletion): false dilemma's as "which does the most harm" are strawman arguments, and I do take a lot of action to reduce the potential harm done by errors in BLPs. One does not exclude the other, and dragging it in does not help the discussion one bit. As for the rest of your arguments: if something goes against your wishes, it seems to always be due to misinterpreted policies, bad editors, small minorities, ... Yet, these bad decisions do not get overturned, these bad policies and guidelines don't get demoted despite ongoing protests by a small minority of hardcore episode article editors (oops, I was not supposed to say that out loud)... You don't like my comparisons, I believe yours are farfetched, and I don't think any progress can be made in discussing this any further. Fram (talk) 07:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Those who want to get rid of all episode articles, who think episode articles are "unencyclopedic", are in the minority. That's the relevant point. Your opinion is certainly valid, but it is in the minority. I've observed a trend where people who want to get rid of episode articles are typically located outside the United States. I don't know the reason for this apparent bias, but it's there. I mentioned BLPs because of Jimbo's quote from September: "My increased "deletionism" is very mild when it comes to things like Simpson's episodes - not much harm done. But it is quite strong when it comes to biographies of living persons, where serious damage can be done." If you want to say Jimbo was using a strawman argument, go ahead. Wikipedia has over 37 times more BLPs than episode articles. If you think that just because a policy or guideline does not get changed that that means it represents community wide consensus, you're wrong. It makes no sense to say that a television show is notable, yet the episodes that compose the show are automatically non-notable. Any analogies to other mediums is mere metaphor anyway. If you don't think any progress can be made by discussing this further, fine, then don't. --Pixelface (talk) 04:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Nightscream, those examples you give do indeed merit their own articles. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Pixelface (08:27, 6 March 2009), if episodes are not seperate topics as you suggest, then they would not have their own standalone articles. The fact that they do means that there has to be some form of inclusion criteria to regulate whether the creation of standalone articles about each one, if only to avoid duplication and content forks.
Your assertion that that television episodes are "trash", is a misrepresentation; my view is that Wikipedia should not be a dumping ground for non-encyclopedic content, and in this context I was refering to articles that are comprised soley of plot summary.
As reagrds WP:NOT#PLOT, there have been serveral attempts to remove this prohibition on articles that are purely plot summary and they have all failed with good reason: since they don't contain any commentary, criticism, context or analysis, they are not encyclopedic. If you can make a case why they are encyclopedic (which you have done before and failed), then put this forward and we will listen to your arguements, but don't expect your views to be accepted.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, I never said episodes are not separate topics. They are. But they share something in common. And there is no inclusion criteria for episode articles. So I doubt your claim that there "has" to be one. You said "Wikipedia is not paper, but that does not mean we need to fill it trash either." So I assumed you when you said "trash" you were talking about episode articles (since that's what this thread is about). Your view that articles that are comprised solely of plot summary qualify as unencylopedic content is not shared by many people at all. Articles that are just plot summary are routinely kept at AFD. And AFD is not about the content of an articles anyway. It is about topics.

There have been a total of ten people who have re-added WP:NOT#PLOT to WP:NOT — Bignole, Cameron Scott, Collectonian, Future Perfect at Sunrise, Jack Merridew, Masem, Moreschi, S@bre, Sceptre, and Sgeureka. Many of those people were involved parties of E&C1 or E&C2, or worked on those cases. But Wikipedia has over 160,000 active editors. It's despicable that ten people can force their policy views on everyone else. It's also sad that you (a friend of Jack Merridew) and Seraphim (a friend of Sceptre) removed {{disputedtag}}s from above WP:NOT#PLOT.

You're friends with Jack Merridew from Commons. That's not exactly good company. He was indefinitely blocked in 2008. Your claim that attempts to remove WP:NOT#PLOT have failed "with good reason" is false. Your claim that before I have failed to make a case why episode articles are encyclopedic is also false. Multiple AFDs where plot-only articles have been kept do show that plot-only articles are encyclopedic. Would an encyclopedia of television have articles about episodes of South Park? Yes. Then so should Wikipedia. Jimbo Wales himself agreed that there's no reason why Wikipedia should not have articles for every episode of The Simpsons.

Now excuse me Gavin, but I've wasted enough of my time speaking to friends of trolls. --Pixelface (talk) 06:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

So my opinion is largely irrelevant because I edit from the wrong country (as per your reply to me above), and Gavin's can be ignored becaues he has the wrong friends? Perhaps you should brush up on WP:NPA and the more general principle "comment on the edits, not on the editors". Fram (talk) 07:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I never said that about you or Gavin. And I don't believe I made any personal attacks above. --Pixelface (talk) 08:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I just want to pint out, since some people are still using "Jimbo said" arguments, that a) Jimbo thinks that his opinion has no more weight than that of anybody else, and b) for thos that still want to give it extra weight anyway, his current opinion: "I think that individual episodes should only have an article when there is enough independent third-party reliable coverage to write a proper article."[16] Which is of course almost exactly what WP:EPISODE says... Fram (talk) 07:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Who's using a "Jimbo said" argument? Jimbo did say something over seven years ago, yes — that is why people created episode articles and how they became commonly accepted. The arbitration committee mentioned historical precedent for episode articles in E&C2.

In September 2008, Jimbo said "I actually think that "notability" is problematic. It's a shorthand way of speaking, but it leads people to think about the issue in an invalid way. The real work can mostly be done by "verifiability", and "verifiability" is much more amenable to consensus. The Simpson's anomaly is probably my own personal fault, because way back in the day before I really understood the limitations of the medium, I said something like "We should have an article on every episode of The Simpson's, why not?" Whereas now, if I were voting, I would vote to delete. (That's not a decree or anything, I am just saying that my own views have changed substantially.) My increased "deletionism" is very mild when it comes to things like Simpson's episodes - not much harm done. But it is quite strong when it comes to biographies of living persons, where serious damage can be done."

It's interesting to see Jimbo's latest opinion on the subject, but it really does not surprise me. Ever since Jimbo co-founded a for-profit wiki that profits off of fictional content, I take his opinion about fictional content with a mountain of salt. It's in his financial interest to see all the episode articles he prevously supported end up on Wikia.

WP:EPISODE is not a notability guideline, and never has been. Although this thread is really more suited to WT:EPISODE than WT:N. --Pixelface (talk) 08:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Pixelface, don't make me laugh. "Who's using a "Jimbo said" argument?", you ask? Well, you did, only two hours ago actually. "Jimbo Wales himself agreed that there's no reason why Wikipedia should not have articles for every episode of The Simpsons."[17] But, since you are now dismissing his opinions when they no longer suit you, but hadno such qualms as long as they were useful for you, I'll just quit this discussion with you, as it is a complete waste of time. Fram (talk) 09:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Fram, I was referring to the policy Wikipedia is not paper and Jimbo's quote on meta. There's a difference between noting something Jimbo said over seven years ago, which led to episode articles becoming commonly accepted, which led to a historical precedence for them in the community, and saying that whatever Jimbo's opinion this week is The Truth. Jimbo's latest opinion is not common practice. And I think that any opinion Jimbo makes about fictional topics, after founding Wikicities, is only in his own financial interest. Have a nice day. --Pixelface (talk) 04:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

What are the critera for notability when it comes to articles on video games, on-line MUDs, etc? Is there a guideline on this? Blueboar (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

