Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise/B.6

Proposal B.6: SNG criteria support reasonable presumptions of notability
Proposal: Subject notability guidelines act as complementary criteria to the general notability guideline. Meeting SNG criteria does not exempt an article from merge discussions or other common means of reaching consensus about content. Instead, they offer criteria that support a reasonable presumption that sufficient sources exist to support an article. Failed efforts to find appropriate sources should be weighed on balance with the presumption that they exist.

Rationale: There is no deadline, so rational suppositions about article potential are appropriate. Notability is the presumption that sufficient independent sources exist to satisfy the content principles of Wikipedia. The general notability guideline is the most direct way of forming that presumption. The subject guidelines provide additional sensible reasons for holding such a presumption. SNGs were originally written by experienced AfD editors reviewing their institutional memory, noting general indicators of article viability. A merge discussion and consensus remains a viable option in cases where time has been allowed for improvement, editors have exercised due diligence in searching for sources, and it seems evident that sufficient sources are not available (e.g. the Pokemon character merge).


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

Support B.6

 * 1) Support as proposer. This is an attempt to present all notability guidelines in the context of a coherent principle and purpose. I believe it is a reasonable compromise between various opinions and positions, finding a middle ground between "wikifactions". Vassyana (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Support Bingo. We found the right bowl of porridge.  This should describe common practice and will be a nice method to bring the SNG's into the fold more "officially".  Protonk (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - An excellent formulation. The SNGs can tell us when we should avoid deleting content due to a lack of coverage in readily-available online sources (i.e. when there is a reasonable expectation that such coverage exists in print sources or in restricted online databases), but they do not override the requirement for sources. –Black Falcon (Talk) 17:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. I can't think of a better way to word it, or any comments to add. I believe this proposal lacks all of the failures on which I've opposed the other proposals in this section. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Support By far the best formulation discussed here (one I can support!). Reflects the better practice and is a reasonable compromise and it's good that the rationale has an explanation of what the notability guidelines are here for. Editors can disagree over where the balance should be struck or how much time should be given but this is good - we are never going to all be in total agreement and anything more exact will reduce support for this as a compromise. I think Masem's comments below have weight and my absolute best preference wording would be slightly different but overall this is a good wording for agreement. Davewild (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Yes Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. In a word: Content. Nifboy (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Aye. This would probably bring WP:N in line with WP:NOTDIRECTORY: Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted. Hiding T 09:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Support, well said. NVO (talk) 13:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Weak support: The principle I like here is that "SNGs are synonymous with 'sources probably exist'". That means you can't just write any old SNG like "all songs are notable". You'd have to convince people that "usually if the song is a gold record by a notable artist, there's at least SOME coverage out there in reliable secondary sources". I'm concerned that saying "SNGs show when sources probably exist" is akin to saying "SNGs show notability", so why not just say "SNGs assert notability"? But I think this proposal begins to address that by essentially saying that "if we spend a lot of time trying to find actual sources and just can't do it, maybe 'sources probably exist' has just been disproven". For articles that meet the SNG, but not the GNG, I'd hope that constructive arguments would focus on how much time and effort has gone into looking for sources. But I'm concerned that arguments would turn to non constructive proof by assertion: "even though no one has been able to find any sources, the SNG declares that sources probably exist, so you're not allowed to discuss the GNG anymore." The wording would have to encourage truly measurable and constructive discussion, rather than the latter kind of blind assertion. Randomran (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Support with Randomran's caveats. The amount and type of effort to look for good sources will be part of the process of weighing the failure versus the presumption - which weighing and judgment may start with tagging, at the article's talk page, or even AFD.  If reliable third party sources aren't actually produced after tagging and/or discussion, AFD is highly appropriate.  