Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise/B.5

Proposal B.5: SNGs override GNG
<div style="font-size:100%;max-width:100%;float:left;margin:2px 0px 2px 0px;border:1px solid Proposal: Specific notability guidelines such as WP:MUSIC and WP:Notability (people) override the general notability guideline, WP:N in areas where specific notability guidelines are applicable. That is, if an article on a topic covered by a specific notability guideline passes WP:N but does not pass the specific notability guideline in question, the topic is deemed not notable. Similarly, if an article  on a topic covered by a specific notability guideline passes that specific notability guideline in question but does not pass WP:N,  the topic is deemed notable.
 * 1) AFEEEE;padding:.1em;text-align:left;background-color:#F0FFFF;">

Rationale: As Wikipedia expands and matures and as more topics are covered, specific standards are needed to deal with specific situations that vary widely over different subjects, that appear and are constantly debated in AfDs and that need stable solutions for the project to function smoothly. It is no longer possible to use "one size fits all" approach to notability. The practical utility and importance of WP:N is decreasing and the practical utility and relative importance of SNGs is increasing. Many subject-specific issues of relative weight of various types of sources and also of what kind of coverage/evidence is required to demonstrate notability need to be addressed by SNGs. In some cases, e.g. with local politicians and local public officials, it is necessary for the relevant SNGs (such as WP:BIO) to have a more restrictive standard than the plain reading of WP:N provides. In other cases, such as with athletes, books and academics, SNGs may and do specify criteria that are, in certain situations less restrictive than the plain reading of WP:N provides. A local city councilman in a town of 20,000 people should not be considered notable if the only coverage he received is in the local town newspaper. An athlete who won an olympic medal in a fairly obscure sport is notable even if one cannot find substantial newscoverage about that athlete. An academic who is a fellow of the Royal Society is notable even if a biographical newsarticle about him/her is not available. An academic should not be considered notable if the only significant coverage he received is in the local college newspaper and there is no other substantial evidence of his research having made substantial impact in his field. And so on. WP:N is still quite important, since lots of topics are not covered by SNGs for the moment.


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

Support B.5

 * 1) Support, as the author of B.5. Nsk92 (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, with some qualifications. As I understand it, this is essentially  lex specialis derogat legi generali see  for a better explanation, a standard and natural legal principle, and accords with actual practice, which is why I support it. The problem here is how we are construing WP:N, broadly, when it becomes the same as WP:V, - i.e. don't just make up stuff - or more narrowly, requiring real "substantiality" as is usual. E.g. if an academic is a university president, or wrote many works cited thousands of times, or won a major prize, that verifiable fact is taken to indicate notability, even if the actual size of coverage is only a few sentences that usually otherwise wouldn't pass WP:BIO or WP:N. The problem with Nsk's wording is that it is clearly too restrictive, not the reverse - it can contradict WP:PROF, or WP:BIO as Davewild points out.  In practice, the SNG's are used to include more articles, to define in special cases what should be considered as "substantial coverage" for notability.  Using them to exclude usually makes less sense. If a notable person gets a university job, or a professor becomes notable for some other reason (cf Morrie Schwartz) but would say, fail WP:PROF, should we delete the bio?John Z (talk) 07:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - there's no point in them otherwise. An SNG should be able to describe ways to identify notable topics within their speciality, whether those are based on non-trivial third-party coverage or not.  Whatever they do specify should be verifiable, but it might not have to be strictly third-party or strictly non-trivial as the current interpretation of the GNG requires. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support This is what I honestly thought the status quo is. WP:PROF gives a pretty good example. There are full professors from major universities who might not have anything written about them that we can easily access. However, WP:PROF says they are notable and that we can use something like their university bio to make an article about them. WP:ATHLETE gives us a similar situation. The silver medalist for the pentathlon in 2008. Did he have significant coverage in independent sources? Maybe, but the SNG says he is notable without them. This shouldn't be SNG versus GNG. They are ALL WP:N. We have the GNG which will cover 90% of all articles (really it covers about 99% right now without a functioning fiction SNG) and the SNG for both quick checks and coverage at the margin. "Override" is the wrong word. The right way to look at this is the REVERSE of the WP:NFCC. If something doesn't meet one of the NFCC, it is out. In this case, all we have to do is meet one (either the GNG or a SNG) and it is in. Protonk (talk) 13:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If as you say this proposal meant you have to meet one quideline (either GNG or SNG) then I would be inclined to support but it does not say that. As written it says that regardless of how easily a topic passes the GNG, if it fails a SNG it is not notable. So even if we had loads of coverage in reliable sources to easily write a full article it