GNG or WP:WEB. Phil's basic summary, though, of multiple reliable sources is pretty much the case. --MASEM (t) 15:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no specific guideline. There was a proposed Wikipedia:Notability (toys and games), but it failed to gain consensus and all that is left are the general notability guidelines. SDY (talk) 15:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Just wanted to make sure there wasn't a SNG that I missed somewhere. Blueboar (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to throw my cheap two cents in... you prove something is worthy of note if someone actually noted it. That "someone" usually has to be reliable and independent from the subject. Randomran (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It also has to not be trivial. --76.71.211.147 (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Significant coverage in reliable secondary sources is widely considered to be strong evidence of notability for any topic. But that is not the only evidence of notability. --Pixelface (talk) 06:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The article Let's trim our hair in accordance with the socialist lifestyle has been nominated for deletion on WP:IINFO grounds. Any comments would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let's trim our hair in accordance with the socialist lifestyle. Thanks. --Phenylalanine (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't advertise AFD debates on this talk page. But if you have any comments on criticisms of this guideline, you're welcome to make them here. --Pixelface (talk) 04:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that quite often notability and importance are incorrectly assumed to be synonymous. For example, Abyssinia, Henry doesn't rank very high on the importance scale but it is notable. Maybe a paragraph (or at the very least a sentence or two) ought to be added to WP:N addressing this? TerraFrost 05:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Importance is more related to class. Think of notability as "inclusion guidelines", also notability is pass/fail; whereas class and importance can have a number of different levels and criteria. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

By your own admission, then, notability and importance are not the same thing. That Abyssinia, Henry isn't of maximum importance does not mean that it is non-notable. My original proposal, none-the-less, still stands. TerraFrost 13:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not about subjective measures of importance. It's about whether reliable third-party sources have noted it. Randomran (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this is misunderstood. It should mean that even those things which are not important can be notable. Anything important in its field for which we have information and no specific reason to exclude is suitable for a Wp article, and therefore what we call "notable"--as well as many other things also.DGG (talk) 01:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

"Important" is one of many synonyms for "notable." Depending on your definition of "notable", there's the possibility that something can be important but not notable, notable but not important, or notable and important. Topics on Wikipedia do not have to be "important." They aren't even required to be "notable." --Pixelface (talk) 05:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Are there any guidelines for sports-related notability? Things like Aldershot Town F.C. season 2008–09 are quite common and seem to me to be WP:INDISCRIMINATE. To stay on this topic, obviously the club Aldershot Town F.C. should be included (though what about non-league clubs, say? WP:N may cover it, but more specific guidelines might help), but spinning off articles from that for each season just seem an invitation for a football directory-like barrage of statistics. Now maybe the unwritten consensus is that this is just fine and dandy (or maybe just "let sleeping dogs lie"), but something written would presumably be helpful. Yes, no? Is it already covered somewhere? Rd232 ^talk 21:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Its not a notable topic and the article will eventually be mergered or deleted. My analogy is that Wikipedia is like a long beach, on which articles that have no evidence of notability are like stones that are gradually washed away, leaving only reliably sourced articles that are like rocks that can weather any storm. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Well that's a nice philosophy, and if it were just the one article I'd have chalked it up to something similar, and wouldn't have posted here. But there are 123 such articles for the current football (soccer) season alone: Category:Football (soccer) clubs 2008-09 season. Rd232 ^talk 22:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Because WP includes elements of an almanac in addition to encyclopedic information, there's generally nothing wrong with season pages of major sports and teams which generally get significant coverage of some nature; mind you, they need to be more than mindless dumping of stats; language needs to be added that summarizes aspects of the season, analysts' consideration of the overall season performance, and any other lasting aspects. Nearly all major sports (pro and collegiate) can support these - they just at the present may not have these filled out. --MASEM (t) 23:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with that actually happening in a significant % of these articles... Rd232 ^talk 00:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

By the by, the proposal Wikipedia:Notability (sports) ground to a halt in 2007. But that goes into a lot of detail, I had in mind something more generic than that (but more specific than WP:N). Anyway with a number of specific WP:N subparts now, maybe it's worth trying to revive it, or start something new inspired by it. Rd232 ^talk 00:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know where Masem gets his ideas: WP is not an almanac, as it does not contain lists of train departures, high tides or full moons, any more than it contains lists of soccer fixtures. These articles are clearly content forks, since the source of these articles demonstrate notability for their respective clubs. Eventually all such forks will be merged with their primary subject matter. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• First Pillar: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." --MASEM (t) 13:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
• Would that be in the same way that articles about elements of fictional universes or non-notable episodes of TV programmes should be merged with their parent article, or is that a different concept of notability? Black Kite 20:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I tried searching the talk archives, I tried a google search .. I'm spending more time achieving nothing. Could one of the regulars here point me to the most recent and relevant discussion that says WP:N should be a guideline rather than a policy. It's not that I have a strong opinion one way or the other - I'm just looking to get a feel for how the community feels, and why it feels that way. Thanks. — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 06:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

See this section from the RFC last month. Basically, common sense needs to play a factor in here, so it basically isn't hard-set. --MASEM (t) 06:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Masem, that's exactly what I was looking for. I never thought of looking through RfC. ;) — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 06:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the reinsertion of material originally and in my opinion properly removed by pixelface, about how notability affect and is affected by article content. Though questions of undue weight t and the like are very real and very important, I think they just confuse the issue here. There should be a better place for this. This needs discussion. DGG (talk) 07:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to second this: it's dangerous business to link "notability", as a concept or otherwise, with content. I seem to remember we've been through this tussle before, over whether NNC should selectively reiterate content policies.--Father Goose (talk) 08:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. WP:N is already complicated. Keep it simple. If it doesn't have to be there, and it doesn't help, it shouldn't be there. Forking the rest of the project into a section "What this page is not about" is silly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I defer to the consensus on this one. But there are legitimate situations where people see passing WP:N as a free pass. If a topic is notable, it must be included, with any amount of content. I think it's helpful to clarify that Wikipedia isn't about everything, not even everything about a notable subject. Otherwise you do end up with situations where people are covering, say, a list of tour dates for an artist, or covering a fringe theory as mainstream thought. I'm not sure that's clear with the new wording, which cryptically eludes to "content policies". Randomran (talk) 06:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Your concern is valid, but this is the wrong forum. The concerns are supposedly covered by core policy, at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight. Have you raised the issue at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added a clause pointing to WP:WEIGHT; I think this tells the reader what they need to know without going into confusing detail. Skomorokh 09:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Though less than ideal, I can live with this shorter version. I don't think there's a consensus to just cut it out completely. Randomran (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

A pointer on where to go for questions about content is fair enough. People might come here looking for guidance on content. They should be told where to go.

It’s not OK when this guideline starts to paraphrase WP:NPOV. That opens the door to subverting WP:NPOV, out of sight of editors who keep that policy under watch. If you wanted to transclude a section, that might be OK, though I doubt it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

With the RFC nearly closed with the general consensus that notability as a guideline is not going anywhere, I would like to suggest a way that we can rewrite this, not to change how notability is necessary used on WP, but only to make it clear what the goal of WP:N really is.

The starting point for this philosophical adjustment is recognizing that there are a large number of topics that are notable (standard english definition) to somebody somewhere. To my parents, I'm notable. To my neighbor's dog, the tree outside is notable, and so forth. In this manner, many things that are important, famous, or popular are also notable, but so are various topics that have limited interest to a small number of people as well.

