User talk:Masem/i

Notability requires objective evidence
Masem, this proposal won't fly. The inclusion criteria is based on "whitelists", which as far as I understand, is a list of topics that suitable for inclusion as standalone articles that are based on personal opinion. In the event of an editorial dispute, these whitelists will questioned, and the underlying inclusion criteria used to draw them up will come under scruitany. When it is discovered they have been drawn up based on individual editors opinions (which is what consensus is made of), the inclusion criteria for the whitelists will also be disputed.

WP:N is superior to your proposal because it requires objective evidence in the form of reliable secondary sources for a topic to get its own standalone article or list. Since reliable secondary sources are the best quality sources, alternative inclusion criteria that accepts a lesser standard will be inferior. Your proposal is therefore doomed to failure.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This proposal presumes we are deconstructing the necessary policies and guidelines to support this, reconstructing them as needed. Yes, it is good that WP:N requires objective evidence, but that's a significant cause for why we are having wars between inclusionists and deletionists, because there are people that strongly feel there are topics that are by no means indiscriminate that simply can't be included (by all fair means, not because its a fandom) because there's no strong sourcing for them.  That's not to say to break WP:V, but instead recognize to what extend included topics can be addressed when sourcing is minimal.  In this scheme, there would be no WP:N, at least as it is today.  Thus, what I'm proposing is only based on the five pillars and nothing else. --M ASEM  14:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The objective evidence in the form of relaible secondary sources is required to ensure that a topic does not fail WP:NOT, which is one one of the five pillars. Topics that fail WP:N tend to fail WP:NOT and vice versa, as the only way to identify a topic as not being indiscriminate is to obtain evidence in support. What you are proposing is to replace evidence with personal opinion, and although this may appear to be a good thing in the short term, but in the long-term, reliable secondary sources will be used to settle editorial disputes, such as whether a topic fails WP:NOT, or whether an article is a content fork. Since you cannot be settle such disputes on the basis of opinion alone, Wikipedia will always need some form of test based on objective evidence. --Gavin Collins (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in NOT that says "reliable secondary sources". The minimum inclusion requirement is WP:V, that a topic can be verified.  On the other side is WP:IINFO to prevent inclusion of indiscriminate topics.  There's a wide range in between.  While we need verification on a topic, we don't need to verify anything in regards to its inclusion (that's a "meta" factor you are considering).  Again, this proposal is not simply one guideline to be added - there's a lot of changes that have to be made, and all the other policies you cite may no longer apply if there's consensus to work towards that. --M ASEM  20:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you will find if a topic passes WP:V, it may be insufficient to pass WP:NOT. Just because you appear in a verifable telephone directory, it does not follow that an article about you would not fail WP:NOT. What is needed are reliable seconday sources to show that, not only is that there evidence of your existence, but that someone reliable other than you or your immediate circle has commented about you.--Gavin Collins (talk) 10:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's why inclusion guidelines would by necessity be both whitelists and blacklists, to avoid inclusion of topics that are indiscriminate, and furthermore avoiding inclusion of topics that would fail to create individual articles and would end up being a NOT failure; eg we would still blacklist video game weapons since that's GAMEGUIDE info. --M ASEM  13:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The big quesiton is: what are your inclusion criteria for the whitelists and blacklists? --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)