Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise/B.2

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.


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

Support B.2

 * 1) Support. I have been asking for "the powers that be" to redefine the "Notable" requirement for music as it relates to certain lists (Although it could be redefined for any Wiki page). For example the list of List of All Female Bands says that the list is incomplete and says that for a band to be listed they need to be an all female band who plays all their own instruments or notable. Other than the obvious non-bands that are added and deleted one of the criteria for deletion seems to be only "I have never heard of them, they don't have a Wiki page" while others need only have a Wiki page to be included. The concept being if someone does not have a wiki page they are not notable. So I would love to see an explicit definition of notable in regards to music and other areas such as film. For example is simply having a page on Wiki enough for an artist to be included on a list? Or lack of one reason to not be included? (As an example - say there was a list of Academy Award winning Special Effects artists and it listed Gene Warren, Jr. Currently, based on what I have been seeing, his name would be taken off the list because there is no Wiki article on him yet the simple fact he won an Oscar makes him rather notable) What if a member of a band that was a 'cult' band or an unsigned band went on to be a part of something more "notable", would that band be notable enough to include on a separate list even if the act were not notable enough for their own Wiki page? How about coverage on Tv? Songs in films? Books? Articles? and so on. Even though on the WP:N page it clearly says Notability is distinct from "fame," "importance," or "popularity," although these may positively correlate with it that seems to be the only basis in several cases for appearing on a list, or even getting (and keeping) a Wiki page. Also many older acts were in existence before the internet and thusly many of the "third party sources" would not be available online and it seems many people do not understand that, so I feel it is something that needs to be laid out in no uncertain terms. (To be clear - just because an article or "source" is not available online does not make it an invalid source.) And going beyond the lists - one other item I would love to see (re)defined and explained is:  reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject(sub defined as: excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.) I can understand the need to go beyond a record labels press hype however looking at an artists bio or a press release certainly can aid is gathering information and it is more than likely other (Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability) articles that cover the same topic are worded or reworded from that bio. Likewise a one on one interview does not seem to be fully allowed because it is not a "reliable secondary source" or a source that is "independent of the subject". I find that to be insane reasoning really. Now to (re)define that issue I would suggest saying that the obvious hype (ie -I am the greatest singer ever) not allowed but the credible information (ie - I joined the band when I was 18 / I was influenced by KISS) be acceptable as being notable as the information came direct from the subject you are gathering the information about. Doing a quick Google search can turn up numerous comments that all clearly came from the same source, and many time now that source is Wiki.= and that is clearly the power of the internet. However I don't feel several sources that all have the same wording on a topic makes those source more notable just because they are "independent of the subject". Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Support Goes without saying and reflects the current practice, so that it is largely a moot point. SNGs need to (and they do), on occasion specify what kind of weight to assign to what kind of sources and possibly to exclude certain kinds of sources. For politicians coverage only in local newspapers in usually not enough; for academics self-published and non-refereed publications are usually discounted, as are local, university level and graduate.postdoctoral level awards; for notability of criminal acts the standards are still being developed, but in practice some coverage beyond local coverage is required; etc. Nsk92 (talk) 05:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, but... when these guidelines and the general notability guideline give different results, the general notability guideline should have precedence. An article on  charted record should usually be kept, because in general, records that hit the charts also receive enough attention from reliable sources. If however an article meets a specific guideline but fails the notability guideline (not only "fails in its current state", but "gives the impression of not being able to meet the notability guideline"), then the article should be deleted (after due discussion and so on). If such exceptions happen regularly, the specific guideline should be changed to address this. Fram (talk) 12:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per Nsk92 and own comments above. Hiding T 12:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - common practice. And it would seem to make sense, as each WikiProject would likely have a better, or at least a decent, idea about how reliable references are, and what would constitute GNG for articles under their purview. - jc37 12:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. I didn't know this was current practice, but it's a good idea, presuming that it is policed tightly. Protonk (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Although some Wikipedians would disagree that this is the current practice, I think this is a fair compromise. The wording needs a LOT of work. But I think this would let people write a more relaxed SNG that still hits some measurable, semi-precise standard. Randomran (talk) 03:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Support However, meeting such conditions does not open the floodgates to allow original research; articles should be written primarily from secondary sources independent of the subject.  For the offered example, if no other decent sources can be found, we may not be able to write more than Song X by artist/band Y charted at Z on the ABC chart. GRBerry 04:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Adjusted/expanded following Vassayana's oppose comment below. Indeed, the criteria in the music and other SSGs like the examples used above are not sources.  Sources are needed to demonstrate that the criteria are met!  What they are rules of thumb that function as quick tests for whether or not more useful sources are likely to exist.  If the rule of thumb is met, then it probably is not worth spending time on discussing such an article, unless an editor has put significant effort into trying to improve the article and come up dry.  But this function only works if the SSGs are written based on actual experience of finding such sources when looking for them.