However, while WP is not paper, we also are not an indiscriminate collection of information, and for that we need some bar to include topics that meet some threshold of notability (instead of saying if things are non-notable or otherwise). Mere evidence for existence is not enough, otherwise, all 6 billion humans on earth would qualify (via phone book and government listings). That's why the GNG is there; it establishes the threshold of notability as being significant coverage in secondary sources, so that more than just existence is shown. Mind you, the GNG is only one threshold that can be passed; the SNG serve to give other quick-pass (or fail) thresholds of notability for specific fields.

Now, again, this doesn't change how this guideline should be taken, but it is a bit more friendlier and gives better justification for newer editors that may be confused by it:

• Using "threshold of notability" now means that our definition of notability is the same as the definition in any english dictionary and removes that point of confusion; the guideline only spells out what the threshold is.
• Articles are not deleted for being "non-notable" (which is noted to be a problem with the english definition and can be confusing to newer editors); instead, they are deleted for failing to meet the threshold of notability required for topics. From a standpoint of a newer editor, while it still means articles may be deleted, I would think it gives them a better understanding that we're not dismissing the topic forever from WP, but that if that threshold can be passed, it can be readded. "Non-notable" gives a "now or never" approach which is less friendlier.
• In conjunction with the above, while "non-notable" is a black or white stance, the threshold of notability can be fuzzy, which allows for potentially better discussions at AFD or other places.

Again, I can't stress enough that I'm not suggesting we change the GNG; that's been confirmed to be a good guideline (neither too strong or too weak) by the RFC. All I'm suggesting is that we try to rewrite this to assert that topics must pass this threshold of notability only to remove confusion with the language and to make the guideline a bit more friendlier to newer editors. --MASEM (t) 15:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Masem, the general consensus from the RFC was that a rewrite for WP:N was opposed. You are confusing article inclusion criteria with article deletion criteria. The threshold of notability is clear, as it based on objective evidence which can be peer reviewed, not on what you think is the "consensus" at WP:AFD. When will you rest from trying to water down this guideline? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You completely misread what I was trying to do. WP:N will still mean "significant coverage in secondary sources". I am only stating that the intro and surrounding text can be improved to be a bit more friendly to make what we call notable match with a standard dictionary definition without changing any intent of the guideline and thus making the concept less bitey to newer editors. (Also, the RFC only excluded elevating N to policy or demoting it from a guideline, and major changes from the GNG, but did not exclude rewriting for language improvements). --MASEM (t) 16:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Masem. A lot of difficulty, especially for newcomers, comes from the fact that wikipedia-notability is quite different to a dictionary definition. People often think of notability as a yes/no thing, and combined with a dictionary definition, it makes for a very low threshold “It was “noted” at xxx, so by definition it is “notable”.” We acknowledge that there are degrees of notability. A subject can be borderline notable, slightly notable, very notable. We definitely talk around a “threshold of notability” and we’d like to have is an accepted way to determine, using objective evidence, whether a subject meets our threshold. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree that notability implicitly is used as a threshold (degrees of notability; very slightly or not at all notable = "non-notable"), and that rewriting it in the language of an explicit threshold would probably be better. However I suspect it's not happened to date because of the difficulty of agreeing on something more explicit. Vagueness here (even at the price of philosophical/linguistic problems) is maybe unavoidable in practice for WP, even if in theory it would be better to avoid it. Rd232 ^talk 21:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not suggesting to change the threshold - however vague that "significant coverage in secondary sources" remains, it will be the case now or if we adopt my suggestions. It's being more explicit that we are talking threshold of notability. --MASEM (t) 22:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want to adjust the philosophical approach people have regarding notability, I suggest someone turn that article into a bluelink. And find some good sources for the topic. I think it's about time.

I think the goal of Demi writing User:Demi/Notability (which Neutrality copied over to this page) was to explain why Wikipedia should not have articles about your next-door neighbor's dog. Then the goal of the page turned into arguments for and against using "notability" when it comes to deleting articles. That version of the page was eventually moved to Wikipedia:Notability/Historical/Arguments.

I think the goal of Radiant! rewriting Wikipedia:Notability was to describe current practice at VFD. Editors would often vote "Delete, non-notable" in VFDs, and many articles were deleted because of it. But that does not therefore mean that articles that were not deleted were about notable topics — merely that articles that were deleted were about topics that many editors felt were not notable. Instead of saying "topics should be notable" — from the beginning, Wikipedia:Notability should have said "Topics that editors feel are not notable are often nominated for deletion and often deleted." The latter actually describes common practice.

Wikipedia is an electronic encyclopedia. Anyone with Internet access can write an article about any imaginable topic and click Save page. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. But notability is not what keeps Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia has hundreds of thousands of active volunteer editors to do the discriminating. Other people are what keep Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate collection of information.

Someone could try to make articles for every human on Earth, but that's where right to privacy comes into play. The Internet is a public place. And I think most people enjoy their privacy. A local newspaper might write a story about you, but that does not necessarily mean that you're a public person now. Your name may be in a phone book, but that does not necessarily mean that you're a public person.

I think the GNG is there because it sprang out of the first summary of the subject-specific notability guidelines, and then Uncle G added his "primary notability criterion" to the page. I could check and see who wrote what's in the current GNG. And I don't see the GNG as establishing any threshold (definition 3b) — although the definitions provided in the GNG try to, as if this guideline was a legal document.

I see the GNG as "If this condition is met, the topic is probably notable." If a location is a country, it's probably notable. If a person is a leader of a country, they're probably notable. But a location does not have to be a country in order to be notable. And a person does not have to be the leader of a country in order to be notable. Other conditions can be met. The GNG does not say "Only if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject..." — it says IF.

The word "notable" has several definitions[18], and also several synonyms[19]. Wikipedia:Notability gives the definition "worthy of notice." WP:BIO gives the definition that appears in Encarta, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."[20]

The problem is that some people think "notable" is defined as "has received third-party coverage." That is not what the word means. Wikipedia has no notability threshold that topics are required to pass. Notability is subjective, notability is relative — whether a subject is worthy of notice depends on who you ask, when you ask, and where you ask.

I think the way to change the GNG to make it more friendlier to newer editors is to remove all the pseudo-legalistic definitions and replace the entire section with "If you think a topic is notable, you will persuade more people if you provide evidence that the topic is notable. Significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject is widely considered to be strong evidence of notability for any topic. But other editors might also consider other factors as evidence of notability." --Pixelface (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Your statement (If you think a topic is notable, you will persuade more people if you provide evidence that the topic is notable. Significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject is widely considered to be strong evidence of notability for any topic. But other editors might also consider other factors as evidence of notability.) does not conflict and in fact meshes well my suggestion of "threshold of notability". It accurately describes how the GNG (in absence of any applicable SNG) is used - if there are sources, great, if not, there's a case-by-case consideration, but every added secondary sources is a plus in trying to keep the article, helping it to push past some very artificial but real threshold that we use on WP to judge the need to retain an article. We'd still need to describe the GNG to depth, but I can see WP:N having an introduction that reads like your statement without invalidating any other aspect of notability. --MASEM (t) 21:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I definitely sympathize with Masem's position. "Notability" can be related to other editorial decisions Wikipedians make about content. We report what reliable sources report and we balance that reporting according to the sources. This principle of deferring to the sources runs throughout our content principles. Notability is not really different. We decide something is notable when independent sources decide the topic is notable, as evidenced by substantive coverage, or it is almost certain such sources exist. Fulfilling the GNG is not really more than showing that real world reliable sources consider the topic noteworthy. If the coverage is substantive, then the sources obviously consider the topic noteworthy. We require reliable sources generally, and the GNG is no exception. If a reference is independent, then there is proof that the outside world considers the topic notable. --Vassyana (talk) 05:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Unless the source explicitly says the topic is notable, why not consider the source proof that the outside world has bills to pay? --Pixelface (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Why a source considers a topic noteworthy is irrelevant to this guideline, except in cases where the source is not independent of the topic. Whether they provide coverage because a lot of readers would interested or as a matter of academic scrutiny (or so on) has no bearing on the GNG. --Vassyana (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

