Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise/A.3

Proposal A.3: SNGs can define that 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 define specific cases where a sub-article of a notable article can be considered notable.


 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Support A.3

 * 1) Support: As I said in B.2 I feel there has to be a more clearly defined way to determine what is notable in relation to the topic. An obvious example would be an article on the Academy Awards with a spin off article/list about actors who won the academy award in the 1980's. Clearly the "notability" factor comes from the main topic and the SNG comes from the subtopics name thusly if an actor won an academy award between 1980 - 1989 it would be notable because it had inherited notability from a larger topic under clearly defined conditions. But what would, I feel, have to be clear is what would go into a "larger" subtopic and, at what point, would the subtopic be limited. A perfect example of this is the Guitarist Wiki page. There is a "See also" section that links to List of guitarists and the only SNG listed for this is "This list of guitarists includes guitarists for whom there is an article in Wikipedia." So while this SNG certainly prevents the list from getting out of control it also brings up the question of "Does this subtopic/spin-off/list throw out all the guidelines in WP:NM?". In other words, in this case, the main article states: A guitarist is a musician who plays the guitar. Guitarists may perform solo pieces or play with ensembles and bands of a wide variety of genres which seems to be pretty clearly defined conditions so one could put "anything" as a subtopic with little or no limits or concern for anything "notable" other than being a "guitarist". Which is why I would be in favor of having specific notability guidelines in place for issues/topic such as that.Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support This is the thrust of our policies, guidance and practises.  Article topics need to referenced in a reliable third party source, per WP:V, but the extension of this to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable" or however it reads this week is harmful and counter-productive.  We may be able to find one short article on an Oscar winner; this should not prevent us having an article on this Oscar winner. Subject specific guidance allows us to better delineate this practise.  The GNG does not. Hiding T 12:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - This is what I was just commenting on in A.2, above. This should presumably allow for splitting where appropriate. - jc37 12:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) These conditions need to be defined, yes, but the basic concept is where were are going. Protonk (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Broadly think this is reasonable, so long as the subguidelines are agreed globally and not just by, for example a wikiproject. Davewild (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Support This is the kind of balance that is needed. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 18:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Seems reasonable. Hobit (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Support I think this is a fair compromise. Rather than opening the floodgates to literally any article that can show some parent-child relationship, we expect specific exceptions. If a consensus of wikipedians agree that a city can inherit notability from a country, or that a list of episodes can inherit notability from a notable TV series, then we allow it. In all other cases, articles need appropriate sources. Randomran (talk) 02:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Support; yes, specific and explicit exceptions are the way to go. &mdash; Coren (talk) 12:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Support of course some spinout topics are notable; every article is in a sense a spinout and some articles' topics are notable. If a spinout topic is notable, judged according to the GNC or an SNC, then the article is notable, irrespective of whether it is a spinout. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Support This makes control of notability hinge on the subject of note. In other words, this separates "TV show" notability from "City" notability from "Music" notability. To try and define a single criterion, or even a set of criteria, that everything will meet is foolhardy and impossible. And those that argue that notability can't be inherited has obviously never seen the child's toy section at your local Wal-Mart. The media and television use one form of notability to bolster the notability of other articles all the time. A specific example, Degree anti-persperant is counting on inheriting notability from the TV show Eureka. If notability isn't inherited than sponsors have been wasting their time and money for decades. Do you really think the X-Men movies were popular because they are good? NO! They have a huge fanbase, and that caused the movie to gross enormous profits, which made the movie notable. If that's not inheriting notability, I don't know what is. padillaH (review me)(help me) 12:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Those who argue that notability cannot be inherited (probably) mean that not enough notability can ever be automatically inherited to support a separate article while still failing the GNC. Or does Degree (deodorant) automatically deserve an article because it inherites notability from Eureka (TV series), or vice versa? – sgeureka t•c 13:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (I think my X-Men example is better)The point being the catch-all "Notability is not inheritable" is false. The entire PR industry hinges on notability being inheritable. padillaH (review me)(help me) 15:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability is a term of art on Wikipedia. Taking usages from other arenas and trying to directly apply them to Wikipedia's usage is a logical fallacy. Your ultimate point may or may not be correct, but your method of getting there is faulty.Kww (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Then, by lack of definition notability can be inheritable, if I need it to be. And therein lay the biggest problem with this entire guideline - Notability, as used in Wikipedia, is a made-up term that means whatever the loudest, most persistent editor at the AfD says it means. Until we have an objective measure to qualify against this is silly. We can't put rules on a swiftly shifting morass of nothing. padillaH (review me)(help me) 18:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - Describes current practice regardign towns, athletes, politicians, and many more. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support as notability is inherited. --Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support fr33kman (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support while noting that WP:RS still applies in full. --Alvestrand (talk) 11:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Support I particularly like what Hiding and Randomran say here, and think this is the most likely approach for Wikipedia in the future. -- Ned Scott 04:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) weak support To a limited extent. At the end of the day we still need to have enough reliably sourced material about the topic to be able to write an article about. So this sort of thing only makes sense in context where we might have primarily non-independent sources but there is some inherited notability. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. I think this is a good way of describing current practice. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. This is important for things like Music, where a future version of WP:Notability (music) may allow non-notable works by famous musicians but only notable works by merely notable musicians, with some specific criteria for famous.  Imagine if there was a relatively forgotten work of The Beatles and someone created an article about it and it got tagged for notability and send to AfD.  On the other hand, the vast majority of Wiki-notable music groups aren't famous by any stretch of the imagination.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  02:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Weak support as I am still concerned about article length, but this may be a reasonable compromise. --R27182818 (talk) 02:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Support: I think this is a reasonable compromise, but I'd like to also suggest that we consider giving more power to individual WikiProjects to define what kinds of articles and content can be considered notable within a particular context. For example, WikiProject Video games could more specifically define whether lists of characters, locations, weapons and power-ups are appropriate spinoffs to main video game articles. Same with other projects and their contexts. (I dunno, does that seem too complicated?) &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 02:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Sub-notability guidelines help interpret particular cases and suggest articles that would likely be shown to be notable if given time for sources to be added. The policies of V, NPOV, and NOR still over-rule but some extra time/flexibility can be granted for article types that are generally shown to be notable when given opportunity to expand. Tag for issues and expect improvement. Double Blue  (Talk) 03:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Support as long as the sub guidelines are linked to from within the parent guideline. It simply builds on the topic of this discussion of sub articles that expand into more detail than is allowed within the parent article. Dbiel (Talk) 04:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Support some form of mapping out is definitely necessary. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Weak support Who's writing these questions? This one is so vaguely titled as to be meaningless. Again, the status quo covers this, and is working just fine in this particular regard. That said, some of the notability guidelines mentioned above are somewhat weak and should be tightened up. Issues arise with artists publishing dozens of mixtapes and the like. Personally, I'd like to see WP:MUSIC die a horrible painful death. MrZaius talk 05:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Support principle, but this won't solve the specific problem with WP:FICT pages until we actually get an SNG approved for that area. --erachima talk 07:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Support The lead singer of two notable bands is probably notable - that much seems obvious. Waggers (talk) 10:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) Support Common sense says sometimes you need this, there has been an focus on fiction articles, where as there exist spin-outs that are not about fiction such as Judo rules, most sources are primary, but it would distort the main Judo article include a comprehensive section on the rules. --Nate1481 10:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) Possible Support I would be fine with List of characters or Specific episode articles being allowed to waive the "third-party" part of sourcing, assuming there are strong non-independant sources. So franchises that produce guidebooks would pass this, or TV series that give lots of commentary on DVD's, while not necessarily passing the current rules. This seems to come under this proposal, but is currently too vaguely worded. In what other circumstances do the supporters see "absence of reliable third-party sources" being allowed? I would at least like to see this proposal go further to become more specific, hence possible support.Yobmod (talk) 10:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Have a care not tpo edit other users opinions.--Nate1481 11:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak support Seems a little more prescriptive than I'd care for, but not entirely unreasonable. older ≠ wiser 11:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support This is a great middle ground: it allows encyclopedic coverage of many topics, to include fictional universes of information, but also allows finely tailored controls that will keep things from getting full of cruft or origional research. Each individual Wikiproject can set thier own guidlines of how to tread the line between encyclopedic coverage and nonsense.  bahamut0013 ♠  ♣ 