 * The other thing an SSG can do is say that a particular source, such as say the Dictionary of National Biography is both a valid and useful source and a viable indicator that there are also other valid and useful sources. GRBerry 18:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Such dictionaries are tertiary sources, and notability can't be presumed from a mention in one in the absence of reliable secondary sources.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Which just goes to show why notability and its bastard offspring will never be more than guidelinecruft: "When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia." Policy beats guidelines as handily as a Smith & Wesson beats four aces. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Seems reasonable enough, as long as the individual guidelines are themselves subject to consensus and scrutiny. ntnon (talk) 21:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - in either sense; they should be able to specify which sorts of source are appropriate for the GNC, or specify sources that establish notability outside the GNC. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) SupportAlthough I think the reference to "sources" be rephrased as "indicators". SNGs can determine what indicates notability, apart from the rest of existence. Not everything in the world is going to have the same indicators for notability. By using a single, restrictive view of notability you are calling for the exclusion of everything that hasn't been noted to everyone. There are millions of facts, figures, dates names and places that are significant but have not achieved "notability". padillaH (review me)(help me) 12:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) * As a side note, I think "indicators" would be much better phrasing, and would be a better description of the spirit of this proposal. Randomran (talk) 13:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - Not all subjects are the same. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Qualified support: Agree with most of the !votes here, but within the constraints of my "strong oppose" to B1 (which covers a bit more ground that B1 exclusively), and with the further caveat that it be clarified that SNGs cannot countermand WP:RS on what constitutes as reliable source to begin with, only what kinds of RS-defined sources can help establish notability. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 02:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Conditional Support "...should be allowed to clarify the kinds of sources..." should be the literal, narrow, and rigid definition of an SSG. However, as written each of the SSGs attempt to: (A) paraphrase or tweak the GNC, (B) give specific "objective" criteria for inclusion or exclusion, and (C) typically ramble-on about justification for the guideline etc.  I could support this concept if there was a mechanism to keep these on-point and succinct, and clearly stating their purpose as clarification rather than stand-alone.  --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Makes perfect sense fr33kman (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Yes, this seems reasonable. SNGs can define what constitutes substantial coverage. (E.g., every local police department, fire brigade, kindergarten certainly has generated coverage in the local press, which is reliable and secondary - yet most of us would agree that these institutions typically don't warrant an article.) Yet one should add the caveat that SNGs should make only a selection of sources. Care should be taken when they define some criterion as a replacement for an actual source. --B. Wolterding (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Support As Vassyana and others point out, badly worded, but the idea is good and reflects practice. The basic function of the SNGs, as the comment above says, is to " define what constitutes substantial coverage".John Z (talk) 01:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Support as quite an obvious statement of fact. Yes, they are here to clarify WP:N. No, they are not supposed to narrow it. NVO (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Support as good guidance to new editors about where to find WP:RS sources. I was, for instance, astonished to learn that IMDB is considered a WP:RS on whether an US film exists, while it's not a WP:RS on the birth dates of the actors. SNGs are a good place to put such information. --Alvestrand (talk) 12:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Support At the very least SNGs can and should do this. -- Ned Scott 04:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. Frankly, this is what makes the most sense to me. --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 02:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Support so long as said sources are still WP:RS. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 02:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. Certain indicators can show that an article is likely on a notable subject. Tag the article for issues and expect improvement. Double Blue  (Talk) 03:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) Support: Definitely yes, though some of the Neutral comments raise some important details. Walkerma (talk) 04:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) Weak support. Although I don't like the idea of anyone dictating acceptable sources, at least it would allow article creators to know where they stand when they attempt to create an article, as to whether it stands a hope of surviving or if it's destined for Deletionpedia. 23skidoo (talk) 05:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) Weak suport More important to disallow specific sources than to automatically bless everything from a given domain name, but it's nice to have examples of specific sources on, say, NYTimes that meet the criterion for WP:RS. MrZaius talk 05:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) Support - Without a doubt, of course. We need these guidelines to consolidate what we have already. Utan Vax (talk) 07:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 21) Support, while I would have prefered P4, this is the best alternative with any substantial amount of support. More strict proposals are a vehicle for rampant deletionism. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 07:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 22) Support as most plausible of the suggestions. SNGs should supplement the GNG leaning towards expanding it; this consideration is primarily to avoid/counter bias by ensuring that when many similar topics get articles, the few exceptions do as well. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 08:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 23) Support. SNG are just rules of thumb that may help predicting if something is likely to be notable, but they are not guarantees and should not override the GNG. --Itub (talk) 09:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 24) Support Additional clarity is always a good thing. Waggers (talk) 10:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 25) Support - Different fields have different notability consensus. -- : Raphaelmak : [ talk ] [ contribs ] 11:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 26) Support. SNGs are supposed to specify more precisely the way the GNG applies to articles about a particular subject. They are not supposed to disagree with the spirit of the GNG, only to supplement its letter. And they shouldn't degenerate into instruction creep. -- A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ! !  12:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 27) Support - an excellent use of SNGs. It is always useful for editors to have more information on whether an article is likely to be considered notable before putting in lots of time and effort on it. Warofdreams talk 12:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 28) Support -- seems reasonable. older ≠ wiser 12:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 29) Support. Good rationale and well formulated. VG &#x260E; 12:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 30) Support Goes without saying.--EchetusXe (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 31) Vacuously true. Stifle (talk) 12:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 32) Support - We need more and better SNG's created with consensus to provide editors with clear notability requirements.--Captain-tucker (talk) 13:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 33) Support It ain't broken, so don't try to fix it. There's a place for some specific notability guidelines.  Royal broil  14:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 34) Support This is already current practice anyway, although as noted above not all SNGs are of equal quality/weight at present. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 35) Support as the raison d'etre for the SNG's. Jclemens (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 36) Support Good idea and well thought out. -Djsasso (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 37) Support This is where the SNGs are most useful, not in creating blanket exceptions, but in indicateing what kinds of subject-specific sources are helpful in establishing notability. --Jayron32. talk . contribs  16:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 38) Support What Jayron32 just wrote. --GRuban (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 39) Support Subject specific advice is the main facet of the subject specific guidelines. The general guideline cannot direct people to subject specific sources and debate the usefulness of them, but subject specific guidelines can and the best ones do.  SilkTork  *YES! 18:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 40) Support Seems pretty reasonable to me. It still allows a set of objective guidelines, while remaining flexible and acknowledging the different sorts of evidence that may exist within different fields.Anaxial (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 41) Support GNG need to be clarified or some subject areas. Phatom87 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 42) Support When I'm dealing with subjects I'm not an expert on, having those clarifications is immensely helpful. I may not have any idea which music websites are reliable, but a gold record I can understand.--Fabrictramp | talk to me  22:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 43) Support I think this most accurately reflects current practice. Also is it nice and succinct. Kaldari (talk) 23:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 44) Support In many cases the GNG is not clear on what is considered reliable sources for fictional works. This makes it easier to clarify that.--Marhawkman (talk) 05:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 45) Support, as long as the specific guidelines do not become overly inclusive. They should only serve to clarify what WP:N means in certain situations, not override it.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 14:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 46) Support. This would help to clarify the SNG guidelines. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 14:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 47) Support. At last a proposal which approaches the notability issue in a way which makes sense. Geometry guy 16:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 48) Support - SNGs have been and can be written to avoid historical bias against notability by outlining special criteria for subjects that were notable at some point in the past. &mdash;  X   S   G   18:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 49) Support. This is a case where a subject-specific guideline clarifies and confirms what documentation is relevant to notability, but that doesn't make a source notable that isn't. So, the wikiproject serves in an advisory role, which is correct. JRP (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 50) Support for reasons of basic common sense.-- S Marshall  Talk / Cont  01:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 51) Support. Yes, this is exactly what the specialist guidelines should do.  Axl  ¤  [Talk]  13:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 52) Support, this could be abused, but it's already happening de facto without much problems, and it helps prevent the how-many-hits-on-google bias. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 53) Strong Support This reflect current practice.  It doesn't permit an override of the GNG, but gives it some details.  Debates in AfD benefit from specificity regarding how notability will most likely be demonstrated in a particular area.   RJC  TalkContribs 17:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 54) Support: Reflects current practice, and although it has the potential to be abused I find that it usually isn't. It doesn't supercede the GNG and yet allows individual Wikiprojects to further define the notability and scope of article subjects. This is extremely helpful and should generally be encouraged, as it is the goal of Wikiprojects to improve article coverage in their fields. There's no sense in disallowing SNGs from saying what types of sources may be used to establish notability, unless their lists are unnecessarily restrictive to the point where an article that might otherwise pass the GNG is being excluded by the SNG. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 55) Support - Obviously 'significant coverage' of particle physicists would take place in completely different venues than 'significant coverage' of rock musicians. --CBD 11:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 56) Strong Support - Sounds reasonable without being too permissive or too restrictive. This is exactly what I would expect SNGs to be used for. -- Will scrlt   ( Talk ) 16:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 57) Strong Support - Rationale: This reflects and cements the current practice. I think that says it all. Timmccloud (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 58) Conditional Support - on the grounds that those sources reflect the stand on reliable sources.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 59) Support. This helps the editors by making the criteria less abstract - WP:MUSIC is a good example. One-size-fits-all WP:BIO would be problematic. GregorB (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 60) Support. But ‘clarify’, not ‘redefine’. It can be practical to have subject specific guidance on which sources can assert notability. For example, then you can establish once and for all if a publication in X establishes notability as described by the global notability guidelines. However, subject specific notability guidelines shouldn't be allowed to contradict the global guidelines. Shinobu (talk) 13:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose B.2

 * 1) Oppose Language here is very bad, and logic is strained. Of course an SNG is used to clarify the nature of sources, but clarifying the nature of a source doesn't lead to it being allowed to claim that sources are unnecessary.Kww (talk) 15:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. To be very blunt, asserting that a gold record award, Nobel Prize, etc are sources in and of themselves strains belief. Such a position would also run counter to the common understanding of "sources" and run contradictory to the meaning of "sources" in our content rules. They're certainly an indication that the real world considers the topic noteworthy, but they are not sources. Vassyana (talk) 16:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Not trying to canvass... but if we replaced the word "sources" with "indicators", would you support it? I think that's the spirit of this proposal. Randomran (talk) 18:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Always feel free to comment on my statements and ask questions! That said, no, I absolutely would not. Despite the comments made to the contrary by editors that I deeply respect, I do not see this proposal as any kind of middle ground. Even with the change you propose, this proposal would be little more than a concise B.5, allowing SNG criteria to act as a complete replacement (or "override" in the words of B.5) the GNG and the need for sufficient sources. That's no compromise in any reasonable sense of the term. Vassyana (talk) 04:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Vassyana, I see your point. The actual proposal doesn't specifically say that, but the rational section does.  I only support a clarification SNG (at most) but not an override of GNC in either direction.  However, I find your B6 a bit too ambiguous.  Can you comment on my conditional support of B2?  I'd be interested in your perpsective.  Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 06:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would tend to think if all the SNGs did was "clarify the kinds of sources" that they wouldn't serve much purpose outside of WikiProject notes or explanatory essays in relation to notability. (Indeed, they would be better served in those contexts, allowing for lists of main publishers and authors useful for reliably establishing notability, etc.) Unless we're talking about redefining sources as noted in my objection, there's little to no point in having subject-specific criteria under such a construction. It could all be boiled down to general criteria (good sources vs. not-so-good sources) that would be better expressed in the reliable sources guideline. Regarding B.6, take a look over my notes for improvement. Please drop a line to my talk page (to avoid too much clutter here) and explain what you find ambiguous, letting me know if the notes help address your concerns or fail to do so. Vassyana (talk) 07:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that a nobel prize would definitely indicate notability, but fails verfiability without a source. I thought this proposal meant "SNG can say magazine xxx is a good source but website yyy is not" So magazine X used as a source for the Nobel prize win would be fine. Nobel prizes are not sources, they are indicators of notability. SNG also try to define what indicators are sufficient, but that is a different issue, no? The rationale here seems to simply be wrongly worded - sourced chart position pass notability.Yobmod (talk) 11:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Opposed Again, this is obvious. SNG's can make their own distinctions between the inclusion criteria of an article subject (in the "Hall of Fame", earnings greater than $10 million, employs over 10,000 employees, etc.) and the sources which record these criteria without help from WP:N. patsw (talk) 02:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I don't see that this is really needed. In addition to concerns about straining the concept of a source, there is the mere fact that the SNGs are what they are. Deciding on the philisophical meaning of an SNG can be bypassed merely by finding a consensus, yes or no, on proposal B3 Someguy1221 (talk) 10:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose.  SNGs should not be able to define what is a source - that is the job of the verifiability policy and the reliable sources guideline.  We could end up allowing everything that can be sourced to a primary source because that is what a particular group wants.  Very OR. Karanacs (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose as we should delete all notability guidelines. --Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose as there is no alternative to GNG that can objectively verify notability that does not rely on so called "expert" opinion, which is is self-referencing and is reliant on reliable secondary sources be cited to support assertions that a subject's notability is  inhertited/presumed/acknowledged in absence of reliable secondary sources. An example of where SNG's do not work is the stub  Ashley Fernee which is considered notable in accordance with WP:BIO, but since the stub has virtually no content, this sugests to me that the a presumption of notability cannot be substantiated. In my view, SNGs need to be cleansed of inclusion criteria which are based on expert opinion.