User talk:A Nobody/Inclusion guidelines/Archive 16

Number of sources
WP:V is our core policy on inclusion, and that doesn't say there has to be a minimum of two sources. One rock solid source is fine. A good number of Featured Articles have been built up from one source.  SilkTork  *YES! 08:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you coming around to realising that searching for an alternative is fruitless. To start with, the inclusion criteria needed to satisfy WP:V as suggested by SilkTork are at least one independent source. The source can't be a telephone directory, so you need at least one independent secondary source. To ensure you source is not biased, then you need to have at least two sources. Finally it makes no sense to base your inlcusion criteria on sources that are not reliable, so the next step is to require reliable sources. So you are back where you started from:


 * No matter how hard you try, you won't find a better set of inclusion criteria other than notability. Believe me it has been tried before, and failed. If you can accept that there are no better sources than reliable secondary sources, you will see that WP:N is based on the best objective evidence you can find to support the argument that a topic should have its own article in Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Never say never! New ideas are always on their way!!! :O) 212.200.241.153 (talk) 11:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * How does the existence of two (as opposed to one, or three) such sources establish that coverage is not biased? There can be no easy rules for bias; it requires sound judgement to detect. -- Explodicle (T/C) 14:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And why couldn't you say exactly what is in that nutshell minus the word "notability" as the title here? Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a good standard, but it's probably an improvement to get away from the word "notability" which has too much real world baggage. As for the requirement of two independent sources, it's valuable because we don't want to report on every single microtheory posited by a single author. A concept gains legitimacy when it catches on among multiple authors, otherwise we're opening ourselves up to stuff that's been WP:MADEUP by someone pushing a point of view. Randomran (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Notability
Currently this seems to be a revision of WP:GNG, with the only major change being that the standards is not multiple reliable independent sources but multiple reliable sources and one independent reliable source. Why not just rename WP:N and its various children, then make any necessary changes there? Inclusion, importance, article subject standards (that's a fun acronym), whatever. I'm given to understand that de.WP uses Importance. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 18:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not opposed to just renaming the various notability guidelines and then discussing any further revisions from there if that would be easier. Anyway, it has been proposed at Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Reevaluation.  I thought it be helpful to draw up an example of what it might look like if renamed to help persuade people.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Mmkay. Something that may help is a stated manifesto of what you'd like to achieve with a guideline/policy proposal, and what's just rephrasing or repeating what already exists. The latest WP:FICT ran aground in part because of a lack of a clearly stated goal of what was to change and why. That you want to discard the term notability without discarding the idea of reliable-source-based incusion standards and why, that you feel that one independent source and multiple non-independent ones can satisfy WP:NPOV the same way multiple independent sources can wand why, etc. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The main thing I hope to achieve is to remove the subjective use of "non-notable" vs. "notable" that does not really refer to a guideline or policy. While some will in discussions link to WP:N, many declare something notability or non-notable apparently based entirely on subjective opinions, i.e. essentially a five dollar term for "I don't like it" vs. "I like it" rather than having any objective basis.  Moreover, "notability" adds to the battleground aspect of Wikipedia by coming off as a "four legs good, two legs better" condescending standard.  So, rather than have an inclusion guideline with a name that smacks of subjectivity and elitism, which correspondingly creates tensions and arbitrariness, my hope is to have a rationale and objective basis of inclusion.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's clear that your objection is not to the word "notability", but to the concept of only covering things that are covered in multiple independent sources. You've stated multiple times that you desire to see articles on such things as fictional game weapons that aren't covered in independent sources, characters that aren't covered in independent sources, fictional places that aren't covered in independent sources, myriads of things that multiple independent sources that cover them directly and in detail don't exist for. Why do you persist in stating that "subjectivity" is the problem, when what you apparently desire is to include things that an objective reading of WP:N would not permit?&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The subjectivity of the elitist term "notability" is a hindrance, i.e. a stopping point of discussion/negotiation. Yes, there are indeed other things that I find to be a concern about the guideline, but once we get beyond that particular word, then we can have a real discussion at compromise, which means neither you nor I will be entirely happy and get what we want, but rather some kind of middle ground.  For example, I think we should have separate articles for all sorts of episodes, characters, and weapons that you might think should be outright deleted.  A compromise would be in many cases to merge and redirect to lists.  Once have something that is objectively based on practicality rather than personal opinion, then as far as the specific wording of it goes, that can be discussed and negotiated reasonably.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Calling notability "elitist" is also a stopping point for some. Someone who has used notability, or the perceived lack thereof, as the basis for comments in AFD could easily interpret your remarks as calling him or her elitist. It's hard to have a discussion with someone under that circumstance. Recent political use of the word in the United States has poisoned it for me as well.  Pagra shtak  19:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's precisely for historical reasons why I oppose use of subjective terms, i.e. the various people who may have seriously believed paternalistically that they knew better than everyone else. But, if we remove "notability", then we remove any reason to call it elitist, because we can't call an objective and practical criteria such.  Thus, it actually benefits everybody.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You say "if we remove 'notability', then we remove any reason to call it elitist", yet if I were to say "if we remove cruft, then we remove any reason to call it cruft" I have the feeling you wouldn't be terribly convinced. I'm not trying to have a subjectivity debate with you right now. You take offense at things happening under the name "notable"—my point is that others take offense at things happening under charges of elitism. It works both ways, just a suggestion to try to get discussion flowing under better terms, if you'll pardon the pun.  Pagra  shtak  20:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm trying to get us away from, i.e. use of such words as "cruft" and "notability" that invite an annoyed or insulted response. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A Nobody / Pagrashtak, we're not going to agree on which side of the inclusionist/deletionist debate benefits Wikipedia more than the other. We're not going to agree on who has the better intentions or more noble goals. We're not going to agree on whose language is accurate, and whose language is insulting. Let's focus on the things we can agree upon: that we should have a standard for inclusion that everyone can live with, and avoids subjectivity and wikilawyering. (And no, that's not an excuse to snipe at each other about which side is more subjective, or which side is more wikilawyerish.) Randomran (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of that, Randomran, which is exactly why I'm not arguing those points.  Pagra shtak  21:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the problem with the term "notability" is that it's subjective. If the definition it is given in WP:N is subjective, then so too are these inclusion guidelines; they use the same terms to describe roughly similar standards of varying stringency. The only subjectivity is figuring out whether the speaker is using the older-but-still-common definition "meritorious of Wikipedia coverage" or the later definition from "On Notability" and WP:GNG "the subject of multiple reliable independent sources." The latter includes the former, but the former does not necessarily include the latter.