 * 3) Support I agree with many of the previous supporters. This allows for specific cases and projects to work out their own needs without forcing a one-size-fits-all approach. Yet allows the community to remain in control of the policy that effects the individual cases. Specificity should trump Generality Charles Edward 12:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - on the basis that notability is asserted or demonstrated in some way; for example, Ashley Fernee has multiple references from independent third parties (i.e. they pass WP:RS), Gösta Törner makes a claim of competing at the Olympics (which passes the current WP:ATHLETE as competing at the highest level in amateur sports) - given the assertion here, I'd say it's fair to assume that it would've been reported in multiple third party sources (newspapers, official results, etc.) at the time, even though the sources are not yet present. -- ratarsed (talk) 12:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Support for the same reason as Ratarsed. Without it, notability for people from over 50 to 100 years ago is more difficult to prove because it is so difficult to obtain RS. Older sources are tucked away in libraries or whatever and are very difficult to access. Having a theoretical notability without actually providing sources is important in cases like this, assuming that the person did something unquestionably notable. I'm thinking specifically about 1910s drivers from the Indianapolis 500 or 1900s Olympians. These people where probably household names at the time, so we should not let time cause us to erase their articles.  Royal broil ' 12:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Support This is an encyclopedia, not a list of whats hot and whats not.--EchetusXe (talk) 12:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Pretty much, with the caveat that the community — and not WikiProjects or groups of involved editors — retain the power to determine what is and is not notable. Stifle (talk) 12:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Support with Stifle's caveat.--Marhawkman (talk) 13:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. WP:NOTINHERITED is a good general principle, but it's clearly too ambiguous in some cases. For instance, if an author has single book that won and award, does the award "count" towards establishing the notability of the author? Can we really say that the award only "belongs" to the book? What about strong endorsements for the book from leading figures in the field? Do these bestow notability on the author or just the book? These kinds of arguments were raised in a recent AfD debate that ended in stalemate. I don't like "instruction creep" in general, but ambiguity is sometimes worse, which is why we have additional guidelines for specific areas, e.g. WP:BIO1E prevents biographies of people notable for only one event, while the "album from notable artist likely notable" rule in WP:MUSIC essentially allows for some transferable notability. Proposal A3 is essentially saying "let us debate each such concrete proposal on its own merits", so it seems the most reasonable way to go here, despite the potential for instruction creep. The alternative is repeated AfD's like the one I've linked to, which simple waste a lot of time and are unlikely to ever be conclusive under the current guidelines. VG &#x260E; 15:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. Not my favorite, as there is as yet still no provisional list of exemptions for fictional subjects, or any understanding or suggestion of whose rubric that'd fall under, but it's still an okay compromise.  Ford MF (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Seems reasonable. Topic and article cannot always be synonymous, organization and readability can require exceptions. --Kiz o r  17:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. with Stifle's caveat.Phatom87 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Notability guidelines should be made flexible for individual themes as long as there is a clear guideline on who makes the cut. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  05:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Support - I believe that all spin-outs should be able to demonstrate notable in their own right, and that notability can be discerned by the qualifications set in a SNG. &mdash;  X   S   G   18:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Support - While in general notability isn't inherited, there are specific cases where it is. This seems to already be the situation, and no reason that it shouldn't be expandable per consensus. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Support - I believe that SNGs can give an additional assertion of notability on top of the notability conferred by whatever sources have been found for that article. I'll give an example from an SNG I have discussed recently: WP:ATHLETE. Suppose we have an article on a soccer player that is, on the strength of the sources included, borderline for notability or even just below the threshold. Maybe we can find their career stats in a database and a few passing mentions in match reports, but not enough to clearly satisfy WP:BIO. WP:ATHLETE sets out an additional criterion where, if the player meets it, we presume that the article could in principle be properly sourced. Reyk  YO!  08:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) Support, yes, provided that the material can still be reasonably verified. If an article meets an SNG, then it should be presumed notable and thus safe from deletion on notability grounds.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC).