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Strong oppose - "Clarify"? The WP:N has never needed clarification, notability is "a celebrity who is an inspiration to others"(princeton). Very simple. The way the SNG WP:Athlete "clarified" the WP:N was by grating notability status to every brazilian soccer player that has ever played a single professional match in Brazil. Some "clarification" that was. This "clarification" excuse is allowing interest groups to create SNGs that satisfy every demand that they have, turning Wikipedia into a fan site in the process. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦  06:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose - granted I only consider myself an expert on BIO, CORP and N, I've never thought these sub-guidelines dictate any sort of source use. BIO basically only allows for the inclusion of say a state's governor that fails to meet the general N criteria if the fact that the person was a governor (the exception) can be sourced to a RS. So, it allows for say trivial coverage of a topic or coverage from a RS that is not independent to produce notability. It does not allow for a blog to be used or other unreliable sources. Now, this is not in these guidelines, but it does not need to be because RS is its own guideline. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. Separate guidelines for pop culture topics are destined to become pathways for lazy editing styles which don't bother to cite sources. The accretion of fancruft will too easily overbalance serious content. Every section needs its own cites. Don't let laziness win! Binksternet (talk) 09:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose I agree with Guest9999, because SNGs are set up to benefit the Project they are attached to. Vassyana makes a good point that receiving an award is not a source. SNGs should work alongside WP:RS. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose - I'm against SNGs in general, and think that the wording on WP:N is clear enough as to what sources are acceptable. -- Explodicle (T/C) 19:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose As said before, I think SNGs are an abomination.  Iterator12n   Talk 01:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose SNGs should be able to assert reliability for additional sources, but they should only apply to the SNG, not to the GNG. Wronkiew (talk) 02:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose, SNGs cannot override sourcing requirements. Nor can they override verifiability, which also requires third-party sourcing. We write from reliable independent sources, not from our own experiences or interpretations of primary work, so how can we write a correct and neutral article without a substantial amount of such sourcing? Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose. This goes too far. Sources do not merely "assert notability." A source demonstrating notability must provide more than a fig leaf for original research or firsthand observation, it must be suitable as a source of substantial, encyclopedic information . ~ Ningauble (talk) 00:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose. This opens the door for allowing just about any source to establish notability.  Wikiprojects are easy to create.  I forsee the creation of a "Fringe Theories" Wikiproject that will make the existance of self-published books and websites enough to establish notability. Blueboar (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutral on B.2

 * 1) Changed my mind on this one (from support) and become less sure as I completely disagree with Nsk's view that local sources are insufficient to establish notability. Significant coverage in reliable sources should almost always establish notability and merit an article (unless it fails a policy such as WP:NOT). I agree with the example in the rationale section however so am not opposing but am leaning that way. Davewild (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Prefer "SNGs can outline sources", full stop. See, for example, WikiProject Video games/Sources, which is not an SNG at all, but rather a lot of "Is this a reliable source?" conversations we've had in the past. Focusing on notability misses the point by a wide margin. Nifboy (talk) 05:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) I'd probably support this in principle but have found that in practise the way that specific notability guidelines can define sources as reliable can be questionable. Guest9999 (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments on B.2

 * 1) A lot of the support comments have little to nothing in common with what this proposal states or how the SNGs are formulated. For example, many support comments state that SNGs should clarify the meaning of "substantial coverage" on a case by case basis, yet this proposal says nothing of the sort. This proposal instead classifies indicators (in the words of many supporters) of notability as sources in and of themselves. It appears people are voting based on their interpretation of what the title of the proposal means, rather than the proposal itself (particularly considering that many support votes blatantly contradict the proposal). Vassyana (talk) 04:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) This is worded poorly. "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" needs to be changed. A gold record or a chart hit is not a source; it is an indicator of a subject's importance. The source is the RIAA website or billboard/ARIA/UK Singles Chart/etc. chart listing, from a magazine, database, or website. The hit or record is not a source itself, but rather definitive evidence of an artist's popularity. In a way, this undermines the entire structure of the proposal, in a way that makes me wonder how it became so well supported. Having a hit single is not an independent, third party source; it is an accomplishment, which is usually verifiable through a source. The SNGs are here because some editors saw fit to judge subjects according to their accomplishments, rather than the number of Google News hits they get. But the wind is blowing in the opposite direction on that one. Chubbles (talk) 15:53, 30 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.