GRBerry 17:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Weak support "Weak" because I've seen editors assert that GoogleHits and AmazonHits are a reasonable presumption for the existance of reliable sources for any type of topic, "support" because there are (hopefully) enough wiki editors who know that GoogleHits & Co can also mean a lot of selfpublished WP:NOT junk, especially in fiction and popular culture topics. I also think the wording of this proposal already prevents a lot of carte blanche misuse. – sgeureka t•c 18:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Support I'm happy with this. The problem working with offline sources - especially those that relate to older subjects - is that it can be relatively difficult to dig up the necessary sources within a set time frame. This leads to a bias towards articles on recent subjects or subjects which have tended to receive coverage in more readily accessible formats, and can result in significantly unbalanced coverage. This proposal provides an out, and thus can help fill redress some of the bias. Nevertheless, it is dependent on the quality of the SNGs, otherwise the threat raised by Kww becomes very real: the SNGs need to provide a solid, justifiable and preferably objective basis for the presumption that sources will exist. Poor SNGs will be particularly problematic, as it is (virtually) impossible to show that "X meets the SNG, but in spite of that no sources can exist". The burden of proof has been moved to the SNGs, thus need to be able to trust them. (On the plus side, mergers do provide an out of sorts). - Bilby (talk) 07:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As a comment here, the argument that "sources aren't online" doesn't fly well; sourcing articles properly may require some physical legwork to get the physical copy if it is known to exist and needed for the article. Now, I do point out that we are talking about a difference between a topic that can be easily sourced and just hasn't had sources added, and a topic that should likely have sources that have yet to be found. In the first case, we are generally lenient and don't call for deletion as there's no deadline; the second case is what is being addressed by this proposal.  --MASEM  12:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's true. I probably worded it badly, but I expect legwork when doing an article. I meant what you said. :) Articles which can be easily sourced we source, and do so whether that means relying on online sources or on known offline ones. The value I see in this proposal is that it allows articles which we can reasonably presume to have sources to exist, even though the sources are hard to find. And generally, the "hard to find" sources relate to older subjects, and are generally offline or not indexed online. - Bilby (talk) 12:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - in most situations, and support more strongly where this principle is used to overcome systematic bias. However, acknowledge the problems raised by the oppose 'voters' - this is open to abuse. PhilKnight (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I think the accepted SNGs are generally well thought through. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Of all the proposals on the page right now, this is really the only one that comes close to reflecting actual practice. --erachima talk 12:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support — a reasonable proposal.  sephiroth bcr ( converse ) 16:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Support as per the rationale given by proposal. Double Blue  (Talk) 04:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Support: Helps to clarify things. Walkerma (talk) 05:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Second Choice Support per Philknight. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 08:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. While the project has no deadline, AfD discussions do and it can be difficult to find reliable sources in the time required, even if they do exist somewhere (and thus the subject is notable, even if it can't be proven so).  This allows for such articles to exist. Waggers (talk) 10:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Seems like an acceptable compromise. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 12:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Support seems reasonable and to my understanding reflects actual practice. older ≠ wiser 12:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Support - the perfect use for SNGs. Consistent and useful for editors. Warofdreams talk 12:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Seems sensible.--EchetusXe (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Least imperfect of the options. I think that the presumption route permits for reasonable editor discretion to argue for keeping articles that experience tells us are almost certainly are notable, but are lacking in readily available online references of the type that we normally are able to find on demand during an AfD. I would like to see some consideration for the premise that the presumption can be rebutted - i.e. if Art A passes AfD 1 on this basis in January, it may not get the same pass for AfD 2 held a resonable period time (say, six month to a year) later. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  19:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Support - a good compromise--Cailil  talk 19:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Support I am impressed with the wording of this proposal, and while I sit on the fence on many of the arguments in this 'B' category (both sides make fine arguments), I can find no fault with this. -Verdatum (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Support This seems like a reasonable, if somewhat confusing, definition of SNGs. Wronkiew (talk) 02:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) Support - just makes sense. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  03:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) Support - Yes, we should apply these rules rationally and sometimes that means a one-size-fits-all solution doesn't work. SNGs help define the way in which the GNG applies to a subject, and the GNG is moderated given the subject. This reflects common practice and cuts wikilawyering. Adam McCormick (talk) 06:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) Support as a good way of articulating that the SNGs complement and reinforce the GNG. I have read the !votes against this proposal, but I think they are better taken as objections to poorly contrived SNGs.  Naturally every SNG must reach consensus and can be challenged if it is producing poor results.  A well-conceived SNG can balance our desire for comprehensive coverage against that for well-sourced articles.  I think the opposition may be demanding too short a time horizon; if sources are not present in an article now that does not mean none exist anywhere in the world.  At the same time, I don't think articles should languish indefinitely with no sourcing, and perhaps there should be some effort to standardize time frames for demonstrating notability.  Fletcher (talk) 14:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) Support - This seems to be a well-thought out alternative proposal. Sources on older sports related topics exist and could usually be found with archival research, but that is difficult to pull off sometimes, especially within the narrow time span of an AfD. matt91486 (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 21) Support - The domain-specific notability pages help give evidence of notability, without needing to find the absolute proof. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 22) Strong support As per Tilby's excellent comment: "The problem working with offline sources - especially those that relate to older subjects - is that it can be relatively difficult to dig up the necessary sources within a set time frame. This leads to a bias towards articles on recent subjects or subjects which have tended to receive coverage in more readily accessible formats, and can result in significantly unbalanced coverage." --Technopat (talk) 11:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 23) Strong support Best proposal of all. Reasonable middle ground. It addresses problems with people refusing to merge articles. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 24) Support - Best, relies on reasonable editors making good decisions locally. betsythedevine (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 25) Support: This seems to sum up my feelings on the subject. It is always important, especially with new articles, to consider whether sufficient third-party sources might exist which could be added to the article. SNGs go a long way towards forming the presumption of whether such sources do or don't exist. This seems to be the best description of how SNGs actually work, at least in my experience. Of course, sources should be added after a reasonable length of time, and/or if challenged or demanded (via maintenance tags or AfDs). If in those situation the sources don't turn up, then deletion or merger is certainly an option, which this proposal seems to take into account. Basically I doubt I could have said it better myself. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 26) Support - Any impartial means of showing likely notability is valid... not just the 'significant independent coverage' standard. Yes, most such means, definitely including 'significant independent coverage', contain inherent biases, but we should be using all available methods of determination rather than one at the exclusion of everything else. --CBD 11:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 27) Strong Support - This makes sense. Timmccloud (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose B.6

 * 1) Weak Oppose: I agree that this appears to be a very common line of reasoning, and one that I believe is without malicious intent. It is, however, still highly prone to abuse. The geographic editors have pushed this past the limit, with their claim that every place that anyone has ever lived is notable, because there must be a writeup about it somewhere. It needs to be made explicit that someone has to be able to pony up the sources, and, if no one can, the article can't be kept. I think that these presumptions should be enough to save an article from PROD, but once it gets to AFD time, the sources have to actually be found. No source, no article.Kww (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This is in incisive and well thought out reason to oppose. I should note that I agree with Kww's concerns here.  Having a guideline like this means that some serious community attention will be focused on the individual SNG's.  That, to me, is a good thing, so it did not cause me to oppose. Protonk (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is a well-thought oppose. I'd also echo Protonk's point that an approach like this would focus additional community attention on the SNGs. The merge solution was focused on as a compromise because it would be likely to preserve content while discouraging stand-alone articles for topics lacking sufficient sources. Is there some way that your concerns could be addressed and/or alleviated while sticking to the middle road approach? Vassyana (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I just want to pick up on one point; you say "once it gets to AFD time, the sources have to actually be found". What sort of time-scale would you be looking at here? I'm wondering if, like Prod, we could instigate some sort of category, a holding pen, of articles without sources. Given we now have hidden categories, this may be more plausible. What I'm thinking of, is take an article to afd.  If it doesn't have sources but people assert sources can be found, an admin can close as keep for thirty days for good faith efforts.  