 * 18) Support - The criteria we use to establish notability should seek to identify impartial standards for each type of topic. A scientist who is described as an innovator in their field in a handful of scientific journals read by a few hundred specialists is 'notable'... a musician written up only in publications with similarly small distribution is not. The standard of 'significant coverage in independent sources' is inherently subject to the systemic biases of those sources. For instance, there are no significant independent sources produced by children and coverage of childrens' interests in adult publications tends to be superficial or non-existent unless some sort of adult controversy is involved... therefor, the criteria for these topics HAS to be different or we wrongly exclude an entire class of clearly notable information from the encyclopedia. --CBD 11:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) Support - I just plain agree. Andrew Oakley (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) Support, for clearly defined special cases that are common enough. There remains a problem of daisy chaining SNGs together, e.g. per WP:MUSIC and WP:MUSIC, which needs to be adressed (but can be done so at the SNGs). -- Amalthea Talk 13:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 21) Support - Sounds reasonable without being too permissive or too restrictive. -- Will scrlt   ( Talk ) 16:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 22) Strong Support - This makes perfect sense, since certain types of articles are often more subject to sub-pages than others, and taking these exceptions into account makes tons of sense.Timmccloud (talk) 20:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose A.3

 * 1) Oppose as the current consensus is that notability cannot be inherited/presumed/acknowledged. Although subject notability guidelines such as WP:BIO currently include criteria that support a reasonable presumption that reliable sources may exist, I think these criteria are flawed because there are no generally accepted criteria or rule set which support the idea that notability can be inherited/presumed/acknowledged across every subject area, and these unsubstantiated claims of notability are based on subjective "expert" opinion which can only be applied in unique circumstances. Therefore the view that some spin-outs are notable in the an absence of reliable secondary sources is not supported by objective evidence, and any assertion to the contrary is unsubstantiated opinion. For example, the stub Ashley Fernee is considered notable in accordance with WP:BIO, but the stub has virtually no content, which sugests to me that the a presumption of notability cannot be substantiated. Although many editors will assert that WP:BIO makes the subject notable, the reader of this article cannot see any objective verifiable evidence of notability, and it is the readers perception, not "expert" opinion that counts at the end of the day. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Then that is a subject to broach within WP:BIO#athletes, not an anomaly to be used to win arguments.padillaH (review me)(help me) 12:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hardly - It is characteristic of others as well. Note how WP:BIO reflects generally accepted/not-bio-specific notion that an award can make a person notable, but that a single nomination for an award for a lower caste of actors instantly meets NOTE. Similar problems exist within the music guidelines and others. MrZaius talk 09:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Gavin, and also I think WP:IAR is a good enough exception should the need arise to have an spinout without sources. Deamon138 (talk) 00:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But WP:IAR is always refuted with a hearty "That what all losers invoke when they can't think of a good argument". I have never seen IAR used and the opposing side accept that it has merit. When you are being opposed the other side doesn't like to be told "I win because I want to". As far as I've seen WP:IAR is worthless. padillaH (review me)(help me) 12:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Except nobody ever actually invokes IAR. They just have a good argument that happens to not be based solely in policy. Nifboy (talk) 17:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose There is too much process creep in the notability framework as it stands, inviting more is not the way forward. Taemyr (talk) 03:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose See WP:NOTINHERITED.  Either a topic has valid and useful sources to support it or it does not.  See the GNG.  GRBerry 04:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC) Expanding, since I think the proposal has been tweaked - the entertainer example in WP:BIO is being misinterpreted.  That example does not stand for the proposition that the entertainer is notable in the absence of reliable third-part sources simply because they were in the band, it stands for the proposition that it is probable that because they were in the band reliable third-party sources satisfying the GNG for the entertainer exist.  In other words, it indicates that it is probable that they already meet the GNG.  GRBerry 17:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Meaningless statement. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. I believe this opens the door to a potential gutting of the notability guidelines.  All it takes is a consensus among a few involved editors that their pet project needs more lax requirements for inclusion, and then another pet project does the same thing, and we eventually end up with a big mess. Karanacs (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. Yes, spin-outs can be notable but only if they can be shown to be notable in their own right. I view WP:NOTINHERITED as a cornerstone principle of all notability guidelines. Nsk92 (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose - at least for this wording. Agree with GRBerry and Nsk92 about WP:NOTINHERITED being an important principle of notability guidelines. PhilKnight (talk) 13:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose Notability is, in general, not inherited.  