User:Randomran/test

WP:Notability is a guideline that determines which articles should be included in Wikipedia. This guideline has withstood several disputes, although it is unclear exactly how this guideline should be interpreted. The General Notability Guideline states that a topic is notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject (or, more succinctly, coverage in reliable third-party sources). Even though editors generally accept this as true, there are two issues without a clear consensus:


 * 1) What is the notability of a "spin-out" article? Does it need reliable third-party sources, or can it inherit notability from a parent article?
 * 2) What is the relationship between WP:Notability and specific guidelines such as WP:Notability (music) and WP:Notability (people)? To what extent can subject-specific guidelines re-write or override the General Notability Guideline?

For the sake of this discussion, it is important to ignore Wikipedians who abuse this guideline to delete articles that are actually notable, or keep information that is clearly not notable. Yes, abuse is a legitimate problem. But we cannot target abuse of the guideline until we have defined its proper use.

Events leading to this RFC
In recent months, discussions on notability have become more frequent and contentious. There have been literally dozens of interpretations of how the notability guideline should be interpreted. However, virtually every attempt at a compromise has faced resistance. As such, most discussions about the finer details of notability end in "no consensus".

The lack of consensus has prompted this RFC. Wikipedians from all points of view have tried to find a middle ground. From the dozens of interpretations of our guidelines, only a few have gained enough support that it would be possible for them to be supported by the larger Wikipedia community. We hope that one of these proposals will be adopted to clarify central issues with the notability guidelines, and allow other discussions to move forward.

Terminology

 * "Appropriate sources": shorthand for "significant coverage in reliable third-party sources". These are sources that help an article meet the GNG.
 * "GNG": the General Notability Guideline. This says that "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." It also defines words such as "significant", "reliable source", "independent", and "presumed".
 * "SNG": the subject specific notability guidelines such as WP:MUSIC and WP:ATHLETE.
 * "Spin-out" or "Sub-article": an article that is created by splitting a long section out from another article. For the purposes of this discussion, it does not refer to the technology use of subpages.
 * "RFC": Request for Comment, a discussion that Wikipedians use to resolve disputes among smaller groups of editors.

Issue A: Notability of "spin-out" articles
Issue: Wikipedians dispute whether every article must prove its own notability, or if notability of one topic can allow several articles to claim notability. On one hand, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia: there is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover. On the other hand, it is unclear how a verifiable article is to be written without coverage in reliable third-party sources.

Proposal A.1: Every spin-out is notable
 Proposal: A spin-out article is treated as a section of its parent article. If a parent article is supported by reliable third-party sources, then its sub-articles do not need reliable third-party sources to qualify for inclusion. A sub-article is notable when it extends one section of a notable parent article.

Rationale: It is not desirable to delete sub articles with a lack of appropriate sources. It makes more sense to treat those articles as extended components of their parent articles. Splitting content from an article into sub-articles is a practice recommended by the recommended length of articles and summary style approach. By treating sub-articles as though they were sections in the larger article, this would allow editors to write detailed articles on specialized topics.

Support A.1

 * 1) Support (Enter comments here and remember to sign your user name.)

Oppose A.1

 * 1) Oppose (Enter comments here and remember to sign your user name.)

Neutral on A.1

 * 1) Comment (Enter comments here and remember to sign your user name.)

Proposal A.2: Every spin-out must prove notability
 Proposal: The notability requirement applies to every article, every time, and sub-articles must assert notability of their own subject. If they can't, and the parent article is becoming bloated with information about it, it's time to trim, not to split.

Rationale: Our notability guidelines are essential to maintain all of Wikipedia's high standards. An article with zero reliable third-party sources cannot meet our policy on verifiability, which says that "if no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Without reliable third-party sources, an article may also violate other policies about what Wikipedia is not.

Support A.2

 * 1) Support (Enter comments here and remember to sign your user name.)

Oppose A.2

 * 1) Oppose (Enter comments here and remember to sign your user name.)

Neutral on A.2

 * 1) Comment (Enter comments here and remember to sign your user name.)