(oldid of current guideline)

By whom? Someguy1221 (talk) 13:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

oldid of current guideline. How's that? --Pixelface (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The nutshell needs to be changed. It currently says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article" but it should be changed to something like "Significant coverage in reliable secondary sources is widely considered to be strong evidence of notability for any topic." I think that would accurately describe current practice. --Pixelface (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from AFDs, the "standard practice" is for people emotionally or financially attached to a topic to argue for its inclusion and refuse or fail to comprehend all arguments for deletion. Once their favorite article is kept or deleted, they usually go away. So even if more editors than ever edited the notability guideline want to ignore it, I think it's tremendously skewed by users who don't actually have an interest in improving the encyclopedia, and their actions should not be considered "common practice" any more than vandalism should. This is not to say that all inclusionists should be ignored. There are certainly many who actually care about the project, but as far as meta-discussions and RFCs, I don't think there is any voiced consensus for such an intense watering down.
On the issue of the subjectivity of the guideline, by the way, I think it's actually OK. First of all, there is always room for argument that any line is not "objective." But the subjective terms in the nutshell do serve the purpose of focusing an argument and making an end to AFDs possible. Instead of just discussing the nebulous concept of notability, users can discuss the reliability of the sources (which itself is defined, so users can discuss the reputations of the sources). It makes it easier to identify and marginalize the stonewallers who will shout "IT'S NOTABLE" no matter what anyone tells them (also those who shout the opposite). "Substantial" or whatever word you put in it's place rules out trivial things like be mentioned in precisely one sentence in a reliable source. Someguy1221 (talk) 13:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I am happy with the original wording. I would refer Pixelface to an earlier discussion where the origins of the current "in a nutshell" section originated from. If he has an alternative he wishes to propose, please do so rather than winge and moan about the current version. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I already proposed an alternative above, Gavin. But your incivility is noted. It would also be fine to change "satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article" back to "be notable", like it was. --Pixelface (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This guideline is about notability. It is about the notability of topics (subjects, persons, places, things, etc). I think the statement "Significant coverage in reliable secondary sources is widely considered to be strong evidence of notability for any topic" accurately describes current practice. But if the nutshell cannot be changed to that, the nutshell used to say "be notable", instead of "satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." I think it should be changed back to "be notable." It appears that Kanodin changed that on October 8, 2008 based on the suggestion of Gavin.collins in this thread, which Randomran supported. It looks like padillaH started that thread over confusion between "article topics" and "article subjects", but both of those terms refer to things one would write an article about. It doesn't water down the guideline to change the nutshell back to "be notable." This guideline is about notability. When the nutshell says "the inclusion criteria", what is it referring to? The SNGs?

As for the rest of your comment, that's not assuming good faith about people who argue to keep articles. And I think you'll find that when someone's "favorite" article is deleted, oftentimes they'll make disruptive AFD nominations to level the playing field. People edited Wikipedia for 5 1/2 years without this as a guideline. I'm certain that the majority of those editors during that time were interested in improving the encyclopedia. Since this was made a guideline, most AFDs have been discussions about the "nebulous concept of notability." The "reputation" of sources is just as subjective. If someone thinks someting is notable, say, a country, what difference does it make if someone else says it isn't? Opinions cannot be "correct." And vandalism may be common practice, but it's also common practice to remove vandalism. --Pixelface (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Pixelface, the same arguments are made about death, government, taxes and the law which amount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If you are genuinely interested in the problems with any aspect of notability, then say so. But telling me that notability is wrong, or is does not work, or its unfair, then it won't wash. For a lot of editors in a lot of subject areas it works. If you can come up with a better concept that works better than notability, then congratulations! But if you can't, then just complaining about it is not going to improve matters. What is needed is a better alternative. Your proposal above is simply an attempt to water down WP:N, so I am not taking it seriously. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

What are you on about? I suggest that the nutshell be changed from "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." to "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." That's what the nutshell used to say, before you suggested it be changed in this thread. What does "the inclusion criteria" refer to? The SNGs? The word "criteria" is plural. Believe me Gavin, I stopped taking you seriously long ago. --Pixelface (talk) 05:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Pixelface, if you have stopped taking me seriously, then that is bad faith on your part, and nothing I can say will be accepted by you. Be warned that presumptions of bad faith are a double edged sword, and could be turned on you at any time by other editors.
For the record, the inclusion criteria which you refer to are the basis by which a topic may be included as a standalone article without contravening Wikipedia content policies. So if WP:NOT says you can't an article about random stuff, WP:N is the set of inclusion criteria that effectively says, it a topic is notable, then it is not random and won't fail WP:N. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Then these inclusion criteria must be properly linked - as soon as they are created. Exclusion criteria (WP:NOT) are something different. Right now the nutshell leads to nowhere and, indeed, should not be taken seriously. NVO (talk) 06:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, I've always tried to give you the benefit of the doubt. But that's getting increasingly difficult for me. This guideline has nothing to do with Wikipedia's content policies. If it does, then it's redundant and should not be a guideline. This guideline has nothing to do with WP:NOT. It has to do with editors voting delete and saying "non-notable" in VFDs (which were later renamed AFDs). --Pixelface (talk) 06:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

@Someguy1221 - I think users are just as likely to want to suggest the deletion of an article simply becuase it gives what they think is undue weight to a subject matter when compared to their own, favorite article. I.e. they don't want their favorite topic to be "outshined" by another. SharkD (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

@Pixelface - Could you describe exactly what your suggested rewording would solve? The only thing I can think of is that the existing wording could be interpreted as meaning that the criteria for inclusion for sub-topics within existing articles is less than what exists for new or stand-alone articles. I.e. passing statements within existing articles don't require the same level of scrutiny. SharkD (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I think "Significant coverage in reliable secondary sources is widely considered to be strong evidence of notability for any topic" is an accurate description of current practice. I also think that the phrase "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." would be better than the current nutshell, except that some people seem to interpret that as meaning "Only if a topic..." — but that is not the case. Also, who is doing the presuming? And many editors do not seem to not understand the word "presumed" in this guideline. Also, the word "criteria" is plural. Wikipedia has several notability guidelines. When the nutshell mentions "the inclusion criteria", I get a sense that the nutshell is not referring to the subject-specific notability guidelines, which this guideline was created to give an overview of. And sometimes articles are created because a "parent" article grows too large. Size is the factor there, not notability. Ultimately, the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia is not "notability", or this guideline, but whether editors come to a general agreement that Wikipedia should have an article about a particular topic. Or a lack of agreement that Wikipedia should not have an article about a particular topic. The current nutshell is written much too dogmatically. --Pixelface (talk) 00:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

In the category of obvious: You don't define in a nutshell what is meant by the word notability by using the word notability. It is a circular reference. patsw (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Patsw - circular references make no sense. The reason why we agreed on the current wording is that it does not refer to terms that have do be defined elsewhere in the guideline whilst at the same time the terms used are the same as in the guideline itself. Using terms such as like "widely considered" that does not appear in the guideline itself is not helpful. I recomend Pixelface read the dicussions which lead to the current version at Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_27#In_a_better_nutshell so that he can better understand how the current wording was arrived at. I understand why he is trying to have it changed when it is perfectly clear. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

What circular reference? And in Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_27#In_a_better_nutshell you said "Masem is a master of obfuscation" and "My goodness Mr. Randomran, I must now demand that the original version be restored or otherwise we will have to resort to pistols at dawn!".