Pagra shtak  16:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. This principle has been applied in the past, but I don't think it has lead us very far. For example, there's an often-cited rule in WP:MUSIC saying that all albums of a notable artist are automatically notable, with the argument that some independent reviews must exist, and it's only a matter of finding them. However, in practice, a large number of articles have been created without any sources being found, or at least without writing the actual article from these sources. Often, it seems to me the "assumption of existence of sources" is merely used as a kind of WP:COATRACK for having a track listing of the album; nobody is really interested in finding the sources, or using them for the article. We should not encourage this. --B. Wolterding (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you proposing to eliminate the policy of keeping articles for which sources could presumably be found? Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, what I wanted to emphasize is that these "presumption of sources" has often been too generous. If in a specific case, there's concrete evidence that sources exist - fine. But just "defining" the existence of sources for entire classes of article has not lead to a reasonable encyclopedic standard. --B. Wolterding (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - basic notability rule should not be compromised, ever. Besides, the title (Some spin-outs may be notable') prompts that most of them are not - an attempt to forge opinion into policy. NVO (talk) 12:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose as this compromises the guideline unnecessarily (see my other responses for full rationale.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 18:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, unnecessarily contradicts WP:N and too heavily abused to allowed a large subset of unnotable topics a free pass (re all the album articles that are nothing but a release date, non-free pic, and a track list). -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 02:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. As noted, some specific areas have lower notability thresholds for articles. If a topic-specific guideline with such a lower threshold is applicable to an article that happens to be a sub-article, so be it. Otherwise, why dilute further? Bongomatic (talk) 02:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Óppose per Gavin and other. Notability is not inherited. Themfromspace (talk) 03:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Other have said so well all that I would say. I'll stand aside and nod approvingly. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 03:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose No independent third party sources = No notability = No article on Wikipedia. —Angr 06:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. If a bum album by a noted musician receives no notice in the press, it is NOT notable and inherits nothing from the performer's fame. Every article and section must prove its own notability. Binksternet (talk) 08:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose Confused proposal. Authors and books are separate linked topics. One isn't a subtopic of the other. Both should have to pass the notability test if they are to be given their own articles. SP-KP (talk) 09:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) 'Oppose per Gavin. --Blowdart | talk 10:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose - It would be better for all non-notable spin-offs to be included in their parent articles instead of having unsourced pages en masse, there shouldn't be too much to clog up the parent pages. -- : Raphaelmak : [ talk ] [ contribs ] 11:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose "notability can be inherited in the absence of reliable third-party sources" Oh, no it can't. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) As Angr said, no sources == no article, because sources are the only way to meet V/NOR/NPOV. Angus McLellan  (Talk)
 * 14) Oppose as an unnecessary restriction and WP:CREEP. Jclemens (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose, if it is notable than there are sources. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose This is no different than the earlier proposals worded this way. If the information can't be found outside of Wikipedia in another reliable source, it should not be included in Wikipedia under any circumstances.  If a subject has no reliable information to cite when writing, how can it support an article?  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  16:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose This is a misunderstanding of the subject specific guidelines. The subject specific guidelines are not intended to trump the main notability guideline or Wiki verifiability policy. The intention is to give assistance and guidance in grey areas which are not covered by the more general guidelines and policies. And - if needed - to further define the criteria so that wikipedia doesn't get swamped with non-notable topics. All the subject specific guidelines should stress that the main guidelines and policies need to be complied with first. However, what sometimes tends to happen in AfD discussions is that people point to a sub-clause of a subject specific guideline which says something like - "If X has a 12 inch penis then he's notable" - and think that somehow trumps the basic requirement of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". If we accept this proposal it will ratify such behaviour, and we will not have a main notability guideline, but a series of scattered and potentially conflicting guidelines.  