I don't think the problem with the term is that it annoys people. Putting up with things that annoy you is life. Don't confuse terms you take personal offense with and terms that have problematic or offensive baggage. Thee's a tendency to say "I'm offended by that, so I can be offensive all I like." Let's not go down that road, especially since changing things to keep from annoying or offending is a hopeless, unproductive quagmire.

The problem with notability-as-GNG is that it's a relatively new definition attached to a word with two older, pervasive definitions. To use "notability" to mean "the quality of being the subject of multiple reliable independent sources" invites confusion with the simpler, older definitions "important" or "meritorious of Wikipedia coverage." What A Nobody is offended by is the implication that a significant number of people use "non-notable" to mean "not important enough"; these people are in turn offended at the implied accusation of bad faith when what they meant that "there is insufficient coverage in reliable independent sources." (This is not exclusive to A Nobody; I'm just using him because he's our handy host.)

This confusion, I think, is reason enough to give a new and unique term to this newest definition of notability, the notability-as-GNG definition. I suggest badgeresque. "Meets/Fails WP:INC" (which I believe would be a lovely shortcut to a new WP:N renamed "Inclusion" or "Article inclusion" or whatever) would be an excellent replacement for "(Non-)Notable". I think this change may merit its own proposal, separate from any changes to the GNG as it stands now. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems somewhat resonable. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is that importance really is a fundamental part of what we are discussing. Why isn't there an article about me in Wikipedia? For the simple reason that I'm not important. Here's my source list:
 * Bonaire Reporter
 * Business Week
 * TMC
 * Free Patents
 * DesignCon]
 * Light Reading
 * EE Times
 * Another IEEE
 * Edgar Online
 * SEC
 * PR Newswire
 * Silicon Valley People]
 * What keeps me from having an article is that I'm unimportant. WP:N encodes that nicely: most of these are passing mentions. The ones that aren't are local news that cover the local business climate in places that I've worked, or are non-independent articles from places like PR Newswire. Relax WP:N by much, and suddenly, I've got an article. As do millions of others, like Kevin Wayne Williams, the Boston doctor that is big into LGBT issues, the Kevin Wayne Williams that is a sex offender in Florida, the Kevin Wayne Williams that is a sex offender in North Carolina, and the Kevin Wayne Williams that is an arsonist in Texas. The disambiguation issues alone would be a nightmare. Just think of the fun sorting us out, too: I know which of these guys are me and which aren't me, but I can't sort them reliably: are all these sex offenders the same guy? Is the arsonist distinct? Who knows? How would one of you really figure out that I'm the Japanese borne telephony engineer turned businessman that passed through Phoenix and San Jose on his way to being a hotel owner and real estate developer in South America? Am I important enough to take the effort? Absolutely not. Neither are any of these other Kevin Wayne Williamses. Neither are any of the things that loosening WP:N would make eligible. We require multiple independent reliable sources simply to keep the problem within some kind of boundary. With our current notability standard, this place is so complicated as to be nearly unmanageable. Remove the requirement for notability, and it's doomed.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You could still achieve the same inclusion guidelines by being based on sourcing rather than "notability" or "importance," because somethings that you or even I might no deem "important" may nevertheless be indeed important to thousands or millions of people. And if there was an article on you backed up by multiple sources, why not?  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually agree more with A Nobody than Kww here. The problem here isn't that you're not important. The problem is that there isn't enough coverage to truly make out a distinct person with any reliability. Maybe these sources are dealing with a bunch of different people. Maybe these sources are unreliable, or fringe theories. Maybe there isn't enough here to write a meaningful article -- something more than a stub or database entry or what wikipedia is WP:NOT. Maybe only one source cares about you, because that one source has a vested interest pushing a unique point of view: promotional, critical, or otherwise. These are things that can be achieved with the similar evidentiary/verifiability standard as notability, without the baggage of "importance". We need a certain caliber of source to preserve WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, and even WP:NOT. That means some amount of independence, more than a singular source, more than a trivial mention, and a solid standard of reliability and neutrality... Randomran (talk) 22:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG, by some other name, would still exclude you. None of those are significant mentions sufficient for building an article.