Perhaps you mean this suggestion by you in this thread on that same archive page? --Pixelface (talk) 09:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that the phrase "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable" is a circular reference? Are you saying that the phrase "Significant coverage in reliable secondary sources is widely considered to be strong evidence of notability for any topic" is a circular reference? What are you referring to? --Pixelface (talk) 09:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

First off, the heading does not make sense in the English language.

Secondly, it says "The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability" but that is not a common theme.

Thirdly, it says "Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence...", but there is nothing objective about that. It also uses the word "substantial" rather than "significant."

Also, it says "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability." This needs to be rewritten. Take the article Continental Connection Flight 3407 for example. How does that statement and that article interact? --Pixelface (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, well, no comment. Secondly, I'm actually not aware of a sub-criterion that can be "verified" without providing any verification, although perhaps I misunderstand you. Thirdly, I cover this in my comment above. On the subject of news, I think it could be narrowed to "a short burst of local news reports or wire service reprints." Someguy1221 (talk) 13:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The heading would make grammatical sense if it was "Claims of notability..." — but even then, claims of notability do not require "objective" evidence. Did you know that the evidence article currently only has one citation? Is evidence notable? Yes. Do I require "objective evidence" to say so? No.

Is there a difference between "evidence" and "objective evidence"? Whether something is "worthy of notice" is subjective. You can point to evidence that you feel is evidence of notability (for example, "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization" from WP:WEB), but that is not objective evidence of notability.

Perhaps the news part could be narrowed to local news, but the part about news in this guideline is a common source of confusion. --Pixelface (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It's "objective" vs "subjective" evidence, a statement of fact verses a statement of opinion. --MASEM 14:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there "subjective evidence"? Saying that a person wrote a newspaper article about a subject is a statement of fact. But whether that article is evidence that a subject is "worthy of notice" is a subjective opinion. --Pixelface (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure there is subjective evidence, statements of opinion are that (eg "Christopher Walken is in this show, and therefore it is awesome"). As to your second point, what happens on mainspace and what happens in how we determine policy/guidelines are two different things and the same rules on how we approach them don't apply to both. We want topics in mainspace to show objective evidence for notability. Why we chose that in this guideline was a subjective measure (based on some objectiveness but mostly on consensus), and that's why we're allowed to discuss it to determine conflicts or to improve it. --MASEM 15:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No, an opinion is an opinion. While an opinion is subjective, an opinion is not subjective evidence. Saying "Christopher Walken is in this show, therefore it is awesome" is an opinion. The show is evidence. Whether it's "awesome" is opinion. But that is much different than saying "Christopher Walken is a notable actor, well-known and recognized, so I think shows he appears in are notable as well." That people recognize Christopher Walken is evidence of notability, evidence that he's famous. Whether every show Christopher Walken appears in is notable or not is an opinion. One I tend to agree with.

Why would the Human skeleton article have to show "objective" evidence of notability? There is no "objective evidence" that the human skeleton is notable. Why? Because it's humans doing the evaluating. It's humans doing the noticing. The planet does not care if all humans go extinct. You're a human, so you think human skeletons are notable. Whether human skeletons are notable is completely subjective.

Taking an example from the current In the news section on the mainpage, one could say that UBS AG is notable because it's "the world's biggest manager of other people's money." The Economist is the source for that claim. Whether "the world's biggest manager of other people's money" is worthy of notice is an opinion.

Kubigula added "Notability requires objective evidence" in May 2007. Then Kubigula mentioned the change on this talkpage. It looks like Kubigula chose it. It looks like Dhaluza and Scientizzle agreed with it. But saying "Notability requires objective evidence" doesn't make any sense. Even "Notability requires evidence" doesn't make any sense. The phrase "Claims of notability require evidence" is wrong too, since whether something is worthy of notice is subjective. So I suggest the section heading be changed to "Evidence of notability" and be rewritten. I don't see the difference between "objective evidence" and "evidence." --Pixelface (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This section was part of the Spring compromise of '07. Two of the big issues then were whether notability is subjective or objective, and how to tie the GNG to the subject specific guidelines. This section was part of answering those questions. I actually had tried to tweak the languag a bit since then, as I think it can be improved. However, it has been hard to make changes after the compromise stuck.--Kubigula (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Whether something is "worthy of notice" is subjective. Other synonyms for "notable" that are also subjective: remarkable, distinguished, important, memorable, noticeable, prestiguous. Less subjective: prominent, unusual, famous, well-known. "Noted" is objective. But you can note something without writing about it. I'm confused when it says "Notability requires objective evidence" because the sentence makes no grammatical sense. The sentence "Claims of notability require evidence" makes sense to me. Does "Notability requires objective evidence" mean that there exists evidence that something is objectively worthy of notice? Or that the evidence must be objective? Coverage is evidence of notability. But coverage is not the only evidence of notability. --Pixelface (talk) 07:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sections are not "disputed" because you dispute them, but when there is significant (or substantial?) disagreement about them. Your premature tagging is not helpful. I'll focus on the "objective evidence" for now: I don't see how the heading makes no sense, it seems perfectly clear to me. However, you can always suggest improvements.

Second: WP:PROF nutshell: "as evidenced by being the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources." WP:ORG: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." WP:BIO: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." WP:WEB: "For material published on the web to have its own article in Wikipedia, it should be notable and of historical significance. Wikipedia articles about web content should use citations from reliable sources." [[WP:BOOK] and WP:MUSIC give a list of criteria, but both give the same "coverage in reliable independent sources" idea as the first criterion. Finally, WP:FILM states that,

"As with all subjects, a film should satisfy the general notability guideline.
The general guideline for notability shared by most of the subject-specific notability guidelines and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, is that:
A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

So, I don't see how your second objection is valid.

Third: what is not objective about it? Reliable sources are defined in WP:RS, so the only subjective element is when the coverage is substantial or insubstantial (trivial, in passing, ...) I don't mind changing substantial to significant or vice versa, whatever most people prefer: but it is incorrect to claim that this has "nothing objective": it is an objective element (being in reliable independent sources or not) with a subjective quantification (for those cases where there is some but insufficient info in reliable sources). The evidence is objective (not "I like the subject" or "I have heard of the subject" or "The subject is hugely popular", but "The subject is mentioned and discussed here, here and here"), and only the decision if the objective evidence is sufficient to meet the notability guideline(s) is subjective (otherwise we wouldn't need things like AfD and so on).

