Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise/B.4

Proposal B.4: SNGs are not needed
 Proposal: Specific notability guidelines such as WP:Notability (music) and WP:Notability (people) really serve no purpose beyond WP:N. One consistent and universal guideline will be sufficient.

Rationale: These subject specific guidelines generally evolved prior to the adoption of WP:N and are now obsolete. Most of these came to "consensus" when few people were paying attention. The problems are: (1) the methodology is inconsistent among the subject specific guidelines which leads to confusion, (2) topics overlap subject specific guidelines which creates further confusion, and (3) special interest groups can gain control over subject specific guidelines by dominating the discussion and claiming a local consensus. In all cases the benefit does not justify the harm to the project.


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

Support B.4

 * 1) Moral Support We should be trying to eliminate instruction creep. So the GNG really is the primary, most important, and overriding notabiltiy criteria.  If an article topic can't meet it, it really doesn't matter what the SNGs say.  But the SNGs are useful for guiding newer editors or explaining to them why their garage band/grandmother/local church's secretary to the associate pastor really won't be able to have an article.  GRBerry 04:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Underlying principle has merit. See my previous comments. I do not want to use the word "support" here, as I don't agree that that SNGs are worthless, only that they are too inconsistent and too often conflict with the GNG or try to override WP:N. Agree with GRBerry on what the purpose of SNGs really is (or as I phrased it elsewhere, they must limit themselves to being interpretations of how the GNG and WP:N apply to their topic, not vehicles for introducing additional restrictions no recognized by consensus as part of WP:N). —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 03:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Weak support. That is, established and proven tools (sports, music) are here to stay. But look at the graveyard of notability proposals. What a pity. They just won't take off. Waste of time. NVO (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support but understand While I do think this is the better solution, I can live with B2 if the redundancy and creep is controlled.  --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong support This proposal represents the essence, the spirit of Wikipedia. Notability means "a celebrity who is an inspiration to others"(princeton) and only what has notability has the right for an article. Simple and elegant. There will be no end for SNG creation, as they they will get ever more specific. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦  05:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - Aside from the primary notability criterion (which is itself a corollary of WP:V), I don't see the need for any additional guidelines. The guidelines such as those found in WP:MUSIC seem redundant at best and contradictory to WP:V at worst. If a subject doesn't have multiple published works on it, then how can it possibly meet the verifiability policy? If a band won some "major" award, but there aren't multiple reliable sources on it, then how is it actually major? It seems to me like people want hard-and-fast rules so as to remove thought and careful consideration from the editorial process. These notability pages cause more work than they save, in that they need maintenance/creation and editors end up spending AFDs debating the validity of the guidelines, rather than the subject at hand. Wickethewok (talk) 05:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. One general guideline to rule them all. Binksternet (talk) 09:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Support: A handful of the points made in WP:BIO and WP:ORG could be made general enough to move to WP:NOTE, but I'd be fine with seeing them and the rest get axed. They seem to excuse the existance of articles that, were they related to other topics (such as TV shows and similar topics that frequently get broken out into their own Wikia sites) would be deleted quickly as fancruft. MrZaius talk 05:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Weak support. The specific guidelines are useful insofar as they are just that — guidelines, rules of thumb. They should only clarify how the GNG applies to specific subjects. The only 'normative' guideline (for lack of a better word; WP:IAR should always apply whenever there is a good reason why it should apply) should be the GNG; SNGs should follow its spirit, and shouldn't be instruction creep. -- A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ! !  12:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Weak support - actually I don't fully support this, but it seems better than all other solutions/alternatives outlined in Issue B. From my experience on Wikipedia, SNGs have done more harm than good and while I support them in principle, in practice they have created a lot of animosity and deletion of articles which would otherwise be kept. Until it is made very clear that SNGs are non-binding, I believe they should not exist at all. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 13:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Support SNG's are an attempt to equate notability with importance. All that notability really is, is a measure of how much people are interested subject and the best way to determine that is whether or not sources that make money by writing about content that interests people are writing about the topic. - Icewedge (talk) 18:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Strong Support - Couldn't have said it better myself. The specific guidelines are at best redundant, and at worst contradict WP:N. -- Explodicle (T/C) 19:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Strong support - SNGs are not just un-needed, they should be discouraged or even be ruled out-of-bounds. Instead of SNGs we need a universal, straight-forward, easy-to-communicate rule (oops, guideline) for notability.  Iterator12n   Talk 02:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Strong support - heck, as per Iterator12n directly above me! The GNG is so easy, so perfect. SNGs exist, from what I've seen, to allow people writing on generally non-notable topics to bootstrap their content into Wikipedia by diluting the SNG. I've seen this at Notability:music. The GNG is beautifully easy and simple; it doesn't keep you from adding material on NOTABLE topics. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose B.4

