Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise/B.3

Proposal B.3: SNGs can define when sources probably exist
 Proposal: Specific notability guidelines such as WP:Notability (music) and WP:Notability (people) can define objective evidence that would show that sufficient reliable third-party sources probably exist. However, every article still requires appropriate sources, and the specific guidelines cannot mandate inclusion in the absence of sources.

Rationale: This reflects and cements the current practice. Many of the subguidelines for notability offer alternative criteria for articles that might not otherwise meet the general notability guideline. For example, WP:Notability (music) that says that any artist with a certified gold record may be notable. This simplifies the burden of finding reliable third-party sources to verify an article, while still requiring that all articles are properly verified.


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

Support B.3

 * 1) Support but weakly. I don't like the phrasing, but this is really how things work. As above, if an article meets WP:MUSIC, it's going to meet the GNG as well. If someone could actually find an album that charted on multiple national charts that no one else had ever written about, there could be a problem, but that is a very unusual situation that approaches time for WP:IAR. If a sub-notability guideline is documenting reasonable criteria, then the GNG will be satisfied. It's only when people start making claims like All asteroids are inherently notable that there's a problem, and the lack of secondary sources should be enough to allow for deletion of the article.Kww (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support as what is closest to my personal opinion: In my mind WP:MUSIC and WP:PEOPLE exist primarily as a sanity check when looking to see if an article meets WP:CSD or not. That shouldn't prevent them from being brought to AfD as an exception, and if we have a bunch of exceptions we should look at changing the rules to reflect that. Nifboy (talk) 01:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support but needs different wording. As it stands it requires proving a negative. Taemyr (talk) 03:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support This is how the SNGs were written long ago. By experienced AFD editors reviewing their institutional memory and coming up with rules of thumb about when an article would be viable.  GRBerry 04:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Support inasmuch as I am aware of what this is trying to say. Oppose inasmuch as every proposal on this RFC is badly phrased and the whole thing is a debacle. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak support. I really don't like the wording used here. I preferred a different wording and feel that this wording misses a significant part of the point. That said, I agree with GRBerry that this basically reflects the original formation and intent of the SNGs. Regarding some opposition, it seems more than a bit counterproductive to have a guideline setting the bar below sources sufficient to meet basic policy. Vassyana (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support An important function of policy/guidelines in my view is the substantial limitation of subjective arguments in dispute resolution and deletion discussions. Allowing editors to form arbitrary concenses on inclusion criteria sets the precedent that the threshold for inclusion is merely finding enough editors who like the topic, and without a requisite subordination to the general criterion, disagreements on sub-criteria have no logical end. Contrasting at least one comment somewhere in this RFC, even under this proposal, notability does not equal verifiability. Verifiability describes itself; notability, rather, requires that the verifiability of the concept be in some manner substantial. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - Most editors are not experts on compliance with WP:NN. As such, guidelines must be offered. It should be noted, however, that they are guidelines and not hard/fast rules. Consensus can still override fr33kman (talk) 22:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support This is how I see the guidelines as currently operating, if a topic meets the guideline but there is no means of verifying any information about it due to a lack of reliable sources how can we write an article without any original research. Guest9999 (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Weak support. I agree that "Specific notability guidelines such as WP:Notability (music) and WP:Notability (people) can define objective evidence that would show that sufficient reliable third-party sources probably exist." but the rest is outside the realm of a notability guideline. The content policies of V, NPOV, and NOR already over-rule notability guidelines. The guidelines only help suggest that articles will be able to meet them. Article showing evidence of likely notability should be tagged for issues and we should expect improvement. Double Blue  (Talk) 04:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. All articles must be verifiable. I changed to Oppose after realizing that it would be impossible to prove no sources existed. Binksternet (talk) 09:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) Support - Helps editors find sources to write new articles / to determine notability. -- : Raphaelmak : [ talk ] [ contribs ] 11:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - the gist of this, but would more enthusiastically support a version reworded for clarity. Warofdreams talk 12:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - I like the idea, especially when used for things like Olympic medallists (sources are almost guaranteed to exist); perhaps the wording could be tweaked, as I don't think this removes the need for sources to prove notability to be added at a later date (so notability is assumed given a strong assertion; article quality would then cover whether it's demonstrated). False assertions of notability should be removed, leaving an article up for AfD still, of course. -- ratarsed (talk) 12:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong Support This is what I have been arguing for in all of my arguements in earlier sections.  Royal broil  14:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Support, I prefer SNGs to be made mandatory, but actually that's what SNGs are all about, to say when a subject is likely to be covered by reliable sources. --Angelo (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Support This is not only reasonable, but helpful to wikipedia as a whole.--Fabrictramp | talk to me  22:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Support, in the form I've reworded it. There is no way to prove absence of sources.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 14:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. Notability can't always be defined by the presesnce of third-party sources, so as long it is generally verifiable and also notable, then this is a good idea. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 14:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - As I mentioned in my comments on B1, newspaper coverage of sports from pre-online days exists. It's not always easy acquire that coverage to demonstrate with specific citations, but they are out there if someone has access to them, which indicate the subject's notability. matt91486 (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Support, sensible, and more or less codifies existing practice. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC).