still would not be notable. This seems silly to me and against what I always thought the notability guidelines were meant to achieve - the ability to write a verifiable, npov, ok size article without original research. Davewild (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... Protonk (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The concern Davewild raises is reasonable but I do not believe that it does or will represent a problem in practice. Surely, the kind of cases you are talking about, with loads of coverage by reliable sources etc, would easily pass any relevant SNG anyway and there would not be a problem. However, for more marginal and problematic cases it is important that SNGs be able to set up more restrictive notability criteria (which take into account relative weight of various types of sources etc) than does WP:N. By its very nature, WP:N is very general and cannot deal with various exceptions and special cases. But it is in fact necessary to deal with them somewhere and the applicable SNGs are the right places for doing that. Otherwise it is far too easy to interpret WP:N in a way that is too inclusive and goes against the consensus on how particular types of subjects are treated. For example, imaging a person who was a local businessman/public official/teacher/etc in a small town with a small town newspaper. Say there were 10-15 articles about that person in that newspaper over his lifetime and then an obituary there as well. A plain reading of WP:N would suggest that that person is notable, while WP:BIO would most likely say that he is not. Similarly, with musicians WP:MUSIC says that a member of a music band is notable if there is sufficient coverage of him/her independent from the band and that otherwise there should be an article about the band rather than a separate article about the person. As far as I know, this is pretty much the consensus position. Yet in this situation it is rather easy to imagine a situation where a member of a notable band would pass WP:N but not WP:MUSIC. Similarly, with academics there are lots of situations where a particular academic receives coverage only in their own institution's college/campus newspapers/newsletters, with no wider coverage, no significant citability of that academic's work. In this situation (and they do come up all the time) the person could arguably pass WP:N but not WP:PROF. Another situation of this kind is with notability of criminal acts. There are no SNGs dealing with this yet but the de facto developing consensus appears to be that a crime that only received local coverage without wide state/national coverage is usually not considered notable. Etc. It is the proper role of SNGs to set up more restrictive criteria for these kinds of cases and I think that in practice in AfD discussions SNGs' requirements take precedence over WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But as written currently the SNGs generally say that if topics meet the GNG they can still be notable. For instance on WP:BIO it says that "Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Notability". This seems to be the status quo as of now. To address some of your specific points, any attempt to write into the guidelines or policies that local coverage is not ok for establishing notability has not been successful. While we might be a bit stricter in requiring more coverage than on other sources if, in the example above, the person has significant coverage in 10 to 15 articles then I think we definitely can have an article on them regardless of if the coverage is local or not (Unless it is a BLP:1E or NOT#NEWS issue of course). For the academic the institutions own newsletter would not be the independent coverage required by the GNG and WP:PROF again refers to the GNG as providing a way to establish notability. Crimes would generally fall under BLP:1E or WP:NOT again unless the coverage was more extensive (either long period of time or more widespread). As members of bands generally the coverage is in relation to the band thus not significant for the individual and if the coverage is just about the individual we would almost certainly have an article about them. I have not noticed many (if any) cases where articles which clearly meet the GNG but fail a SNG have been deleted (except where other policies such as WP:NOT or WP:BLP come into play and they take precedence over the notability guidelines) Davewild (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. SNGs are not in practice and should not be used for exclusion, it would illogically allow local consensus to delete to override global consensus to keep. The problem that Nsk92 suggests, that "it is far too easy to interpret WP:N in a way that is too inclusive", simply does not occur in practice as guidelines are currently interpreted, while the problem Davewild points out - "that regardless of how easily a topic passes the GNG, if it fails a SNG it is not notable" certainly would - I gave some examples. If something only fits into the GNG and no SNG is applicable, the tendency is to require more substantial coverage, to be much tougher. I think the better way to think of things is that passing an SNG implies passing the GNG, that what the SNGs are about is weighing certain kinds of coverage, certain kinds of verified statements - e.g. that an academic or academic journal is highly cited higher than more ordinary statements, like "he is fat and has a great sense of humor", or "it is printed on yellow paper".  If on the other hand, we have a book written about him or it filled with such ordinary statements, it doesn't matter, he or it would clearly pass the GNG, so who cares whether it passes the SNG?John Z (talk) 01:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree; the only way a topic can fail to be included if it meets the GNG is via failing policy, likely WP:NOT; a case in point is Glitch City, an artefact of messng about with a Pokemon game. Glitch City is notable via the GNG, but the content that can be written about it fails WP:NOT#GUIDE (game guide specifically).  