We then categorise in a manner similar to prod, and after 30 days delete all articles still in the category. Furthermore, we can adapt DRV to this: any article where the sources are found after such a deletion can be restored through discussion at DRV.  If consensus is that the sources are okay, restore article, bob's your uncle. Makes deletion more a database management system rather than a battle for the soul of Wikipedia. Sort of like the junk mail folder, we all have one, we just all probably empty it on a different timescale. I think 30 days is probably about right, since it's too short for inclusionists and too long for deletionists :). I mean, since I've been at Wikipedia I can count on one hand the number of articles which I've created without inserting references. That's the practise we have to stop.  We have to encourage people to add sources, even if it means asking them on their talk page and then recording somewhere that this IP added this info based on his memory of events twenty years ago. Maybe we would have to rethink deleting talk pages of deleted articles, although I can see where that may cause issues with BLP concerns. A solution to that would be to have a draft space accessible to admins and responsible editors.  Come to think of it, that's what deletion currently is, although not officially. Hiding T 09:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In general to all the above and in light of my comment to this below - Remember that we state that in WP:V that we have "If a topic is not covered in reliable third-party sources, WP should not have an article about it.". Considering that and the positive spin that I suggest SNGs have, then we can strongly assert that topics that should be included by the SNGs due to our purpose as an encyclopedia but cannot be justified due to lack of third-party sources should be merged with similar other topics.  Or in another way, we can allow a wider range of topics to be covered but bearing in mind that those only based off no or minimal external sources should be presented in a list/table format with redirects (what I hope people can consider is the compromise needed).  The GNG still represents the case for any topic at all.   --MASEM  12:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's certainly supported in policy and guidance at WP:EP, WP:NOTDIR and WP:SALAT, so I think we need to simply work out how to codify that policy and guidance into WP:N. Hiding T 12:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I've got it; I've always been a proponent of having inclusion guidelines which generally are more positive than notability, and I think this is exactly where it fits into play. The inclusion guidelines would state that topics that meet it (below) should be covered in WP, but only merit a full article if validated via WP:Vs need for third-party sources; otherwise, such topics should be grouped or merged into a large topic that does have its own article.  A topic is to be included if 1) it meets the GNG (and therefore 99% of the time merits own article) or 2) it meets criteria for inclusion laid out in what are the SIGs: Sub-inclusionary guidelines, what the SNGs would become under this approach.  The SIGs would still need to be vetted to 1) reduce their number as to make the criteria for inclusion as straight-forward as possible and 2) assert they have global consensus through further discussion - I'm not expecting the strong ones like BIO and ATHLETE to change much but this puts, say, FICT in a new light.  Inclusion is still a guideline, so that topics that aren't GNG or meeting the SIGs but obviously need to be included may spark a new discussion of a modified SIG or a new SIG.    A transition to this from the current notability framework is not difficult and would not be disruptive beyond the rewriting of guideline pages.  The only point that we would need to make sure has global consensus is that groupings of topics that fail GNG but meet a SIG (list, table, or whatever format) are considered appropriate: these are topics we should be covering but they lack the sources to fully cover them, so they are presented in this format. (It should be noted that a topic that meets a SIG but not GNG still needs to pass WP:V and other policies, even if the V is through primary sources; a thought to take into re-examining the SNG/SIGs).  And because these lists would exist we need to make sure that the SIGs include both whitelists of topics and blacklists of topics; for example, in FICT, I can support whitelist coverage of major and minor/recurring characters, but one-offs are blacklisted.  I know these lists aren't populary with some, but I really think this is where the compromise sits, and by taking this approach of considering V and other policies, we can make sure WP has broad, verifiable coverage without too many excessive details.  --MASEM  13:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This is exactly where my mind has been headed, to be honest. WP:FICT worked well when it told people what to merge; we'd just be returning to that approach if not that wording. I certainly think there is merit in discussing which topics are suitable for lists.  