Proposal A.3: Some spin-outs are notable
 Proposal: Specific notability guidelines such as WP:Notability (people) or WP:Notability (music) can define what subtopics inherit notability from a main topic. A specific topic can inherit notability from a larger topic under clearly defined conditions. That is, in clearly defined special cases, notability can be inherited in the absence of reliable third-party sources.

Rationale: This would clarify the existing relationship between the general notability guideline (GNG) and other subject specific notability guidelines (SNGs). Our current SNGs declare specific cases where an article without reliable third-party sources can inherit notability from another notable article. For example, WP:Notability (people) suggests that an entertainer may be notable if they have a significant role in multiple notable productions. Also, WP:Notability (music) suggests that an album may be notable if the artist who produced it is notable. Thus, SNGs should continue to to define specific cases where a sub-article of a notable article can be considered notable.

Support A.3

 * 1) Support (Enter comments here and remember to sign your user name.)

Oppose A.3

 * 1) Oppose (Enter comments here and remember to sign your user name.)

Neutral on A.3

 * 1) Comment (Enter comments here and remember to sign your user name.)

Additional comments on issue A
''Please add any additional comments on this issue here that fall outside the above proposals.

Issue B: Relationship between GNG and SNGss
Issue: Wikipedians dispute the relationship between the general notability guideline and the specific notability guidelines such as WP:Notability (music) and WP:Notability (people). This depends on the flexibility of the GNG, and whether SNGs can extend notability to a wider range of articles.

Proposal B.1: Articles must meet the GNG and SNGs
 Proposal: An article is notable if it meets the general notability guideline. Additional guidelines which may prevent a topic from being considered notable are listed in the specific notability guidelines such as WP:Notability (music) and WP:Notability (people)?

Rationale: This proposal would clarify that every article must pass the general notability guideline. It would also prevent individual projects from writing guidelines that favor inclusion of their material.

Support B.1

 * 1) Support (Enter comments here and remember to sign your user name.)

Oppose B.1

 * 1) Oppose (Enter comments here and remember to sign your user name.)

Neutral on B.1

 * 1) Comment (Enter comments here and remember to sign your user name.)

Proposal B.2: SNGs can outline sources that assert notability
 Proposal: Specific notability guidelines such as WP:Notability (music) and WP:Notability (people) should be allowed to clarify the kinds of sources that can assert notability for specific areas of interest. Rationale: This reflects and cements the current practice. The general notability guideline requires that any topic have significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. When we think of sources, we think of journals, books, academic articles, and so on. But we also have WP:Notability (music) that says notability can be asserted from "sources" such as having a certified gold record in one country, or charting a hit on a national music chart. These provide an alternative objectively verifiable standard to show notability, other than research from reliable third-party sources. This would clarify the relationship between the general notability guideline and specific notability guidelines, which is not explicitly stated as of yet.

Support B.2

 * 1) Support (Enter comments here and remember to sign your user name.)

Oppose B.2

 * 1) Oppose (Enter comments here and remember to sign your user name.)

Neutral on B.2

 * 1) Comment (Enter comments here and remember to sign your user name.)

Proposal B.3: SNGs can define when sources probably exist
 Proposal: Specific notability guidelines such as WP:Notability (music) and WP:Notability (people) can define objective evidence that would show that sufficient reliable third-party sources probably exist. However, every article still requires appropriate sources, and the presumption of notability can be refuted by evidence that sources do not exist.

Rationale: This reflects and cements the current practice. Many of the subguidelines for notability offer alternative criteria for articles that might not otherwise meet the general notability guideline. For example, WP:Notability (music) that says that any artist with a certified gold record may be notable. This simplifies the burden of finding reliable third-party sources to verify an article, while still requiring that all articles are properly verified.

Support B.3

 * 1) Support (Enter comments here and remember to sign your user name.)

Oppose B.3

 * 1) Oppose (Enter comments here and remember to sign your user name.)

Neutral on B.3

 * 1) Comment (Enter comments here and remember to sign your user name.)

Additional comments on issue B
''Please add any additional comments on this issue here that fall outside the above proposals.

Additional comments
Please add any additional comments that involve notability that fall outside the scope of the above two issues here.