In such a case, it is usually appropriate to put that content in the context of a larger topic (as was done here) which helps to keep the amount of discouraged material to a minimum.  --MASEM  01:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support in concept, but I disagree with the wording. The GNG should be a fallback position for when there are no other guidelines that apply to a topic. We should be using "General" in the sense of being non-specific, not in the sense that it is overriding anything. I treat the GNG as "other" when looking for subject notability. As noted above, this leads to the problem of the GNG actually being less strict than some of the specific guidelines. I agree that if a topic meets the GNG, that would be sufficient for inclusion regardless of what the specific guidelines say. We have specific guidelines to establish notability of specific topics. We have the GNG for whatever else is left. As long as the specific guidelines do not undermine WP:5P, there is no reason to try to use the GNG to override them.  Jim Miller  See me 14:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. The general notability guideline is very broad, but it misses the mark on several topics since it tries to treat every type of subject equally when different topics need differentiated treatment. As a consequence, a strict reliance on GNG will tend to overestimate the notability of news stories (which are covered in newspapers primarily because they are newsworthy, not encyclopedic), and underestimate the notability of villages in developing countries (which often have less than perfect sourcing due to lack authors of these secondary sources.) The specific notability criteria may also suffer the problems of the GNG, but in a somewhat mitigated form. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC) [I will add the qualification that I sympathize with the concern Phil Sandifer made in the "oppose" section; when I say SNG > GNG, I am referring to SNGs which have broad community support. Sjakkalle  (Check!)  13:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)]
 * 3) Support. I'm in the same boat an earlier poster was- I thought this was already the case. As for justification, the other posters have handled that well, and I will not bore you with a rehash of what's already been posted. Abyssal (talk) 11:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - This is the most flexible option; the GNG should govern articles not falling into categories governed by the SNGs only. -- : Raphaelmak : [ talk ] [ contribs ] 11:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Let those in the know about a subject decide its notability and relevance to the area of interest. However, there must be controls to prevent cruft-authorizations: the parent project can overrride or modify the child's guidlines with consensus. There must also be well established guidlines for topics that overlap into more than one project, and thus could fall under more than one guideline.  bahamut0013  ♠  ♣   12:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Moving the decision of what is notable or not closer to the subject being discussed is a good thing, given the non-true assumption that notability guidelines is a good thing in the first place. However, the whole concept of notability guidelines is hurting Wikipedia, not helping it. Hans Persson (talk) 17:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Support because this is the approach that allows the most flexibility, which means common sense might prevail over rules more often.-- S Marshall  Talk / Cont  01:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Support wholeheartedly. The example about the city councilman is spot on. — Lincolnite (talk) 10:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Support --Technopat (talk) 11:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - just plain agree. Andrew Oakley (talk) 12:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Support - --Axel (talk) 12:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Strongly Support - This makes total sense, when you take the time to review something in specific, you will always find ways of improving general rules. Timmccloud (talk) 20:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose B.5

 * 1) Oppose. WP:N sets the absolute minimum for a topic to be suitable for an article. What would an encyclopedia write about a topic that has not been covered in independent sources? --B. Wolterding (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me comment a bit more here on this aspect of B.5. It is true that in most cases applying B.5 will result in more restrictive interpretation of notability than WP:N provides. That is probably true, and appropriately so, for most biographies. However, there also are situations, coming from the fact that different subjects are covered by reliable sources in very different ways, where SNGs do need to define a different standard of notability that may in some cases be lower than what WP:N requires. The most stark example of this sort that I know of (and where applicable SNG does not exist yet) is the issue of notability of academic journals. This problem was discussed about a year ago at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals. That debate clearly shows that WP:N is inadequate in evaluating notability of academic journals. On one hand, academic journals are considered to be the gold standard of a reliable source as defined in WP:V and WP:RS. It is clearly in the interests of WP as a project to have some basic factual info about decent academic journals, such as who publishes them, when they were founded, what subjects they cover, what the impact factor is, if they are indexed by Science citation Index or other