User talk:Jayron32/Musings on notability

Musings on the musings
I've held for a while now that the proper study of encyclopaedists is the finding, citing, reading, and evaluating of sources. In many ways, our notability criteria such as WP:CORP and WP:SCHOOL have been successful in that regard. To demonstrate that primary notability criterion is satisfied one has to find and to cite multiple non-trivial published works that are from sources independent of the subject. The discussion can then focus on the depths of those works (Are they detailed histories/analyses/biographies/discussions of the subject, or do they simply mention it in passing? How much and what information do they provide about the subject?) and their provenances (Who wrote the published works?  Did they, or someone else, check their facts?  What are the credentials and reputation of the author?), which are entirely proper discussions for encyclopaedists. One thing to note, incidentally, that it is not solely AFD discussions that are involved here. There are other areas, too. I personally try to encourage editors with obscure pet subjects to write their articles in such a way that they will rarely, if ever, be bothered by deletion nominations. No-one wants those editors to have to deal with deletion nominations. There are proven ways to proactively prevent articles on pet subjects from having their notability questioned. Putting in, ahead of time, the modicum of effort to do things properly can prevent a lot of work in talk page discussions and in AFD discussions later on, and can even result in other editors coming along and collaborating in expanding articles. See User:Uncle G/On notability and User:Uncle G/On sources and content. Uncle G 23:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response on the talk page. It was very helpful.  Still, reviewing the WP:CORP and WP:SCHOOLS guidelines, I notice a few things.  1) Each is just a rehash of the primary notability criteria.  A corporation is notable if it "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself".  A product or service is notable if it "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself."  A school is notable if it "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the school itself" Why have the seperate guideline if it adds nothing to the discussion?  These guidelines do not substancially add to our ability to discern notability.  2) The extra criteria there only serves to obfuscate the arguements.  The "50 year" requirement for schools is arbitrary and pointless (does a 51 year old school with NO PRESS COVERAGE get kept while a 49 year old school with SIGNIFICANT coverage get deleted?); other crtieria are only as good insofar as they meet the primary criteria.  Schools competing in notable athletic endeavors recieve siginificant nontrivial coverage for those endeavors, and thus meet the PNC.  Schools with truly unique programs (insofar as the catagorization as "unique" is NOT ORIGINAL RESEARCH) will already meet PNC, as others will have commented on that uniqueness.  The issue is not that you or I know the difference, the issue is that well meaning editors fill AfD discussions with irrelevant information that steers the arguement away from that which is useful to the closing admins.  To bring the argeument back into usefulness, we need a smaller number of easier to follow parameters, not a sea of new random guidelines that are either redundant or arbitrary.  I look forward to your response on my talk page --Jayron 32  03:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:SCHOOL was derived from WP:CORP. In part we have the separate guidelines for historical reasons.  In part we have them because editors addressed the specific rather than the general (and still do so even now &mdash; witness Wikipedia_talk:Notability_%28people%29).  Our notability criteria have been developed over time.  WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC were two of the earliest, for example, and they began by addressing specific classes of subjects individually.  It took a while for our notability criteria to all have the PNC.  Although it was clear from WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC that a lot of the criteria were simply special cases of a general criterion, it is ironic that WP:BIO was one of the last sets of criteria to include the PNC in a general form.  One can trace the PNC, as it applies to people, all the way back to what What Wikipedia is not said about biographical dictionaries in 2003. The place to discuss the secondary criteria for WP:SCHOOL, and whether they are subsumed by the primary one, is Wikipedia talk:Notability (schools), by the way. Uncle G 12:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Need for better guidelines
I am not experienced enough to understand sufficiently all here, but experienced enough to know that your musings on notability are a very well aimed. One needs a lot of time to come to the point of understanding what is going on in some issue. In my effort to figure out, I am glad I found this subpage. It's like what I would write if I had a lot more experience in Wikipedia. I know I have to understand a lot more to be effective, but if I can help in any way to make some useful suggestions to new memebers (film project is my focus mostly at present), please let me know. If the initial enthusiasm of a well meaning but unexperienced editor can find some clear and popularized guidelines to keep it from getting dissipated in frustrating experiences, it would be a blessing for Wikipedia and Wikipedians. Hoverfish 22:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)