In conclusion, I don't think your complaints about the section have any merit and feel that the "disputed" tag should be removed again. Fram (talk) 13:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Fram, this is not a matter of dispute. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with you about disputing wording; but nevertheless, the sections are certainly under discussion now. You reverted me while I was writing this talk thread. If you just disagreed with one of the disputed tags, I don't think you should have removed all three of them. The heading is an incomplete sentence. If you take the definition of notability this guideline gives ("worthy of notice") and substitute that in the heading ("Worthy of notice requires objective evidence") it does not make grammatical sense. If the heading is a reference to the guideline page itself, that's also incorrect. Personally, I think the heading should be changed to "Evidence of notability."

Yes, those subject-specific notability guidelines say that. But they don't share a requirement for that. If that exists. Not only if that exists. In other words, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" — not "A topic is presumed to be notable only if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Big difference.

Third, perhaps I'm hung up on the word objective. There's nothing objective about the words "substantial" or "significant." "Trivial" is also subjective. So is "reliable." And to some extent, "independent." If a person writes a newspaper article about a topic, that obviously shows they took note of it. It's noted. But if someone notes something, does that mean it's "worthy of notice"? I'm interpreting "notice" as "paying attention" to or observing. It's easier to say that they probably felt it was worthy of their notice, rather than worthy of notice in some objective sense. Maybe I'm confused by the phrase "worthy of notice." Worth noticing? Worthy of someone's attention? I suppose you could say if someone notes something, they probably think it's noteworthy. But "notable" has several meanings. Worthy of note. Remarkable. Distinguished. Prominent. Noted. Worthy of notice. Important. Famous. Memorable. Noteworthy. Noticeable. Unusual. Well-known. Prestigious. I suppose "noted" is objective. "Famous" is not quite objective. "Well-known", less so. The other meanings are all subjective.

Being in "reliable independent sources" is not an objective element; a source is an objective element. If someone has heard of a subject, or if a subject is popular, that's evidence the subject is well-known — one of the meanings of "notable." It's fine to say that a subject is written about here here and here — to say that it was noted. But whether someone considers those sources evidence of notability is a subjective evaluation. Whether the coverage was "significant" is a subjective evaluation. Whether the sources are "reliable" is a subjective evaluation.

I did some looking, and it appears that the heading "Notability requires objective evidence" was added May 20, 2007 by Kubigula. But the section was much different then. For one thing, it acknowledged the subjective nature of notability. It also mentioned media coverage of local events, something Someguy1221 mentioned above. Then Kubigula mentioned the change on this talkpage and even said "I know it may be opening a can of worms..."

The wording of the current section is disputed. This is an active discussion, so the {{disputedtag}} template should not be removed from that section. --Pixelface (talk) 15:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Pixelface, if you are prosing a change, that is fine, but it the section not disputed per se. Despite your strong views, please think it possible you are mistaken. You are correct that reliable independent sources are not subjective in themselves. However, they are objective from the perspective of Wikipedia editors, who look to outside sources to resolve differences of opinion. These sources are objective in comparison to the differing but valid opinions of different editors.
  If you are in any doubt about the meaning or reasoning of this section, I recomend that you refer to the editors who created in the first place, or start an RFC, ideally with with alternative proposal in mind. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• I think a better headings than "Notability requires objective evidence" would be "Evidence of notability." I do dispute this section. It's wrong. The sentence "The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability." is a blatantly false statement. I do not think that is not a common theme in the notability guidelines. If it is, someone should be able to quote the sentences in the notability guidelines that support that statement.

• And the portion about news needs to be clarified. It's brought up again and again on this talkpage. "You are correct that reliable independent sources are not subjective in themselves." (I don't know what you are talking about there.) Independent sources are independent from Wikipedia editors. And we do look to outside sources to resolve differences of opinion about the content in articles. But all deletion debates are full of subjective opinions about whether Wikipedia should have an article about a topic or not. And we don't point to outside sources who think Wikipedia should have an article or not. Is objectivity notable? Yes. The article contains no citations — yet the topic is still notable. Even more important than whether the concept of objectivity is "worthy of notice" or not, the article contains no citations — yet Wikipedia should still have an article about that topic.

• I'll do some looking and find out who wrote what's currently in the "Notability requires objective evidence" section. --Pixelface (talk) 07:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, I've determined who wrote the section.

WP:N#OBJ[21]

WP:NOBJ[22]

WP:SBST[23]

Notability requires objective evidence[24]

The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability[25]. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines[26].

Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability[27]. The Wikimedia project Wikinews covers topics of present news coverage[28].

• --Pixelface (talk) 02:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No, one person disputing a guideline (or sections of it) is not enough to add a "disputed" tag to it, otherwise all our policies and guidelines would be tagged. There has to be significant disagreement leaning towards a lack of consensus before such tags are added. And I removed all three because I disagree with all your tagging (and the method it was done), but I commented on only one yet because it is more productive to tackle one problem at a time. Fram (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I doubt that all of Wikipedia's 300+ policies and guidelines would be tagged. But they should probably all be re-evaluated anyway. Do you know what they all say? It should be easy for you to show where on this talkpage there was consensus for everything in those sections, since sections of policy and guideline must reflect consensus. What if I add {{underdiscussion}} tags? --Pixelface (talk) 07:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The WP:FAILN redirect needs to be removed because articles cannot "fail" guidelines. This section could also use some cleanup. --Pixelface (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

What is you proposed change that you wish to make? --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles can fail to pass a guideline. I don't see why they couldn't. Chillum 15:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines are not tests that articles "pass" or "fail." --Pixelface (talk) 01:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

In practice they do. It is only in theory that this cannot happen. Chillum 01:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The entire section is based around the statement:

• "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject..."

So your issue is with the actual guideline, not the redirect. Randomran (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Well then my issue is with the redirect and the guideline. If an article does not cite any sources, that does not therefore mean that the subject of the article is not notable. --Pixelface (talk) 01:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Once again, what does "undue weight" have to do with the notability guidelines? As the introduction says "These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles." Since notability guidelines refer to topics and not text within articles, this guideline should not mention text within articles, or which policies and guidelines apply to content. However, WP:BIO does say that people should be notable before including them in a list of people, and that should be mentioned in this section. --Pixelface (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You have been over this issue before - see Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_30#NNC_again for instance. I am not sure why you are raising this issue again. Are you trying to make some sort of protest about an issue on which you have strong views? --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

That's right, it has been discussed before. But it hasn't been resolved. The latest thread was archived before I could reply to Randomran. Shall I unarchive the thread or reply to Randomran here? I don't know why you link to WP:POINT. Randomran changed the heading of the WP:NNC section in November without any discussion. Those changes do not reflect consensus. This guideline already says in the introduction that notability guidelines don't limit article content. No less than 14 people have said the stuff about "undue weight" does not belong in this guideline. Shall I notify them all of this discussion? You're welcome to tell me what "due weight" or "undue weight" has to do with the notability of subjects for articles. --Pixelface (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You're pushing two falsehoods. First, there *was* a discussion for the changes in November, which had nothing to do with changing the substance of the guideline, and everything to do with improving clarity. Second, is that you're using consensus changes I made in November to justify a rollback to literally a year ago. Using a dispute over recent changes to justify a massive change tests the limits of assuming good faith. Are you here to roll back the November changes, or are you here to tear apart the whole section? Randomran (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Lots of people may have said that they don't like it, but it makes no sense. Notability is the criteria by which a topic presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article, but a topic is the inclusion criteria by which a sub-topic is presumed to be suitable for inclusion within an article. Its intuative, as an article should focus on its subject matter. If you have an objection to this section, or alternative wording, then set it before us now or forever hold your peace. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not "pushing two falsehoods." You and Phil Sandifer had a discussion in November. Fine. That's two editors. You changed "Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content" to "Notability of article content." That's a total reversal. That's a huge change. One I can't find any consensus for on this talk page. You did change the substance of this guideline. That's evident from Phil Sandifer's revert. Apparently article content has to be "notable" now, according to you. Information in an article does not have to be "notable", it has to be verifiable. It doesn't have to be "important" either.