SilkTork  *YES! 17:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose. I share the same concerns as SMcCandlish regarding WikiProject ownership of SNGs. Also per Sgeureka and WP:NOTINHERITED Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose - Angus McLellan and Jclemens put it perfectly. No sources == no article, won't meet V/NOR/NPOV. We only need one guideline for notability. -- Explodicle (T/C) 19:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose Wikiprojects dont decide whats notable the community does Gnangarra 01:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose If at once you don't succeeed, try a second time.... My answer is still No. Iterator12n  Talk 01:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 22) Oppose The guidelines for establishing notability are confusing enough as it is. Wronkiew (talk) 02:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 23) Oppose, we already have a fine nutshell for what topics inherit notability, that being: NONE. The sourcing requirements apply to every article in every case. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 24) Oppose The "exceptions" listed in the SNGs are not really exceptions, but rules of thumb. An album by a notable entertainer can be assumed to be notable because it will almost certainly have enough reliable third-party sources to prove notability of the album in and of itself.  This does not exempt it from WP:N or WP:V at all.  The specific notability guidelines are simply the general notability guideline projected into specific circumstances.  They should not ever be read to override WP:N.  I would even recommend that they be demoted.  Call them "semi-guidelines" or something, to emphasize that they are not on equal rank with WP:N.  Either that or promote WP:N to policy.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 12:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 25) Oppose. Makes no sense. Notability is associated with a topic, not an article. How can it be "inherited" from a parent article? How is the concept of "parent article" defined anyway? This is simply not the right way to proceed. Instead SNGs should be clarifying what minimal requirements are needed for particular types of article to demonstrate their notability. One global minimal requirement is that there must be a reliable secondary source which refers to the topic. Anything less fails WP:V.  Blanket exemptions not only make no sense – they are simply not needed. If an entertainer is notable because of appearances in notable productions, then an RSS about at least one of these productions is going to refer to the entertainer. And how can you write a verifiable article on an album if no reliable secondary sources refer to it? Geometry guy 15:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 26) Oppose Every reader should be able to determine whether the article is reliably sourced without having to refer to a parent page. There is no reason to exempt some pages from the WP:RS requirement. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 15:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 27) Oppose special-research groups shouldn't be able to trump overall notability guidelines, only provide subject-specific guidance on how a central guideline should be considered. Will this still leave debate in gray areas like albums of barely-notable musical groups? Yes. Are those best worked through the AfD process instead of a blanket policy? Also yes. JRP (talk) 21:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 28) Oppose. A spinout is an article. In practice this is equivalent to B.5 with a fig leaf. ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 29) Oppose I have some sympathy with the proposal, because there are subjects on which WP:RS and WP:Notability as currently phrased create problems. Aspects of popular culture are generally not the subject of peer-reviewed academic articles, and that leads to arguments about which "popular" sources can be considered reliable. WP:Notability gives too much leverage to deletionists, and leads to arguments about what constitutes "significant coverage". However these problems shoudl be tackled at the root. This proposal's attempt to paper over the cracks is an invitation to fan-groups. -- Philcha (talk) 10:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 30) Oppose generally, because it's an end-run around notability. It might be acceptable in very narrow areas like road articles.  It's totally inappropriate to popular culture subjects. --John Nagle (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 31) Oppose although a more specific notability guideline might clarify what constitutes a notable degree of coverage.  This proposal, however, would mean that no one could criticize the wording of such a guideline for vitiating the general notability guideline.  RJC  TalkContribs 17:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 32) Oppose because this essentially puts the cart before the horse. The SNGs are meant to be more subject-specific versions of the GNG, not to supercede it. I find that, by and large, they fulfill this task. In the two examples given in the proposal, both articles would have a high likelihood of having third-party sources available (since if an actor has been in several notable films, then there is likely to be some critical commentary of his acting from film critics, and since an album by a notable act is likely to have generated published reviews). Articles for which no third-party sources can be found are better served by being merged into a larger article (ie. an album which has received no reviews or has no other secondary sources available is better covered in a discography article, since only basic facts are presented). Of course, benefit of the doubt should be given and articles should be given time to develop due to the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, but when challenged (as in an AfD) such sources should be able to be provided. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 33) Oppose. This is just moving the discussion elsewhere.  Hi DrNick ! 12:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 34) Oppose. I am generally supportive of letting Wikiprojects interpret our rules and guidelines to suit their needs, but I see all sorts of problems here.  