 * 12) Support: Seems sensible, and seems to reflect the way SNGs currently work. The caveat, of course, is that article should be given a chance to develop due to the nature of the collaborative community editing process. An article need not include its sources "at birth", but sources should be sought out and added as the article develops and if the article is challenged such as by the addition of maintenance tags or in an AfD. In this respect SNGs are certainly helpful in defining when reliable third-party sources likely exist. and articles that meet such SNGs should be allowed, although they may be deleted or merged if sources fail to be presented after some time or when challenged. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Support - If something can be proven or strongly indicated to be notable then we shouldn't be deleting it because it does not meet one particular means of establishing possible notability. For instance, the 882,281 page views of Naruto last month, making it the 35th most viewed page on Wikipedia, prove beyond all doubt that this is a notable topic. Even if the handful of 'third party' sources in the article were removed / could not be found it would not suddenly and magically become 'non notable'... those sources do not make it notable. They are only one means of recognizing that it is notable. There are very few independent sources on that article, and even most of those aren't really providing 'significant' coverage... but the topic is absolutely unquestionably notable and would be even if there were no independent sources at all. --CBD 11:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Support - SNG should trump GNG. Andrew Oakley (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Strong Support - I agree - SNG should trump GNG - the gold record analogy used in the description is a perfect example. Timmccloud (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, that's not what it says at all. It doesn't say "SNGs should trump the GNG". It merely says that SNGs can provide criteria by which article subjects might be presumed to be notable. The GNG states that third-party sources are required to show evidence notability, but its guidelines on what constitute reliable third-party sources are not subject-specific. The SNG for musicians, in this example, provides examples of that specificity by saying that if an act has had an album go gold, then it's highly likely that third-party sources exist covering that act. Therefore an article on that act is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, because it's highly likely that sources exist which could be added to the article. The sources of course must be added as the article develops, but the presumption that they exist is enough to justify the article's creation. In this case the SNG doesn't trump the GNG, it merely provides more subject-specific guidance. Both require the same thing: reliable third-party sources. The SNG is just better-suited to describe, for specific subjects, the likelihood that such sources exist. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose B.3

 * 1) Oppose Maybe I misunderstand this, but if I read this correctly, this certainly goes against the current practices and consensus. SNGs should be and are allowed to set sufficient conditions for notability, period (not because they indicate that some other sources may exist but because satisfying these conditions is, in and of itself, proof of notability). For example, winning an olympic medal is sufficient for proving notability even if you cannot find an article discussing the athlete's favorite toothpaste. Being an elected fellow of the Royal Society is sufficient proof of academic notability even if you can't find a biographical article about a scholar in question. Being a permanent settlement is sufficient proof of notability even if nobody has bothered to include the place in a guidebook. And so on. Nsk92 (talk) 05:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Question: I don't understand how what you have written is an "oppose" since you appear to be saying the same thing as B3, just less confusedly. Are you opposing the wording of B3, or the meaning it is trying to express? —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 02:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe I misunderstand what B3 is saying since the text is fairly confusing. If it says that SNGs cannot define sufficient conditions for proving notability (such as, say, having won an olympic medal) that do not require evidence of additional in-depth coverage (beyond WP:V verification that these conditions are met) for establishing notability, then I do oppose it, for reasons stated above. Nsk92 (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. You say that passing an SNG should remove the need to find sources, and I was under the impression that this is what B3 was saying. In my first read, I thought it was saying that wherever an SNG is met, we can assume the GNG is met, removing the need to prove notability, but is still subject to simple verification (although if you can prove it meets an SNG, then it is necessarily verifiable). It should clarify the philosophical meaning of an SNG, and should also guide creation and deletion of SNGs themselves. And reading this again, it appears that your interpretation is actually the most accurate; this is disappointingly poorly worded Someguy1221 (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Nsk92 and own comments above. Hiding T 12:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) No. the lord works in mysterious ways, as it were.  We can't define beforehand where sources are likely to be. Protonk (talk) 13:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose wording change (which I as aware of) causes me to have nothing here I actually agree with.  SNG should override GNG because they should, not because SNG indicate the potential for notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit (talk • contribs)