Hiding T 13:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just as a point of accuracy, even though you are correct that are closest approach to FICT was saying what goes in a list, I don't think we want to approach it exactly like that; we want to say what topics should be covered (including those, due to lack of substantial article per WP:V, should be covered is a list form). (I realize this is falling under Kww's oppose vote but I think this that the point raised this is what started me on this in that we can work this all out with inclusion describing what gets covered, and V describing what gets a full article). --MASEM  14:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose As this proposal is virtually the same as B.3., as both proposals are based on the assumption that notability can be inhertied/presumed/acknowledged (which it can't). Although it is current practise for SNGs to define when sources are presumed to exist (e.g. if a movie wins an Oscar), this argument is fatally flawed, as it is self-referencing argument which can only be substantiated when reliable secondary sources can be cited to support the "expert" opinion. A presumption of notability does not work in the absence of reliable secondary sources, as such presumption may be based on spurious claims that cannot be substantiated (e.g. where a topic is said to be notable because of dubious award). 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 to determine which subjects are notable.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it does do that. I think it is seeking to balance the multiple reliable sources of WP:N and the single third party source of WP:V.  You can source the fact that a movie has won an Oscar. That may be all you can source about it.  Some people would therefore state we should not have an article on the movie.  Some people would say we shouldn't.  Since we can't let a panel of experts decide whether something which is sourced and is verifiable is to be excluded from Wikipedia, we have a problem. Don't we? Hiding T 09:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If there is no evidence of notability, or no sources at all, that is the problem, as you can't write an article without content, and you can't provide analyis, commentary or criticism without reliable secondary sources. Even if an expert can't write an article that complies with Wikipedia content principles if there is no verifiable information. An example of this is the stub Ashley Fernee has virtually no content, which sugests to me that the so called "expert" opinion that notability under WP:BIO is inhertited/presumed/acknowledged cannot be substantiated.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This is moving teh debate on. Now we're into discussion over WP:STUB and WP:PERMA and listifying. Our guidance at WP:STUB appears to me to indicate two routes, to merge or delete. (Some people may argue it also allows the stub to be kept.) Now it all comes down to what side of the fence you sit on.  Are you a mergist or a deletionist.  Do we merge and redirect Ashley Fernee to List of Adelaide Football Club players or do we delete it?  What makes our coverage of the football club complete? Where does our comprehensiveness stop? This is the very nub of the argument.  The middle road appears to me to be merge and redirect. Have the list.  It's a suitable topic for a list, and seems in keeping with editing policy, discriminate listing and acceptable list topics.  You may disagree.  And there's the rub.  Who is right? Whose opinion is of more value?  The person whose opinion is that verifiable information should be deleted or the person whose opinion is that verifiable information should be retained? What context frames that debate?  The context of doing the right thing, of improving the encyclopedia, since that's our purpose. Of writing from a neutral point of view.  If we list or record some players for the club, surely we have to list all, otherwise we place a distinction upon those we list, saying they are of more worth than others. So the answer would be to listify.  We therefore give each player their due weight. Some get articles because they have greater achievements; others get a list entry since they only have the one. This tends to work better for real people than fictional characters, mind. But then that is as it should be. Hiding T 13:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with Hiding's view that we should "listify" topics whose notability is unproven. In my view, if no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it, and this applies to lists as well; if there are no reliable secondary sources to justify the existence of list, then why should we allow lists that are a directly derived from primary sources that fail WP:NOT or lists that are a synthesis multiple primary sources that fail WP:OR (e.g. List of Adelaide Football Club players)? I fail to see why Hiding thinks that such list cruft is appropriate if it fails Wikipedia content policies as well as WP:N.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Your approach also breaches Wikipedia content policies. We have reliable third party sources for an article on Adelaide Football Club players.  Your approach seems to be that we should never ever use primary source for anything, which flat out contradicts all our policies.  Hiding T 09:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think accussing other editors of breaches of policy serves not useful purpose. Wikipedia says that if no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it, but it does not say you cannot cite primary sources. Of course you can cite primary sources, and why you would think I am against this, I have no idea. The List of Adelaide Football Club players does not cite any sources at all, nor does it cite any sources as evidence of notablity. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you think accusing other editors of breaches of policy serves no useful purpose stop being a pot and making me a kettle. Here's one for you. Superman, featured article, humongous references, no question regarding notability. A section on the publication history of the character is needed to ensure coverage is comprehensive, and as part of that comprehensiveness a list of the comics Superman has been published in is also of value to understand the publishing phenomenon the character has been.  