appropriate academic index/review publications (such as MathSciNet), if there are notable/famous scholars on the editorial board, etc. having such info is very useful when validity and relative weight of various sources cited in other WP articles are evaluated. Yet the reality is that virtually all WP articles about academic journals do not pass WP:N. The reason is that in academia there is absolutely no tradition of writing about an academic journal. There are no industry awards, like Pulitzers (in fact, unlike ordinary periodicals, academic journals do not have a staff of journalists producing new content; instead they publish papers submitted to them by other scholars), no industry publications, and the scholars themselves essentially never ever write about a journal. They publish their papers in academic journals, they cite papers of others published in academic journals, but they basically never write about the journals themselves. It is simply not done. I looked at the situation in my own field, Mathematics, and found that even for the most prestigious journals, like Annals of Mathematics, Inventiones Mathematicae, Journal of the American Mathematical Society, Acta Mathematica, coverage of these journals as such is essentially nonexistent (although there are thousands of citations), so a literal reading of WP:N would indicate that they do not pass. Most mathematicians would probably be willing to give up a year's salary to have a paper published in one of these journals, but they do not put such thoughts in writing. Clearly, this situation is counter-productive and in such a case an SNG defining a different notability standard is needed so that one does not have to use WP:IAR each time the matter comes up in an AfD.      There is no SNG dealing with this issue yet but it does need resolution (probably by adding relevant provisions to one of the existing SNGs such as WP:BK). In a situation like   this it is reasonable to base notability decisions on some other objective and verifiable data such as the impact factor of the journal, its ranking in Science citation Index, whether or not it is widely carried by academic libraries, whether or not it is fully indexed by the relevant academic index/review publications (such as MathSciNet and Zentralblatt MATH), etc. E.g. the journal Inventiones Mathematicae is consistently ranked among the top 10 by the impact factor among the several hundred math journals indexed in Journal Citation Reports. Surely, that should be sufficient proof of notability. This example shows that the differences between conventions in coverage of different subjects are quite substantial and they need to be taken into account appropriately, by the relevant SNGs. Both common sense and the interests of Wikipedia as a project require this. Nsk92 (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose If a topic meets the GNG we should be able to have an article on it (unless it fails a policy such as WP:NOT). Except for where policies are failed there is no reason why if there is significant coverage in reliable sources of a topic why we cannot have an article on that topic. I thought the purpose of notability guidelines was to identify where there is sufficient material for us to write a neutral, verifiable article. SNGs should not be written to prevent this. The example used in the rationale demonstrates my point as WP:BIO says local politicians are generally notable if they meet the GNG. Davewild (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Any SNG which attempts to permit material which does not meet the GNG is invalid on it's face. SNGs should serve only as lists of exclusions, and should never attempt to include material that has not been covered by multiple reliable third-party sources.Kww (talk) 21:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Too many SNGs that are simply stupid have come through the ranks over time to allow this. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose While I agree that the SNGs should be allowed to be more restrictive than the GNG, I do not believe that they should be less restrictive. I believe WP:N should provide the bare minimum for a topic. Karanacs (talk) 21:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose I see the primary purpose of the general notability criteria as to ensure that the long standing inclusion policies of verifiability, reliable sourcing and original research are kept, I don't think any more specific guideline should be able to "outrank" these. Guest9999 (talk) 09:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose on the grounds that this a plea for special treatment of specific topics by so called '"expert" opinion (sometimes dressed up as the "consensus" view. There have been many attempts to relieve editors of the burden of citing reliable secondary sources as evidence that a subject is notable on the gounds that notability can be inherited/presumed/acknowledge if an expert says it can (which it can't). However, so called "expert" opinion on the notability of a topic is self-referencing, and can only be proven to be correct where reliable secondary sources are cited in support of this opinion. I think we should have a general cleanup of SNGs so that the presumption that objective evidence of relaible secodnary sources is inferior to "expert" opinion may be led to rest. Afterall, was it not expert opinion that thought the world was flat? In my view, it is far better to stand on the shoulders of giants, rather than on the opinions of quacks and charlatans. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability is not being said to be inherited, and since you linked to it, I'd like to draw your attnetion to WP:INHERITED:
 * Often, a separate article is created for formatting and display purposes; however, this does not imply an "inherited notability" per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation, such as with books and albums.