 * Comment: This !vote is unsigned. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 02:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Although it is current practise for SNGs to define when sources probably exist (e.g. if a movie wins an Oscar), this argument is fatally flawed, as it is reliant on the opinion of so called "experts" (sometimes misleadling labeled as "consensus"). Such definitions are self-referencing, since they only be applied where reliable secondary sources can be cited to support the expert opinion. Presumptions of notability breakdown in the absence of reliable secondary sources, as such presumption may be based on spurious claims that cannot be substantiated (e.g. where an award is of dubious merit). SNGs currently contain inclusion criteria that are not supported by verifiable evidence and cannot be applied universally, and should there be dropped althogether, as reliance on "expert opinion" robs editors of their autonomy. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - this doesn't make sense to me. Sources are not a matter of probability - we need the actual sources to write a reasonable article. Sources are an indicator of notability - but an "indicator that sources exist" is an awkward construction, or maybe an attempt to bypass the primary notability criterion. An SNG could give advice where sources can typically be found; or indicate in which case they have been found in the past. But it should not replace sources by some other criteria. Also, what would be "evidence that sources do not exist"? --B. Wolterding (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose as currently written, because it seems to allow to opt out of WP:V. Articles that say "I'm sure he's notable because of X but I'm too lazy to find sources that show X is true" should be deleted on sight. I've found film articles that claim a film won a notable prize, but the prize website doesn't list the film at all - sometimes people are mistaken, or just flat out wrong. WP:V rules. If rephrased as "if reliable sources are shown that show X, a SNG can state that the source lets you assume notability", I could support. (See WP:MILMOS for an example - there exist 3500 or so recipients of the US Medal of Honor, and it seems more reasonable to assume that they're all notable than to try to cherry-pick away the ones that aren't) --Alvestrand (talk) 12:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose this has lead to far too much abuse, and by passes WP:V. Sources do not "likely" exist, they either do or they don't. SNGs can suggest where to find sources, but not claim that if the item is X then it probably has sources and is exempt from WP:V. --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. The difference between a "probable" source and a source is typically (a) laziness; or (b) non-existence. Neither is a rationale to ignore WP:V. For those rare circumstances that don't fall under (a) or (b), WP:IAR may apply, presumably to widespread plaudits. Bongomatic (talk) 03:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose - What? Since when can we just assume that sources exist?  And how can one prove that sources DON'T exist?  This is so contradictory to Wikipedia's sourcing policies (from WP:V: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.").  Wickethewok (talk) 05:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose SNG can't determine when sources probably exist, either there are sources or not. If the editor failed to find sources then we must assume that there none. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦  06:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose - good luck proving something doesn't exist. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose - this confuses notability with reliable sources. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 08:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose. How can an editor prove that no support exists? Impossible. Binksternet (talk) 09:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Strong oppose. Any proposal that asserts "notable by default unless proven otherwise" should be shot down in flames. VG &#x260E; 12:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose -- opens the door to pandora's box. older ≠ wiser 12:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose Sources are out there, they can and should be found.--EchetusXe (talk) 12:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Sources, not the probability that sources exist, are required. Stifle (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose MIRS should not be necessary if the importance of a subject can be demonstrated verifiably. A single reliable source which verifies the importance of a subject (as defined by SNGs) and provides enough information for a basic article should be sufficient to demonstrate a subject's encyclopedic nature. Chubbles (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose This is another one that sounds logical and rational at first glance, but actually opens the door to a world of hurt. The key word here is "probably".  If an SNG tells us where to find sources and we find them, great, if we don't, the content needs to go.  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose per Nsk92 and Aboutmovies. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose The guidelines should not have clauses about notability that circumvent policy - though we know from experience that they do, and that people bypass policy and pick out their favourite clauses in order to justify an article on an otherwise non-notable topic. That someone has a gold record does not in and by itself make them notable. It should ensure they appear on some list of artists with gold records, but not a full stand alone article. This proposal is trying to codify the bad practise that is occurring. We should not be considering proposals that encourage people to circumvent the Verifiability policy.  