 * I don't think you'll find many Wikipedians who don't think we need some sort of inclusion standards, be they loose or strident. What we call those standards is a debate we can mostly extricate from what those standards should be. I am proposing keeping notability-as-the-quality-of-being-the-subject-of-multiple-reliable-independent-sources while coming up with a new word or term that doesn't have the baggage that the word notability has.
 * "Notability" right now can mean "important," it can mean "article-worthy," or it can mean "the quality of being the subject of multiple reliable independent sources" which I'm going to call "badgeresque" because it's fun to say and shorter to type. Sometimes, when someone uses the word "notable," they mean more than one of those at once. I want to rename WP:N/WP:GNG to a term that means badgeresque and only badgeresque, so the confusion between badgeresque/article-worthiness/importance stops causing problems. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course WP:N would still exclude me. The proposal this talk page is about would not. The half-page interview in Bonaire Reporter is far more than a passing mention, and probably could serve as a framework. It's excluded because it's a local news source about a local businessman. Does an exclusion for local sources exist in User:A_Nobody/Inclusion_guidelines? Nope ... that's one of the pieces of WP:N that was conveniently left out. Even if you snaked past that one, I would argue to exclude me on grounds similar to the ones you mention (in fact, that's the crux of my argument against me). However, how many AFD's have you seen where a source like this one would be excluded as a passing mention? Not many, I bet. It should be, but generally isn't. It's a local blurb about a local guy, and needs to be excluded on that basis.
 * I'd be happy enough with a rename if I thought that was the end of it. However, as they say, assuming good faith doesn't mean acting like I was born yesterday. This proposal sits on the user page of someone that intends to use the renaming as a wedge ... once it is renamed, then the fundamental reason for having the inclusion guideline is undermined. The reason we don't have an article about many video game weapons and locations in anime is because they aren't important. How do we detect that they aren't important? Because independent third-parties aren't writing about them directly and in detail. One the underpinning of notability is removed, it's easier to argue that verifiable sources are enough, because the concept of using the source as a measure of importance has been removed. Right now, the guideline permits lists of things within fictional works without limitation, so long as there are independent sources for the work itself. How long do you think that exclusion will remain restricted to lists?&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a quick note, because my back is really hurting (too much to go into now) and it's affecting my concentration and focus, but anyway, people are welcome to play with my proposal and all. Just because it's in my userspace doesn't mean I own it.  My goal is for us to have a sandbox to work with for an inclusion guideline not based on "notability."  The current version is obviously not written in stone.  Regards, --A NobodyMy talk 00:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Rest assured, I don't intend to use any renaming as a wedge, and I've never stinted from disagreeing with A Nobody when I've had a mind to in the past. I'm suggesting we separate the renaming proposal for just this reason. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A Nobody's concern is that "notability" sounds too much like "importance", which invokes too many WP:IHATEIT or WP:IDONTKNOWIT argments. (I actually think that it invokes just as many WP:ILIKEIT or WP:USEFUL arguments, which only makes me hate "notability" twice as much.) But I think we can recognize Kww's concerns too: that changing the title might erode the overall function of the guideline, and even if A Nobody isn't trying to do that it may invite other editors to do so. Can we come up with a name that *isn't* notability that Kww can live with? Randomran (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