 * -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 14:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I... given that, how has this debate continued for months? Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In response to Zappernapper, if an SNG came up with a set of rules that provide objective evidience that a subject is notable, or inherits it from a more notable subject, then I would agree with this proposition. However, as SNGs rely on expert opinion in support of the assumption that the notability of their subject matter is inherited/presumed/acknowledged, either we come up with a set of rules to support treatment, or we all agree that actually only GNG is the only objective inclusion criteria. It seems to me that this proposal is a radical departure from the Status Quo. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Switched from support. I didn't read it closely enough. Protonk (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. If a topic meets an applicable SNG, there is a reasonable expectation that the topic is notable and that sources do exist. However, that does not mean we can state as fact that the topic is notable. Similarly, if a topic passess the GNG but not the SNGs, then the validity of the SNGs should be reconsidered, as it becomes apparent that we've imposed arbitrary guidelines that are no longer reflective of the real world. –Black Falcon (Talk) 17:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose as overly restrictive on some parts, overly inclusive on others, and broadly non-sensical. I can think of a variety of situations where this guideline would lead to rediculous results. Sometimes, a subject belongs to one category (sports players, for instance) but is notable for something completely coincidental. His failure to advance in his career should never be a reason to delete his article if he still passes the GNG. Further, allowing an SNG to override a failure to meet the GNG allows editors to create and edit SNGs at a whim, and the threshold for inclusion becomes "having enough editors who like the topic." At all times there must be a subordination to the GNG, or some sensible overriding principle in crafting SNGs. The very examples given in the rationale for this proposal demonstrate that it is meant to pander to individual's personal opinions on what specific subjects should be allowed an article. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Subordinate rules may not override the main policy. If necessary, there's IAR. NVO (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose when SNG and GNG conflict, GNG should take precedence. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 13:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Strong Oppose would theoretically make it possible to completely override and negate the need for reliable third party sources on a topic. I definitely think we need SNGs, but this offers zero guidance about how far they can stretch and demolish our basic requirements for sources. As a precisionist, I feel strongly that this goes too far over the "avoid bureaucracy" line to "pursue chaos and confusion". Randomran (talk) 21:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose No. Just No. --Alvestrand (talk) 12:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose To one who has considered the issues extensively, "Just No" does feel like adequate explanation. To one who hasn't, it won't be comprehensible.  The GNG and SNGs exist to provide guidance (hence they are guidelines) on when it is possible to meet the policies WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS.  Those three policies are non-negotiable and can't be violated no matter what level of local consensus exists.  The GNG is the general guidance on the articles for which it is possible to meet those policies.  No SNG can open the door to violating these policies, so SNGs can not be more permissive than the GNG.  GRBerry 17:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose I agree with Fuchs. --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 02:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose as on earlier similarly worded item. SNGs do not supercede WP:N. WP:N is the base, SNGs can add all walls but not become the foundation. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 02:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose. The WP:N standard of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject are intended to demonstrate meeting V, NPOV, and NOR. I can easily see instances where sub-guidelines don't lead one to presume notability but the subject still meets WP:N and the content policies. I cannot foresee an instance where an article meets WP:N but a sub-guideline demonstrates that it actually does not meet content policies but if that occurs, then the argument can be made at AfD that despite meeting WP:N, it violates policy and the rationale of the sub-guideline can be used as evidence. Double Blue  (Talk) 04:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) oppose This proposal is madness, this proposal allows for a SNG that fully contradicts the GNG to exist. This proposal represents the end of the WP:N. Great comment by Phil Sandifer, too many SNGs have permited such a proposal to ever seeing the light of day. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦  05:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose - per what the sub-guidelines and N say, which is the opposite. The SNG are designed to allow in more articles, not less. The SNG allow for the overcoming of biases inherent in the GNG, but if an article passes GNG then you never need to go any farther as it is presumed notable. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose per just about all of the opposes. It's nonsensical to consider the SNGs as restrictions on the GNG - especially since it is so clearly not their original purpose.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 08:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose. The GNG should cover it all. Binksternet (talk) 09:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose. If something meets WP:N then it should be included, regardless of what the SNGs say. Waggers (talk) 10:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose -- While I might support the part about a subject meeting SNG criteria overriding GNG, the notion that a subject which meets GNG criteria could be rejected based on failure to meet SNG criteria is nonsense. older ≠ wiser 12:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose - if the general notability guideline is not working for a particular field, the debate needs to be had there. A distributed approach attempting to expand it will only lead to confusion and inconsistency. Warofdreams talk 12:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose. What the purpose of the GNG would be? To cover articles that aren't covered by any of the SNGs? And what if the scopes of two SNGs overlap? If an article is in the scope of both, which one will it have to conform to? Also, what if some SNGs became significantly stricter than others? Would that mean that different topics will have vastly different levels of coverage, more than is justificable? -- A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ! !  12:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose. If something meets WP:N then it should be included, regardless of what the SNGs say.--EchetusXe (talk) 13:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose WP:NOT should be the only negative inclusion criteria; SNGs should simply supplement the GNGs positive inclusion criteria. Jclemens (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 22) Strong oppose SNGs specify how WP:N should be applied within specific areas, but cannot override it or contradict it. To use an analogy, WP:N is like the Constitution and the SNGs are like local lawmakers.  If a SNG is in conflict with WP:N, it should be fixed or, failing that, removed. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 23) Oh HECK no... This is the inherent problem with the SNGs.  The GNG is so ludicrously broad that if the SNG can define instances where a subject would not meet it, but still merit inclusion, well that just opens the door to creating articles where 100% of the information contained therein is either trivial, or unverifiable or both.  No guideline should ever allow the creation of an article that contains no content that is neither substantial nor verifiable.  If A subject can't meet both of those concerns, it shouldn't have an article!  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  17:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 24) Oppose As I've said above, SNGs are there to further specific Wikiprojects's interests. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 25) Oppose For all the reasons I have outlined already.  SilkTork  *YES! 19:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 26) Oppose I support SNGs, but I am also aware they cannot actually override the GNG. --Angelo (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 27) Oppose - Army1987 also makes an excellent point where he points out SNGs can overlap. Besides, as I've stated, I don't support SNGs. -- Explodicle (T/C) 19:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 28) Oppose. While I'm strongly in favor of SNGs, if a topic passes WP:N, it's notable. End of discussion.--Fabrictramp | talk to me  22:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 29) Oppose. One more time: I oppose the idea of SNGs altogether.  We need a strong, universal, easy-to-communicate GNG. Iterator12n   Talk 02:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 30) Oppose GNG should apply if is applicable. If an article passes the GNG but not the applicable SNG, then the SNG is flawed. Wronkiew (talk) 02:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 31) Oppose The specific guidelines should interpret WP:N, not override it.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 14:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 32) Oppose. I would say that if a subject passes either one of the GNG or the SNG, it is deemed notable. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 14:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 33) Oppose. The role of SNGs should be to clarify and interpret WP:N for particular types of articles, not to override it. Guidelines do not exist to overrule each other. They are there to reflect consensus, not determine it. That includes reflecting the consensus interpretation of other guidelines. Geometry guy 16:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 34) Oppose - This seems silly to me. SNGs should provide clarification and additional possible qualifications for specific types of notable subjects.  They shouldn't replace the GNG in entirety. &mdash;   X   S   G   18:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 35) Oppose Previous opposer got it dead right. -- Philcha (talk)