SilkTork  *YES! 18:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose - "...evidence that sources do not exist." Notability is not falsifiable. The burden should be on the one who adds or restores material. -- Explodicle (T/C) 19:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose As said before, I think SNGs are an abomination. Iterator12n   Talk 02:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose While SNGs should be able to assert reliability for additional sources, sources must be provided to prove notability. Wronkiew (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 22) Agree with Explodicle on where the burden of proof lies and with Iterator12n on the matter of "special guidelines" in general. What's so hard about "don't write an article unless you *know* there are sources" and even "only write articles when you have the sources in front of you"? On the other hand, I've no objection to very short articles, so long as they're sourced, so I wouldn't agree with, for example, SilkTork. It might be enough that they won a gold medal. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 15:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 23) Oppose/Don't understand. Several editors have queried the meaning of this one. It seems to me to add nothing useful. How can a reliable secondary source mention that an artist has a gold record without mentioning the artist? All the SNG needs to do is clarify that this is the kind of source material that demonstrates notability per proposal B2. Talking about whether sources "probably exist" or not, or "presumptions of notability" in the absence of sources only clouds a straightforward issue. Geometry guy 16:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 24) Oppose - The GNG has a bias toward newer subjects by virtue of having sources readily available for newer ones and not for older ones. There are many notable people from the past who don't meet the GNG but are worthy of being included in Wikipedia because they were notable at the time of their existence. &mdash;   X   S   G   18:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 25) Oppose the needless rule-bloat.-- S Marshall  Talk / Cont  01:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 26) Oppose There must be sources on the article, not potential sources somewhere out in cyberspace.  Reywas92 Talk  00:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 27) Oppose: I don't think anyone should assume that there are sources that establish notability "out there somewhere", no matter what the topic. To establish notability you need to actually find them and cite them. Blueboar (talk) 19:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 28) Oppose. This is a non-proposal, or at least not a notability policy. ‘Specific notability guidelines ... can define objective evidence that would show that sufficient reliable third-party sources probably exist. However, every article still requires appropriate sources ...’ Now read it again please, I did a double take on this as well. So basically, all articles need proper sourcing; but they already do. So what are the probability-of-finding-sources guidelines for? If an article isn't sourced, it fails verifiability, and if it is, it wouldn't be excluded because the most the proposal is going to say is ‘well, according to this guideline it was unlikely that you found a proper source, but it looks like you did just the same’ without even assigning any ‘go ahead’ or ‘stop it’ to it that isn't already mandated by the verifiability policy. So what is this? A little help for editors to tell them when it is worth their time to bother looking for sources and when it isn't? Well, whatever it is, it isn't a notability guideline. Shinobu (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutral on B.3

 * 1) I think that this one is too vague. Every time I read it, I interpret it differently : ) - jc37 12:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Not sure on this one as I am not sure what it means in practice. I agree all articles must be verifiable and if this is just saying that the subguidelines define cases where verifiability exists then it seems unnecessary, but harmless, as of course we should delete articles that cannot be verified at all. However if this is saying that SNGs define cases where the GNG will probably be met at some point, then I oppose this as per my comments on B.1 Davewild (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Comment I'm not sure if this is too harsh, or too loose. One part of me feels like it would make the GNG the center of the universe. The other part feels like it would essentially eradicate the GNG, since any sub-guideline could say that sources exist... and then how do you prove that they don't? You'd be able to always says "the sources are out there, the SNG says so, so keep looking". It's pretty imprecise. Randomran (talk) 03:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Comment Looks to me as if it clumsily, but broadly agrees with what User:Nsk92 wrote. That certain criteria (gold medals and discs, etc.) denote notability even without explicit sources. ntnon (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral. Upon further reflection, I simply cannot support this proposal with the current wording. The indication that this applies when "articles ... might not otherwise meet the general notability guideline" and bringing it down to verifiability are examples of the deep flaws in the rationale. As much as I support SNG = criteria indicating sufficient sources probably exist, I cannot endorse a proposal that appears to present SNGs as an exception or appears to state the position that notability equals verifiability. Vassyana (talk) 05:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral: I agree with the principles of most of the "support" !voters, but have to also agree with the criticisms of the "oppose"rs that this is poorly written and confusing (while also sharply disagreeing with the "oppose" sentiment that SNGs should override the GNG; that way leads inexorably to utter chaos). —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 03:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) I can't understand what this means. I think I might actually support it, given SMcCandlish's statements, but can't tell.  