 * 1) Oppose. It is exactly the other way around: as Wikipedia develops, WP:N is becoming more obsolete and the SNGs are becoming more relevant. Having one notability guideline might sound good in theory but will not work in practice. There are too many genuine differences between how different topics and subject are covered, too many subject-specific perennial AfD questions and issues that need stable solutions, and that are not served well by a single "one size fits all" notability guideline. Nsk92 (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose for exactly opposite reasons of Nsk92. WP:N is far too inclusive of a guideline, and will permit inclusion of trivia once multiple trivia guides on the same topic are published. SNGs as lists of things which cannot be included, and lists of sources which cannot be treated as conveying notability have a purpose.Kww (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually agree with your reasoning too and I think it reflects a part of my concern about WP:N being too general and too vague to be practically useful. I too think that in many cases it is far too easy to use WP:N for overly inclusionist conclusions (and not just with trivia, but also with people, films, organizations, etc). There are other situations where applying WP:N can have the opposite effect (such as with permanent settlements). Nsk92 (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The "permanent settlements" thing is one that really gets to me. I see no reason to create articles on things that we can only document as a speck on a map with a population. If no one has ever written about a location, I don't see why we would have an article on it. I think that WP:N fits perfectly.Kww (talk) 16:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) stong oppose Daughter guidelines offer clear, bright line standards for specific subjects where the GNG would cause us to get into repetitive debate. WP:ATHLETE solves far more problems than it creates (for one example). Protonk (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would strongly disagree with you on the specific example you offer. Its end result is that the wiki has a Wikia worth of otherwise non-notable professional athletes covered here instead of elsewhere. The Wikipedia is not ESPN. I would say that professional athletes warrant inclusion only after media coverage that extends beyond the usual sorts of mass lists that currently gets used. I'd strongly urge that those articles be transwiki'd out of here, and WP:ATHLETE be stricken. The same is true of many of the other areas where specific guidelines greatly lower the bar for notability. MrZaius talk 09:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose strongly but for the opposite reason as Kww above, subguidelines should be able to establish areas where the GNG can be met for a large majority of the articles the subguideline covers, it is better to have an article on all the cases, including the few that would not meet the GNG, to maintain consistency even if they can only ever be quite short, so long as what content is there is verifiable. However if an article meets the GNG and does not fail any other policy we should have an article regardless of what the subguideline says. An example would be where a footballer has not played in a fully professional league (thus failing the subguideline - WP:BIO) but has received strong coverage in reliable sources (easily meeting the GNG) we should have an article on that footballer. Davewild (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, and note that the GNG is no stranger to local consensus issues either. Hiding T 22:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose; as Wikipedia grows, those guidelines are increasingly important. &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - they serve a dual purpose: to help to interpret the GNC in a subject-specific way, and to show areas of notability within a subject that aren't covered by the GNC. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose There's no hope this will pass, but still to say, SNGs incredibly simplify the job of determining the notability of a topic. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Although I am of the view that the GNG is the only inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article, I feel that the SNG are warranted on the grounds that they provide additional guidance that is useful to editors in the application of GNG to a specific subject area.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose You can't seriously think you can create a guideline that encompasses everything. That's not practical. padillaH (review me)(help me) 13:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment That's a straw man argument; no one proposed any such guideline. Rather, the proposal is that WP:N adequately addresses the particular concept of "notability" as it applies to Wikipedia articles —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 03:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC).