RfC
Should we include this page in the RfC on notability and if so where and how? Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's probably too soon for that. It needs work. Just like the proposal at WP:FICT, we ought to solicit comments, feedback, and edits. But we shouldn't propose it until it's stable. Randomran (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder if having the RfC still open then is premature, i.e. close until we have more firm proposals to "vote" on? It's clear that neither demoting nor promoting it is going to gain consensus and renaming is pretty much split.  So, maybe if we had something here to show, okay, if renamed, well here's what we'd have.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 01:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I was saying all along. There's no consensus to demote, never has been never will be. But opening the RFC offered an important reality check -- to both sides, in fact, when you look at the lack of consensus to promote it. Maybe -- just maybe -- we can take the more radical options off the table, and work on a compromise. But that takes time and energy, and constant reminders that we get *nothing* when inclusionists and deletionists retreat to hardline positions. We only get the usual scattershot deletion approach, which nobody likes. Randomran (talk)

Question
when you say Surely you mean something like
 * For a subject to be included as an article, it should be covered directly and in detail by at least two reliable third-party sources that are not just a mere directory listing.
 * For a subject to be included as a separate article, it should be covered directly and in detail by at least two reliable third-party sources that are not just a mere directory listing.

But all of this ignores a numbe of problems which have been the basis of much practical policy here: I summarize these points very briefly here, because they have al beene the subject of vry extensive iscussion. You are merely enshiringin the GNG without exeptions, a retrograde step. Unsubtle as we may sometime be, we've gotten much subtler than this proposal. I find it difficult to believe tht you can acutally mean it. The adopteion oftheis naive view wil, among other things, I cannot believe that you have thought this through. I suggest you withdraw it and try again after some serious thought, and some research into the state of discussion over the last year or so, not just at WP:N and WP:FICT, but at the various noticeboards and projects.. Whatever one's general position on inclusionism in WP, this proposal is wrong. Whatever I'd want to accomplish, this wont do it,--unless what I wanted was to increase the randomness and unreliability of our vcoverrage. 06:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) You are being overly restrictive. it is fully accepted even by the less inclusionists that single sources of particular reliability and authoritativeness, one very good source is enough to show notability: the clearest example is the acceptance of an obituary in the NYT or the London Times. Similarly all subjects covered in other general encyclopedias, or authoritative specialized encyclopedias, or in selective national biographies, are appropriate for articles here.  Tghese are the bases on which Wikipedia has so fr been prepared.
 * 2) In the other direction, it is fully accepted that some subjects will not be covered at all, regardless of the number of sources treating hem in a significant way. The most important of this is material about a person that represents his unfortunate involvement as a bystander, or his role in a single non-historic event. It also excludes mere gossip, no matter how widely reported, about either a living individual or anything else.  Nor do we accept promotional material, no mater how well sourced.
 * 3) And it does not solve the basi problem: inclusion is not [properly to be considered as a n accident of sourcing. Inclusion is what ought to be included, what is suitable for the general concept of a comprehensive international modern online free encyclopedia.
 * 1) overturn the best accepted special biographical guideline, WP:PROF
 * 2) remove separate articles on almost all characters and episodes. This is the sort of article you';ve espoused the most strongly. Are you aware of the effect of your proposal?
 * 3) remove articles on most roads, villiages, and other such topics that are accepted here; they may have coverage in two sources, but hardlly detailed coverage.
 * 4) destroy the distinction between sources and reliable sources, permitting the inclusion of not just gossip, but the least notable of performers, athletes, books, nd businesses, and products.

Reliable sources
Hi A Nobody: as I've wandered across this page by accident, I hope you won't mind me making some suggestions. Can I suggest a wikilink to WP:RS when you refer to reliable sources? That way, this guideline would make itself subservient to our existing definitions; otherwise, you run the risk of this failing when people start trying to pick it apart. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 12:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)