All of which can be sourced, but the list is too long to fit into the main page, which itself is already too long. So the list, which if placed in the main article, is notable by virtue of covering a topic, Superman, which has reliable sources, is split.  Should the list be kept or deleted? Why? If Adelaide Football Club meets the GNG, then a complete list of players at that club makes our coverage neutral, unbiased and is entirely referenceable; if we can't cite that a player played for the club, he shouldn't be on the list because that's original research.  But we don't have to cite the fact that he played for the club to secondary sourcing; for this fact we can use primary source material per WP:V; a club website or a club history.  I wouldn't use personal testimony from the player, per WP:V and WP:RS. So, here an application of the GNG, a guideline, contradicts our core policies, and is ignored since it is supplicant to those policies. I hope that finally clarifies the position.  The idea of citing sources wasn't to demonstrate notability; it was to verify information and to ensure we remained neutral and avoided original research.  We don't write about notable topics; we write about those topics we can do so in a verifiable, neutral manner, avoiding committing original research. That's the position WP:N supports.  Notability is not a goal; it is a tool.  I strongly suggest you read through the history of how notability was created and how it is used on Wikipedia to better understand the nature of both the tool and the project. Hiding T 11:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think I am starting to understand where our positions diverge. If you see an article without sources, you simply want it deleted.  Is that fair to say? Hiding T 11:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In answer to Hiding, deletion is only one of many possible outcomes for articles without content or notability; merging the topic into a notable article would be more appropriate. In the example of Adelaide Football Club, I note the following: the article itself provides little in the way of sourcing (currently the article its mainly comprised of OR) and those sources that are cited do not provide any evidence of notability as they fail WP:NOT. We now have three related articles which fail WP:N, namely Adelaide Football Club, the List of Adelaide Football Club players and Ashley Fernee who is an Adelaide player. All of these articles hang on the coat tails of WP:BIO, by which I mean the notability of these articles is assumed to be inhertited/presumed/acknowledged on the basis that their subject matter is related to sport played at a professional level. However, the assumption which underpins SNGs that notability can be inhertited/presumed/acknowledged in this way conflicts with the existing consensus that notability is not inherited. The only reason why these topics have not been merged is that their is no stict timetable for doing so (which is reasonable), but in the long term, I would suggest that these topics will be merged at into a more notable article at some point in the (distant) future if no reliable sources can be found.--Gavin Collins (talk) 12:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain to me where we disagree then? Or why it has taken us so long to get to here? Hiding T 12:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If I may just comment here, this seems like a good example of what this proposal is about. If the proposal was accepted, WP:BIO would be stating, more-or-less, that "it is reasonable to presume that sources exist for Ashley Fernee, because he has played at the highest level of his sport". But he is hard to source, as he played in 1996 - while not technically pre-web, it was certainly before most newspapers regularly put material online. So Google News should (and does) turn up nothing. Thus the question is whether or not it is reasonable to presume that these sources will exist. We can test that, and it turns up that it is - there are sufficient sources for Ashley Fernee to meet the GNG. So taking the SNG as providing a presumption for notability worked. - Bilby (talk) 08:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice try Bilby, but there is no evidence that Ashley Fernee is notable; the sources you have added are trivial in nature as none of them describe, in any detail, the player himself or the games he played in. Without non-trivial content cited from reliable secondary sources, this stub remains little more than a directory entry. This stub illustrates my points perfectly: you can't write an encyclopedic article from tables of statistics. Routine news reports do not notability make.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that this is the place to argue Ashley Fernee's notability. :) Nevertheless, all the references make specific mention of him, and while they constitute simple comments along the lines of "he has been delisted" or "he is unlikely to get a game this season" (which was in a short article specifically about his future for that year), they also tend to be more than "he scored a goal". They do, taken as a whole, provide verifiability for every claim made about him - when he was drafted, when he started playing, how many games he played, when he was delisted, where he went after delisting - and all come from reliable third party sources. (There would be more, but the whole legwork thing comes into play - the dedicated AFL magazines should have more, as should newspapers from the time he was drafted). Personally, I'd be happy to see it merged, but that's the point of this proposal: it is reasonable to assume that there are enough sources to write at least a short, verifiable article, and thus it should stay or be