So it's very poorly framed. May need re-proposing, since it seems as if this proposal may have legs somewhere in there. Hiding T 15:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) I've switched from support to neutral after reading Nsk92's comments in the oppose. I think the idea is right, but the last sentence should be removed. Completely agreeing with Nsk92, actually, verification that an SNG is satisfied should produce the assumption the GNG is satisfied, and "I can't find a source" should never be a valid reason to delete such an article unless someone is actually claiming it's a hoax. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Neutral. Whatever the SNG proposes, it does not relieve the burden of proof. Does it help users? probably, but it's not an argument in notability wars. NVO (talk) 12:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Not sure I support the idea of using "reasonable potential" to give things more time, or as a first pass criteria when looking over articles (for a lack of better words), but assumptions can only go so far. -- Ned Scott 04:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Too vague. Unable to come to a decision based upon the way it's worded. 23skidoo (talk) 05:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Neutral I'm not entirely sure what this is asserting. Any essay can tell us where to find sources. This would essentially demote SNG's to mere policies. Jclemens (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Neutral Wording is weird. If objective evidence exists that prove the sources exist, then the sources exist.  If there are no sources, there will be no evidence.  I am confused by the wording... This could be taken to mean that "I don't have the sources in front of me right now, but this google journals search shows that there are multiple journal articles on the subject, and thus its reliable" or it could mean "Come on, I am sure someone has written about this somewhere, so there is no need for me to find any sources or do any research.  I only have to assert that it is likely they exist."  The first is probably sufficient.  The second is not... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  16:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Agree with Nsk92. Not sure if that means I support or oppose. :-) (Which is probably a sign the proposal is poorly written!) --GRuban (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Sorry, don't understand. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Would need clarification, I support the general idea that SNGs should be a pointer to when it is likely sources exist and should never excuse an article from the requirement for substantial multiple secondary sources. I would, however, like to see it made explicit that such sourcing is still required in all cases, and if it in fact cannot be found after reasonable efforts are made to locate it, the article is unacceptable even if it does pass an SNG. It should also be made explicit that the best practice is to have such sourcing at hand before creating an article, and that SNGs are simply an indicator when such a search is more likely to meet with success, not an excuse for not actually doing it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) Too vague I can't figure out what this proposal is trying to do. It's not clear whether the proposal requires sources or tries to allow articles without them. --John Nagle (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) Neutral. I don't see how a guideline would show that sources probably exist.  Axl  ¤  [Talk]  16:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) Vague.  The proposal's content seems to admit the utility of SNGs, but the tone seems hostile to them.  This proposal says "this much, but no more!", with the "no more" in some tension with the "this much;" other proposals seem to say the same thing regarding the "this much."  I agree with GRuben:  since we agree with Nsk92, but can't figure out whether that means we support or oppose the proposal, it's probably badly written.   RJC  TalkContribs 17:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments on B.3

 * I think I can't get the spirit of this proposal from its wording. What the hell is supposed to be "objective evidence that would show that sufficient reliable third-party sources probably exist" other than a secondary/tertiary source? -- A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ! !  12:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a very good point. I read this and thought "this sounds good." then I thought some more and thought "WTF?". On the surface it seems like a good idea as it allows for keeping articles that are probably notable but which lack concrete sources to attest that. But the wording is one of those thing that'd get lawyered to death. A strict application would only allow for things that just barely fail the notability test. In situations like that it only amounts to the sort of reasonable flexibilty that a proper application of the GNG should have. The other possibility is to have things that have barely been mentioned and use that as an excuse to have them without any real rason to beleive they are or will ever be notable. In conclusion, nice idea, but it needs work.--Marhawkman (talk) 05:37, 27 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.