 * How is this Straw Man? The suggestion is that a single GNG can define the criteria for acceptable notability in everything it comes across. That's not a rephrase, that's what the proposal is. I'm not trying to rephrase it, I'm taking it to it's logical conclusion. One GNG means that single GNG will have to define "notability" for everything that goes into Wikipedia. "One consistent and universal guideline..." read the proposal again (or re-read straw man and use it correctly next time). padillaH (review me)(help me) 15:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - One size doesn't fit all. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Complete oppose - No, no, no no no! fr33kman (talk) 22:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - While WP:N is the guiding principle, we certainly need more specific advice to judge 2.500.000 articles. SNGs should be compliant with WP:N, but completely abandoning them is not practical. --B. Wolterding (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - It would be nice to get rid of or consolidate a few of the SNGs, but it is impractical to eliminate all of them. WP:N lays out the overarching principle of notability, but the SNGs are needed to provide more specific guidance, especially when it comes to topics of borderline notability. –Black Falcon (Talk) 17:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose This option doesn't seem to have any function except as a strawman. Incorporating all the information from SNGs into the GNG would bloat it out of all readability. --Alvestrand (talk) 12:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose While it is wise to reduce instruction creep when we can, one size won't fit all, no matter how hard we try to define the "size". -- Ned Scott 04:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. I have stated several times my skepticism to the GNG. If we were to have any general notability guideline which doesn't overestimate or underestimate the notability of broad topics (as it is GNG overestimates the notability of news stories and underestimates the notability of settlements in developing countries), it would be very vague, along the lines of "A subject is notable if it is the kind of subject readers would expect to, and want to, find in an encyclopedia". Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Strong oppose. As mentioned above, one size obviously doesn't fit all. Once again I play the card of "No duh." --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 02:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Opppose, while SNGs should not contradict the GNG, they are helpful and necessary for tightening and strengthening the overall notability guidelines.-- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 02:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Weak oppose. I share the dream of a clear, concise, one true answer and I think sub-guidelines should be trimmed but I can see where specific guidance on more specific areas may be useful and would unnecessarily clutter a clear and concise WP:N. Double Blue  (Talk) 04:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose for the same reasons as my comments on B.1. Walkerma (talk) 04:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose. Violates the entire spirit of Wikipedia. No one can be an expert on everything, and no overriding policy can cover every specific topic. 23skidoo (talk) 05:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose - I agree with 23skidoo. We need more than just WP:N to be able to survive. Utan Vax (talk) 07:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose - though some may need to be deleted (I've never been able to decipher what the difference in criteria is between N and CORP) or refined, these criteria help overcome specific biases inherent with the GNG. I've outlined this above in my comments. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose such a general guideline would end up either absorbing the specific guidelines (no longer a general guideline) or being impermissibly vague. Most likely we'd simply end up with a system like at WP:RfA where the guidelines are often ignored during the individual discussions.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 08:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose A specific test is often needed to determine notability; a general guideline would not be sufficient. Waggers (talk) 10:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose - Different fields need different notability needs arising from different consensus. -- : Raphaelmak : [ talk ] [ contribs ] 11:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose - further guidance on what is or is not likely to be considered notable is extremely useful. Warofdreams talk 12:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose -- additional guidance in specialized areas can be helpful. older ≠ wiser 12:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose Local militias be damned, the alternative of one over-arching guideline is non-specific and insufficient.--EchetusXe (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose - SNGs are very important to provide specific guidelines in individual areas, we need more and better SNGs as wikipedia continues to grow. --Captain-tucker (talk) 13:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 22) Obviously not. Stifle (talk) 13:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 23) Oppose There are certain topics where notability needs to be wordier than a general guideline, so they need to be allowed to exist.  Royal broil  14:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 24) Oppose as throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Jclemens (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 25) Oppose While "needed" might be a bit strong, SNGs are definitely useful and serve an imprortant function in clarifying how to interpret WP:N within specific areas. WP:MUSIC for example is a longstanding and respected guideline which is often used at AfD. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 26) Oppose This is pretty much backwards, WP:N is far to broad to work in every situation. SNGs are much more usefull in alot of cases. -Djsasso (talk) 16:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 27) Oppose The subject specific guidelines are helpful and subject to consensus like all other guidelines -- Trödel 17:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 28) Oppose, as everyone writes, SNGs are excellent for focus specific subjects. --GRuban (talk) 17:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 29) Oppose - we need subject specific advice. However, the status of the 8 listed inclusion guidelines should be examined. There are other subject specific guidelines that are equally useful but which do not have the same status as the main 8. I feel the current main eight (Academics, Books, Films, Music, Numbers, Orgs, Bio and Web) could be looked at more closely. Should they be classed as essays? Should we have Arts, Biography, Geography, History, Mathematics, Science, Society, and Technology guidelines instead? And those then broken down into subject related topics - so Music comes out of Arts.  SilkTork  *YES! 19:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 30) Strong oppose. We definitely benefit from subject-specific advice. The argument for this proposal could be used to thwart anything on wikipedia, because on any subject of discussion, including this one, only a small fraction of all editors are paying attention.--Fabrictramp | talk to me  22:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 31) Oppose. SNGs such as WP:POLITICIAN help reduce the instance of Wikipedia being used as an electioneering platform. Most political candidates have sufficient press to pass the GNG, so it is important that we have an additional rule that unelected candidates are not notable unless they are notable for other reasons. E.g. the forthcoming New Zealand General election is relatively small, but there are well over 1000 candidates. Instead of having to police 1000 extra articles, we only have keep an eye on (in terms of OE/Neutrality being violated) the 100-odd articles of incumbents and a few articles for already notable people. dramatic (talk) 01:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 32) Oppose SNGs are useful in cases where the GNG does not apply. However, we do need a process by which unassociated editors can participate in reviews of SNGs. Wronkiew (talk) 02:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 33) Oppose SNGs should exist to clarify how the GNG is applied to a certain situation.--Marhawkman (talk) 05:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 34) Oppose The specific notability guidelines are a way to avoid having the same subject-specific Afd debates over and over and over...and over again. The general notability guideline is just that: general.  When it comes down to specific situations, it is extremely helpful to have a consensus on how to apply the general guideline.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 14:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 35) Strong oppose. No, this would just complicate everything. I'm a supporter of the use of SNGs to justify more articles for notability. SNGs help to make the notability guidelines more specific and everyone should read every single word in the GNGs and SNGs before deciding whether an article is notable. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 14:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 36) Oppose. Shows absolutely no sense of realism or pragmatism. WP:N would become a nightmare guideline without the support of SNGs to clarify and interpret it in the wide range of articles on Wikipedia. Its talk page would be even more of a nightmare. Geometry guy 16:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 37) Oppose - Historical bias to the present is the reason I support the existence of SNGs. &mdash;  X   S   G   18:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 38) Oppose because specific guidelines for specific situations are a much smarter idea than blanket guidelines that are supposed to be universal. SNGs create flexibility where it's badly needed.-- S Marshall   Talk / Cont  01:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 39) Oppose. In specific areas, SNGs are invaluable. Per dramatic at 41, WP:POLITICIAN is essential in keeping Wikipedia an encyclopaedia rather than an electioneering tool. — Lincolnite (talk) 10:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 40) Oppose. Subject specific guidelines that are formed via discussion and debate amongst "subject experts" and adopted through consensus are the ideal. We need to improve/replace some of the weak SNGs we are stuck with such as WP:ATHLETE (which was just invented one day). It is currently held up as gospel in sports AfDs because it is written on the WP:BIO page. It was not developed through debate, discussion and consensus forming amongst experts on the subject, as sport specific guidelines would be. It's weaknesses leave us with the same tiresome and circular arguments that have driven me away from AfD and it's pathetically low inclusion criteria leave us with thousands of nothing articles like Jacobo Mansilla to maintain. It is better to find solutions to these problems than just delete everything. E P 14:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 41) Oppose Obscure and disputed topics need specific guidelines to guide editors. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 42) Oppose. The specialist guidelines are helpful in directing application of the general guideline.  Axl  ¤  [Talk]  16:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 43) Unexpressably Strong Oppose.  Every AfD I have participated in has benefited greatly by having a more specific guideline:  we could look for conformity to the standards set by it and not have to rehash notability each and every time.  We could discuss what makes an academic notable once and be done with it.  This opens the door to people who want to flout consensus by revisiting core questions with every new debate.  RJC  TalkContribs 18:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 44) Strong Oppose: SNGS serve a good-faith purpose and in general promote positive development of Wikipedia, as well as encouraging editors to collaborate which is the very nature of Wikipedia. Where they do not, then can easily be fixed. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 45) Oppose - Even if the GNG included all reasonable methods of establishing that a topic is notable (which it currently does not) we would still need SNGs to help identify the particular channels for applying those methods in different fields. --CBD 11:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 46) Oppose - just plain disagree. Andrew Oakley (talk) 12:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 47) Oppose as impractical. I am in agreement with User:RJC on this: absence of specific guidelines leads to repetitious argument. Mangoe (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 48) Oppose With 2,565,876 articles at the time of posting, the general notability guideline is simply to general. The SNG's provide, as Axl states so well "specialist guidelines that are helpful in directing application of the general guideline" Excirial ( Talk, Contribs ) 15:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 49) Strong Oppose - I was not aware of SNGs before, but after reading the arguments herein, I am clearly convinced that they are very important and useful. This proposal would be a huge step in the wrong direction. --16:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 50) Oppose: SNGs definitely have their place.  The GNG sets the standard, but SNGs are often needed to interpret how that standard should be applied to articles dealing in a specific topic area.  SNGs are not substitutes for the GNG, they are adjuncts to it. Blueboar (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 51) Strongly Oppose General Guidelines are exactly that - general, there is no way "one size fits all" and a SNG resolves that issue. Timmccloud (talk) 20:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 52) Oppose. By being abstract, general guidelines may cause problems. Imagine Wikipedia without WP:MUSIC and you get the picture. GregorB (talk) 19:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 53) Oppose. I can see where you're coming from if you're trying to say the global guidelines should be authorative. However, the assertion that therefore subject specific notability guidelines are not needed or useful is a fallacious one. They could provide helpful guidance to editors and a centralised place where the results of discussions on major sources or kinds of sources and things like that pertaining to a specific subject matter are kept, which could save a lot of time and provide some clarity for editors. In summary, I think specific guidelines are useful. Shinobu (talk) 14:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutral on B.4

 * 1) Comment Not sure why someone felt it necessary to add their own proposal that was obviously not going to generate much good will. Every other proposal was put forward to achieve some kind of balance and reach out to different viewpoints, and that's why they made it to this RFC. This is no better than the person who wanted to abolish WP:N, and will be no more successful than that one. Randomran (talk) 03:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral. I am equally apt to second GRBerry's moral support or to oppose this extreme proposal. GRBerry and Randomran express both sides of my mixed feelings sufficiently. I would clearly fall to the side of support if abolishing the SNGs were married with some preservation of their purpose, such as with this proposal that failed to make it into the RfC. Vassyana (talk) 17:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Amen! "Consolidate as many of the notability subguidelines as possible, into a single checklist to determine whether an article is notable or not. WP:Notability should be the only notability guideline, without the confusion of other sub-guidelines." --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That might be the way to go in the future, but until you draft that checklist, it was not a good idea to add this proposal, which is effectively an arguement to throw the baby out with the bathwater.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Gavin, please don't equate proposing an alternate proposal with being a good or bad idea, as that is your subjective opinion -- to which you are entitled. This equally applies to Random's comment elsewhere' inplying some degree of bad faith.  However, there was significant discussion of this concept among others about 18 months ago here at WP:N.  Sadly there is greater energy and enthusiasm in the collective ranks from the subject specific crowd and enthusiasm for condensing to fewer or a single page has waned. If the concept of a list was interesting to enough people then we could quickly draft a proposal -- which comes first the chicken or the omelet? --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Concur with Kevin, though Gavin's underlying observation that the proposal wouldn't mean a whole lot without some idea what this checklist would look like also has teeth. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 03:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Per Vassyana. I've already said above I feel the few really successful sub-guidelines are complements to CSDA7 (non-notable people/groups). I'd like to see more subject-specific resources for editors at all levels, not just AfD. Nifboy (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I think SNG can be useful but should be regarded more like a helpful essay and less like a law. --Itub (talk) 09:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral I support the underlying principle; that the SNGs should not generate exceptions to the GNG, and that any article that meets the GNG will be a worthwhile article.  However, SNGs do have a limited utility, in being able to clarify and expand how to find sources, and what sorts or sources can be helpful or not helpful in meeting the GNG.  So yes and no.  SNGs should not supplant the GNG, but they have their purpose... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  17:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Yes and no Specialized notability guidelines that can override the lunacy of general notability guidelines could be a good thing (as long as they have the possibility to override), but more importantly the whole concept of notability guidelines is hurting Wikipedia, not helping it. Hans Persson (talk) 17:51, 26 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.