merged so long as it can be shown that the presumption is fair. Given that I found mentions of him in over 80 articles in 10 minutes, I'm reasonably happy to accept the presumption even without the SNG providing support. - Bilby (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, as an aside, I diagree with the "you can't write an encyclopedic article from tables of statistics". First, because it wasn't relying on statistics, but comments made about him (where statistics are read as "kicked X goals with Y possessions in Z games). While second, it is an encyclopedic "start" now - it may never be a GA, or probably even a B, but properly referenced starts are still of value. - Bilby (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree. You cannot write an encyclopedic article based on trivial coverage in newspapers, and this point is clearly set out in WP:NOT. But let us set aside this arguement: this illustrates my point that a presumption of notability is self-referencing, as it can only be substantiated through the citation of reliable secondary sources. The question then arises, why rely on a presumption at all if reliable secondary sources can always be found? Why should I have to rely on WP:BIO if Bilby can always find reliable secondary sources? This is an equally stong arguement, as there is no point in relying on the crutches of presumption, if evidence of notability can be found everywhere.--Gavin Collins (talk) 21:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a good question. I think there is a "political" answer, in terms of allowing editors to build criteria specific to their area of interest without allowing them to override WP:Note. However, in terms of the purpose of Wikipedia the problem is that it will take a while to get those references, and you and I probably will be unable to do so as we're not sufficiently versed in the field. Without them there could be nothing on Ashley Fernee, as failure to meet the notability requirements would result in deletion. (Presuming that the SNG didn't exist). This would be a problem, because it would still allow other atheletes of similar prominence (or lack thereof) to have articles, if their more recent providence allowed for sources readily accessible to everone. This would create a systemic bias. (I think it would be fair to question why we even have articles on players who only ever walked onto the field once or twice, but that's a different issue). This proposal doesn't say that Ashley Fernee should have his own article - merger is an option if they don't turn up - but it makes a case for continued existance based on the likelihood that referencing can be added by someone in the future, and thus help redress the bias. (I should add that this proposal would require that WP:Athelete say more than "this athelete played at the top level", as now it would be expected to say "this athelete played at the top level, and therefore we can expect sufficient sources to exist"). - Bilby (talk) 22:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the political answer has been provided by V, which states that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. If we rely on presumptions of notability to override the requirement to provide evidence, then we relinquish responsibility for providing evidence of notability on the basis that evidence might be provided in a future period. I can see that your argument that the requirement to cite reliable secondary sources can be deferred until they are found is attractive, but at the same time this conflicts with WP:V which requires evidence to be provided by the editor who creates the article, not by someone else at a later date. It is often said that there is no timetable in Wikipedia, but I don't think this arguement was ever intended to relieve editors of having to comply with WP:N by deferring the application of GNG to future periods. --Gavin Collins (talk) 04:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (od) You make good points, as usual. And I agree - certainly with overriding the requirement to provide evidence for claims. But I don't think this proposal touches on WP:V. Editors must still verify claims, but notability can be presumed under the right circumstances. (Given that WP:Note goes beyond WP:V). Actually, the reason I like it is because it places an additional burden on the SNGs which improves their value without lessening the GNG. As an example we both may remember, a SNG can't just say "winning this award is proof that it is notable", but now it would be expected that they change it to "winning this award allows us to presume that that sources to show notability exist because...". Randomran is right, I think: the burden of proof is placed on the SNGs to offer reasonable guidelines, and on the editors to show that they meet the SNG or the GNG as before. The risk, as Kww highlighted, is that the SNGs may not be reasonable. - Bilby (talk) 05:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Again I beg to differ. I think WP:N should be amended to state that the burden of evidence rests with the editor who creates or restores an article, by citing reliable secondary sources to demonstrate that the article's subject matter is notable, otherwise the burden is shifted from the contributing editor to everyone and no one. The assumption that notability can be inhertited/presumed/acknowledged should be expunged from SNG's, as this is simply a device to relieve contributing editors of this burden, and, as Kww states above, is a licence to abuse Wikipedia's polices and guidelines.