 * 36) Oppose. General notability guidelines should take precedence. As XSG states above, specific notability guidelines should be to provide clarification on issues and additional 'possible qualifications for specific types of notable subjects'. Cau  lde  10:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 37) Oppose SGNs are or refining WP:N, not to make it moot. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 38) Oppose This is an attempt to allow defining notability downward. --John Nagle (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 39) Oppose. SNGs should complement, not overrule.  Axl  ¤  [Talk]  16:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 40) Oppose SNGs should give guidance in interpreting the GNG, but a failure to meet the criteria of an SNG while satisfying the GNG reveals a flaw in the way the SNG is worded, not an absence of notability.  We can have specific rules (without the drawbacks of specificity) precisely because of our more general one.  I'm also not comfortable allowing SNGs to override the GNG, making things notable that otherwise wouldn't be.  I can understand saying that major awards count as evidence of notability when it comes to actors, something we might not want to allow self-promoting businessmen to take advantage of, but I don't see this as an expansion of the GNG and so not an instance of one trumping the other.  RJC  TalkContribs 18:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 41) Strong oppose: If I read this properly, it basically says "any topic which passes either the GNG or a SNG is notable". I see this as promoting conflict between SNGs and the GNG, when really there ought to be harmony. The GNG sets a baseline minimum; SNGs get more specific. SNGs are largely established by Wikiprojects, and though well-intentioned their will cannot supercede the consensus of the community as a whole (as embodied in the GNG). Doing so is providing opportunities to put the cart before the horse, and promotes points of argument between project members and non-members. We need to be striving to make the GNG and SNGs harmonious, not providing loopholes for them to supercede and contradict one another. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 42) Oppose - Balkanized standards aren't standards at all; GNG offers consistency across disciplines. --EEMIV (talk) 02:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 43) Oppose - As I see it, SNGs should supplement, augment, and enhance the GNG when necessary because of certain situations wherein the General is not wholly relevant to the specific topic. The GNG should not just be thrown out, however, because it is an inconvenience. Specifying additional third-party sources that are acceptable on a particular subject matter makes sense. Coming up with entirely new ways of determining notability or otherwise dramatically altering GNG is not necessary and is potentially dangerous to the quality of the encyclopedia.  --16:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 44) Oppose - SNGs should not over ride GNG, neither should GNG over ride the SNGs. They should work in harmony with GNG setting the initial criteria, and the SNGs discussing the specifics of how that relates to a given topic area. Blueboar (talk) 19:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 45) Oppose - opens the flood gates to wikiprojects coming up with all sorts of standards which could violate some of the 5 pillars. NJGW (talk) 05:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 46) strongly oppose - floodgates as per author directly above. Also, I've seen that SNGs have in the past been edited by special-interest editors, often to the point that almost anything will pass the SNG, without any comment from the wider editing public until it's far too late. Nothing should be allowed to override WP:N. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 47) Strongly oppose. When I read ‘if an article ... passes WP:N but does not pass the specific notability guideline ..., the topic is deemed not notable’ I initially thought I had misread it; see also one of my remarks above. This proposal would exclude material that would be okay for inclusion according to the global guidelines and this I consider unacceptable. It also would allow individual wikiprojects to broaden what is considered notable in their area limitlessly. As I stated in remarks above, I think subject spefic guidance is useful but not if it contradicts the global guidelines. And if there is something wrong with the global guidelines, we are better of fixing them instead. Shinobu (talk) 14:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutral on B.5

 * 1) Neutral I do believe that there will be times when something can pass a SNG and not the GNG and be appropriate for Wikipedia, but that is a (very?) rare situation. -- Ned Scott 04:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Can't really make a call on this one; seems somewhat "six of one, half a dozen of the other" and self-evident. 23skidoo (talk) 05:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Either is sufficient once my caveat from earlier is taken into account. Stifle (talk) 13:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Articles should meet either of the standards. There are cases where someone might fail WP:ATHLETE, for example, but has significant coverage in other independent sources. Some Olympians might have been a national hero but didn't succeed at the Olympics.  Royal broil  14:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say both rather than either, there are hundreds of 8-14 year old footballers at big clubs destined never to play a game. Many of them have been written about in the national press and international sports press, they could pass WP:N with all this hot air. Does this encyclopaedia really need football biographies about hypothetical guy who played for a Premier League youth development team until the age of 15, got injured, then released without ever playing a game, who now works as a plumber and holidays in Corfu? E P 14:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What Royalbroil wrote. --74.125.60.1 (talk) 17:49, 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.