In that thread started November 8, Phil Sandifer made a suggestion and you added it. That's when I noticed just how much the NNC section had changed over the past few months. In that thread, I objected to your changes, and I also object to the addition of all the stuff about "undue weight." I also started a thread on November 24. Colonel Warden started a thread in December. I also mentioned the NNC section in February. That thread was archived before I could reply to you. This is the reply I had typed up and hadn't saved here yet:

Do you want me to show you how many months the NNC section did not mention "undue weight"? Edits to policies and guidelines are supposed to reflect consensus. In this thread, it appears editors did come to a consensus about the "undue weight" stuff. But consensus can change. That stuff was removed by SmokeyJoe. I showed you that the stuff about undue weight does not have consensus to be in this guideline.

There hasn't been a discussion to remove the entire NNC section. That's just something I suggested. But 14 people told you the stuff about undue weight does not belong here.

You haven't shown where there was consensus to cite an arbitration case in this guideline. You haven't shown where there was consensus to change the heading on November 8. So why would I have to show you consensus to change it back? Content in an article does not have to be "notable" — otherwise there wouldn't have been a Gameplay of Final Fantasy section for you to split off. Despite Masem, Collectonian, and Sephiroth BCR edit-warring with you, "undue weight" has nothing to do with notability.

How about you tell me what you would consider consensus to remove it, and I'll go contact the editors who told you the stuff about undue weight does not belong here. Then we can determine if the current NNC section should stay the way it is.

How do you tell if something is given "due weight" Randomran?

You said the NNC section has mentioned "undue weight" for 8 months. If you want to count months, fine, let's count months. The NNC section was added on March 17, 2007. Black Falcon removed the hyphen in the heading on April 25, 2007. You changed "Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content" to "Notability of article content" on November 8, 2008. This guideline said notability guidelines do not directly limit article content for 20 months, until you changed it in November.

The point is, Notability guidelines do Not directly limit article Content — NNC. Information in an articles does not have to meet any notability guideline, except when it comes to lists of people. "Undue weight" has nothing to do with whether a subject is "worthy of notice." Since this guideline is about the notability of things one would write an article about, it should not be mentioning content policies or guidelines.

Assume what you want. But you made this guideline worse. I'm here to make it better. --Pixelface (talk) 05:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Pixelface, you still have not explained, using articles as examples, what would be the benefit of this change. Can you explain please? --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree. I am having trouble following along with what the intended changes are meant to improve. Your explanations are highly terse and subject to misinterpretation. SharkD (talk) 14:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I like the "...do not directly limit article content" version better. They're both basically saying the same thing, but this one is easier to understand. The other version says notability doesn't refer to content, but then, that it sometimes does, but in those cases we mean importance instead; that's just all trippy and confusing, a longer-winded explanation of "weight". It's much clearer when we hand off the concept of "content notability" directly to "weight" instead. No, it won't affect articles. It will affect a first-timer's ability to understand the guideline. Oh and Pixelface needs to calm down with all the "you made it worse and I made it better". It's childish. As adults we're supposed to think that stuff, not say it. :) Equazcion •?/C • 08:31, 22 Feb 2009 (UTC)

No, Equazcion. They didn't say the same thing. They said opposite things. "Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content" vs "Notability of article content." Wikipedia has no policy or guideline saying information has to be "important" — the word is totally subjective. "Due weight" is almost as bad.

I said "I'm here to make it better" (not "I made it better") and it was a response to when Randomran said "Are you here to roll back the November changes, or are you here to tear apart the whole section?" You didn't understand what I said. It's not childish to criticize changes to a guideline. And it's not childish to say I'm here to improve the guideline after someone asks if I'm here to "tear apart" a section. --Pixelface (talk) 02:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The headers might be opposite in a literal sense, but they aren't really. One refers to notability, as in the guideline, while the other refers to notability, the word. Since the page spends a good deal of time trying to impart to new users that notability on Wikipedia refers to the guideline and not the word, I do agree that we shouldn't introduce the complication of reverting back to the word when describing the effect on content -- as I said in my last response, it just makes for an easier read. As for the childishness thing, you said "But you made this guideline worse. I'm here to make it better." - Anyone in any argument could say that. They think their way is better and you think your way is better. It's a given and has no bearing on the discussion. That's what makes it childish to say out loud. Equazcion •?/C • 02:33, 25 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Both headings refer to notability, the concept. While the second heading may not be "Article content must be notable", the second heading still implies that the notability of article content is up for debate, or that this guideline addresses the notability of article content. It doesn't. The heading's been changed, so the issue is moot now anyway.

"Notability" on Wikipedia has always referred to the concept. And this page still does refer to the concept (even though you mangled the introduction): Article topics need to be notable, or "worthy of notice." You changed "should" to "need" — another poor change. I'll say more about that in the Wording thread. --Pixelface (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, get on that, we're all looking forward to more of your valuable insights. Equazcion •?/C • 08:42, 27 Feb 2009 (UTC)