Wikiprojects are easy to form, and people can get very creative... Don't like the way a discussion is going on whether your pet topic is notable or not?... go form a splinter Wikiproject of your own that will define it the way you want.  How do we deal with topics that fall under two different wikiprojects with different criteria? Blueboar (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 35) Oppose - The key here is "an article without reliable third-party sources." If it has none of those, what are you going to talk about?  Then we can have all sorts of crap pile up in Wikipedia, with no way to say when enough is enough.  Imagine we had a Fringe theories portal, which allowed in every fringe theory some guy tripping on LSD or suffering from Schizophrenia every came up with, all grandfathered in by some article or another just because of inherited notability and "without reliable third-party sources".  NJGW (talk) 05:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 36) Oppose All main space content should be able to stand on its own merits regarding notability and verfiability, no exceptions. A SNG allowing special cases does not change intrinsic notablity or verifiability, it just move's the argument from an article to a meta article.  The issues do not change. SNGs should not modify the notability or verifiability guidelines.  They should only help editors interpret subject matter from very different knowledge domains consistently and comparably. Peet Ern (talk) 07:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 37) OpposeNo an article has to stand on it's own merits an article without reliable third-party sources if it has not got that then what has it? BigDunc  Talk 10:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 38) Oppose - Allows for contradiction of other notability guidelines, including the general one. We shouldn't have SNGs that say, "ignore NOTE, if you can do this then its ok, even when NOTE says otherwise". It allows for SNGs (which are usually run by those editors too close to the actual projects) to decide what they want to do, when it should really reflect what Wikipedia as a whole is doing.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 39) Weak oppose. I like the idea of providing additional notability guidance on specific fields for editors, in case we're wondering how the notibility guidelines should be interpreted in specialistic situations, but I think contracting the global notability guidelines is a no-no. If there is something wrong with those guidelines that would necessitate contradicting them, they need to be changed themselves, which is a different discussion altogether. Shinobu (talk) 13:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutral on A.3

 * 1) Comment It needs to be clarified what "absence of reliable third-party sources" means - absense in the article, or absense as in "likely non-existence". The first may be fixable through time and effort, the latter has no guarantee to be ever fixable. Accordingly, I am fine with allowing a certain inheritance of notability for the former case (depends on the article type), but never for the latter. – sgeureka t•c 12:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that the phrase "Absence of reliable third-party sources" means that the reader of an article can't see them, and therefore has reason to doubt the notability of the subject of an article, even if "expert opinion" swears otherwise.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Comment As noted above, I favor institutionalizing the "List of Characters" and "List of episodes" exclusions, and I can see how that may be viewed as an inheritance of notability. I truly dislike any claims of inherited or inherent notability, and don't want to get those concepts included in any policy or guideline.Kww (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I can live with that as an exception. Hiding T 15:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I essentially agree with Kww, except I think we should exclude all lists from notability considerations. Lists are largely navigational devices, so notability guidelines for articles don't apply well to them. –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree that notability considerations (as what we're discussing here) should not apply to lists. They either serve as navigational aids per Black Falcon, combine perma-stubs in suitable ways, and (particularly in the fields of fiction) serve as a middle ground between inclusionists and deletionists. – sgeureka t•c 20:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) While I can see where lists would come into play here, I believe there's a not-easily-definable difference between a list of plot-critical characters and/or episodes and, for example, a list of stereotypical punching bags for the main character to beat up. Nifboy (talk) 02:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral: See my "A1" qualified support and "A2" qualified oppose for a different way of looking at all of this. I agree in principle that the primary purpose of SNGs or whatever we are calling them should be what we are talking about here, but the bare fact is that many of them are virtually WP:OWNed by a handful of WikiProject people and often conflict with WP:N's plain wording, and are routinely applied as substitutes for WP:N at AFD simply because they're more specific.  Very few of them seem to me to genuinely reflect WP-wide consensus, but only the consensus of some subset of people in the related WikiProjects who care to get involved in policy squabbles. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 02:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral. Why are you talking about lists if this is about inheritance? Anyway this could be a good idea to expand some otherwise notable subjects but it could produce too many not-really-notable spinouts. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 01:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral. It might work, but would require very careful wording to prevent misuse.  Axl  ¤  [Talk]  13:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.