• I've self-reverted because I no longer see the value in good faith efforts to clarify the section if they are being absorbed into a much larger dispute. Hopefully my self-revert will stop Pixelface from leveraging those changes in order to push for more drastic ones. If he continues to push for further changes after this point, I want it to be clear that he's not in fact trying to revert the changes from November, but that he wanted an excuse to make further changes. I'm going to assume good faith that he will either be satisfied that the changes from November are gone, or that he'll discuss and build consensus if he wants any further changes.
• If someone disagrees with my revert to early November, feel free to re-revert it to the version that has been here since November, because the early November version uses contradictory language. Randomran (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Randomram, I really appreciate that you changed the heading. But you still have not explained why the NNC section should cite an arbitration case. Arbcom does not make policy with their decisions.
• There is a difference between Barack Obama the person, Barack Obama the article, and what text that article contains. This guideline applies to Barack Obama the person, not the text within the article. Since this guideline applies to article topics and not to the text within an article, I still think that the second paragraph of the NNC section does not belong in this guideline. --Pixelface (talk) 01:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• A healthy amount of Wikilinking is good for policies and guidelines, the same as it is for articles. We want people to understand that everything is related. It prevents people from Wikilawyering one guideline in order to avoid another. For example, a lot of people try to Wikilawyer NNC by saying "notability guidelines don't limit content, therefore I can put whatever I want in here". You can't, and we should tell them why. But it's really not my place to tell you why we should keep something here. It's incumbent on you to convince a consensus of editors that we actually improve the guideline by removing it. Randomran (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia has nearly 250 guidelines. And when the arbitration committee agrees on principles, they do not create guidelines. While it's true that editors cannot put whatever they want into an article, this guideline has no bearing on that whatsoever. This guideline does not apply to whatever text appears in the Barack Obama article. This guideline refers to Barack Obama the person. If someone removes text from the Barack Obama article, saying "this is non-notable, removing per WP:N", responding "notability guidelines do not directly limit article content" would be the correct action to take. However, if someone adds the name of a non-notable person to a list of people, another editor would be well within their right to remove that name, saying "removing non-notable person", citing Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Lists of people (or not citing it). If someone says "notability guidelines don't limit content, therefore I can put whatever I want in here", they would be wrong.
• Besides the exception of WP:BIO and lists of people, notability guidelines do not directly limit article content. But that does not therefore mean that people can put whatever they want into an article. That statement means that notability guidelines do not apply to article content (with the excepting of WP:BIO) — however, other policies and guidelines do apply to article content. Wikipedia has several content policies and content guidelines. Wikipedia:Notability is not one of them. This guideline should not summarize all of those, but merely point out that content policies and content guidelines do exist, and those apply to content in articles, text within articles — but WP:N, WP:PROF, WP:BK, WP:NFF, WP:MUSIC, WP:NUMBER, WP:ORG, and WP:WEB do not.
• It appears to me that the general agreement among at least 14 editors is that the stuff about "undue weight" does not belong in this guideline. If you don't mind, I'll contact them about this discussion. --Pixelface (talk) 09:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• You are no longer operating in good faith. If you want to propose a change to this guideline, then propose a change to the guideline. Don't chip away at it with a thousand paper cuts, using a criticisms about the November additions, and then continuing to push for more after that criticism was addressed. If your end goal is to totally remove any reference to any other content guideline, then say so. Don't play Wikilawyer by focusing on an intermediate edit. And certainly don't start canvassing to get your point across. Propose a change, in a new talk page section, and await the response from your fellow editors. Or be bold and see if anyone reverts. But don't game the system. Randomran (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Canvassing may seem to be attractive, but is a double edged sword that could be used against Pixelface himself (who may have as many enemies than friends), and in any case it is blunt weapon at that, and is time consuming. I would have thought a better approach would be for Pixelface and Randomran to ask for a third opinion from an editor or editors with whom both of you agree are indpendent of this dispute; I myself recomend Vassyana, Slrubenstein or Metropolitan90; I think they would give you both a fair hearing. If nothing is resolved by asking for their opinions (or of some other editors), at the very least you will understand your own opinions on this matter much better than before.--Gavin Collins (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• The real problem is there's no consensus-building going on. Without a consensus, there's no change. I've been trying to build a consensus with Pixelface for some kind of change we can both support. I've been up front about my basic interest. But Pixelface hasn't, and seems to keep moving the goalposts. I've already explained that there's a legitimate problem where people mistakeningly believe that we include everything that's notable (let alone verifiable), and that's why we try to make it clear to editors that this isn't the case. Pixelface hasn't expressed disagreement with any of the principles displayed here, but he just doesn't want them displayed here. Is he okay with them being displayed elsewhere? I'm honestly not sure what his motives are at this point. It's hard to assume good faith when there is no underlying goal served by gutting this part of the guideline. Just a bunch of arguments about who added what when and who has suddenly shown up to disagree with it. If Pixelface wants to find a way to meet both our interests in good faith, I'm totally open to that. I'm even open to mediation if he needs someone to teach him how to work with others. But if all he wants to do is argue, well, no, I'm not going to agree to his proposed changes. Randomran (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• If he is serious about making progess about this dispute, then mediation is definately worth considering, particularly if neither of you feel you are making any progress. --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• "Without a consensus, there's no change" Exactly. But there is no consensus for this guideline to mention "undue weight." So that change should be undone. I'm not "moving the goalposts." I was upfront about my concerns clear back in November. The whole point of the NNC section is to point out that notability guidelines concern article topics, not article content. Notability guidelines refer to Barack Obama the person, they do not concern whatever information is within the article about Barack Obama. And I be believe I have disagreed that "undue weight" can apply to anything other than viewpoints, and whether Marskell's change to WP:V actually reflects consensus. The idea of "due weight" is prone to endless arguments.
• I have said who added what to this guideline when and who you have been almost singularly arguing with for months now to keep your changes to the NNC section intact. Those are facts. I know how to work with others Randomran, but I don't have to work with you. If 14 people tell you that this guideline should not mention "undue weight" and you keep saying it should, good luck with that. That's consensus against your edits. There's no consensus for the NNC section to mention "undue weight."
• Was there a specific article you had in mind when you edited the NNC section? --Pixelface (talk) 08:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Gavin, those 14 editors are not my friends. They are all people who have all told Randomran on this talkpage that his changes to this guideline do not belong in this guideline. There is no consensus for this guideline to mention "undue weight." I'd be happy to contact any other editor who has edited or commented on the NNC section in the past year. --Pixelface (talk) 07:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Wrong. I have proposed a change Randomran. Multiple times. You know that. I'm thankful you removed your heading change, but you didn't address the full problem with this section — namely that this guideline should contain no mention of "undue weight" since this guideline is about topics'. If you don't want me to contact those 14 editors, how about I contact everyone who's discussed or edited that section since last March? Then we can see if the section really does reflect consensus. I don't see where you proposed your changes in a new talkpage section Randomran. I'm not "gaming" the system. --Pixelface (talk) 07:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• How about you don't canvass at all and accept that there's no consensus for your change? At this point, unarchiving an old discussion to prove a point is verging on argument ad nauseum filibustering, and I'm going to join the numerous other editors who have lost their patience for repeating the same tired discussions with you. If you come up with an idea that will reach consensus, then be bold and add it, or propose it. Until then, there's no value to rehashing the same old discussion. I'm done here. Randomran (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Randomran, there is no consensus for your change and you've never shown where there was consensus for it. I didn't unarchive an old discussion to "prove a point." The discussion is not over. An archive time of 7 days is much too small. I've got much better things to do with my time than spend it all on Wikipedia these days. If you're done here, fine, I'm removing your bad edits. Please don't re-add them. And stop changing guidelines to win arguments over articles. --Pixelface (talk) 04:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• I think what is key to the dicussion it trying to understand what Pixelface is trying to achieve by objecting to reference to WP:UNDUE - but this is just not transparent why he is so opposed to this change. Skomorokh has made the following change, which should make the issue clear - namely we are trying to achieve balance:

I think this hits the spot: on the one hand, notability does not limit article content, but on the other, unde weight should not be be given to any particular aspect of the subject matter so that focus is not lost. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You're losing focus on this guideline. This guideline is about notability. This guideline refers to Gordon Brown the person, not whatever text may appear in the Gordon Brown article. I don't understand why some editors are so intent on mentioning "weight" in Wikipedia:Notability. Why does it belong here? It doesn't belong here. "Weight" has nothing to do with whether or not Gordon Brown is a notable person. Wikipedia has many content policies. But this is not the place to summarize any of them. It's like going to the Gordon Brown article and writing "Gordon Brown is not the Prime Minister of Canada" and then devoting the next paragraph to the Prime Minister of Canada. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand. --Pixelface (talk) 05:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

A small tweak regulate => give guidance on -- they are guidelines and not rules, after all. patsw (talk) 14:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Pixelface, an article has to remain focused on its subject matter - it can't just include coverage of every topic related to its subject matter. The focus of this guideline is notability, sure, but not is not a free pass to dump coverage that is only remotely associated with subject into article, otherwise we would end up with lots of content forks, each one covering the same subject but with slightly different weight being give to sub-topics. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right, an article should remain focused on its subject matter. But this guideline has nothing to do with what is in an article. It's about what is an article. Nobody is saying that this guideline is a free pass to dump anything in an article. --Pixelface (talk) 08:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)