--Gavin Collins (talk) 05:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with most of the second, but not the first. There is no reply to the first - if you take that stance, then only articles which demonstrate notability now can be kept, whether or not they are verifiable or whethe ror not it is reasonable to presume that sources exist. This continues with the current bias towards new topics or readily sourced topics, but so be it. :) However, on the second you'll find some support in this proposal, as this proposal kills "inherent" notability, as SNGs don't define notability in the proposal, but instead are used to show that existing ideas of notability (the GNG) are likly to be met. I still think you may be confusing WP:V with WP:Note, but that's a separate issue. - Bilby (talk) 05:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any conflict here. The general position is that yes, we shouldn't have any articles which do not have any sources. However, it is also acknowledged we have a rather large backlog and some articles without sources are more troublesome than others. But no article has a free pass.  I don't quite agree with Gavin that there is a burden "to demonstrate that the article's subject matter is notable", but I think me and Gavin agree that there needs to be a consensus that "the article's subject matter is notable", which is best, easiest and least controversially done through independent reliable sources. I think we also agree that the lack of those sources doesn't mean deletion, it means that an article isn't perhaps the best way of presenting the information. Deletion can be an answer, but if the information is cited, sometimes it may be that a better home can be found for it through a merge. I think that's the position around which consensus is forming.  Notability is the framework around which we debate, and  when that debate begins, then yes, it is expected that during that debate those arguing for the retention of material pony up the sources or otherwise give a bloody strong reason why the information should be retained.  Here is where the conflict perhaps lies; everyone has a different take on what the bloody strong reason is.  SOme people say there isn't one, but if we respect consensus and case by case application, that view doesn't always hold sway.  That fact means we have imbalances, which again causes conflict, but I think if we take a long term approach we can conclude that the drift is towards better sourcing, better referenced articles, which means at some point all articles will have to pony up the sources.  Personally I think that's five years off.  YMMV. Hiding T 13:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I agree with Kw above in that much of my oppose is based not on the principle per say, but the fact that in practice, SNG are crafted by those with the intent of keeping as much of the chosen articles around as possible. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 18:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose as written, since it seems to give articles a way out from WP:V ("failure to find sources.... shouldn't lead to deletion"). If you can't document it, don't write it. --Alvestrand (talk) 12:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose as per similarly worded G3 - allows too much abuse when not grounded in WP:N and WP:V. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 02:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong oppose- Notability can't be presumed, either the article has it or not. If an article has no sources supporting its notability and the Internet fails to assert it as well, we must determine that the article has no notability and delete it. This proposal basically says that the absolute lack of sources doesn't mean anything and we MUST assume that it has notability because a SNG says so. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦  06:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. Bad idea to have SNGs at all. A well-written GNG should cover everything. No article should be written without citations. Binksternet (talk) 09:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose - When an article is started without sources, as I observed, it tends to be expanded without sources as well. -- : Raphaelmak : [ talk ] [ contribs ] 11:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. This is a wordy and watered-down version of B2, so I have to oppose it as WP:instruction creep. The time frame and consensus procedures for deletion discussions are established elsewhere. Besides, deleting an article for lack of sources now, does not prevent it from being created again in the future. The wording of this proposal invites wiki-lawyering from indiscriminate inclusionists. VG &#x260E; 12:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose another one that sounds okay at a glance but doesn't bear close scrutiny. Particularly: "Failed efforts to find appropriate sources should be weighed on balance with the presumption that they exist."  If sources can't be found, we must for practical purposes figure they don't exist.  Obeying this proposal to the letter would throw a monkey wrench into efforts to remove hoaxes, which are made to sound notable but for which no sources exist. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose for all the reasons above. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Strong Oppose - EconomistBR beat me to the punch; notability shouldn't be presumed, but proven. -- Explodicle (T/C) 20:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose - of course. We cannot codify a guideline to break a core policy such as Verifiability. We might use this RFC to look at current practise and see if people are by habit avoiding policy, and are using subject specific guidelines as "authority" to do so.  SilkTork  *YES! 23:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose this opens the door to BLP issues, everything should be source and sources should be provided by the editor at the time of inclusion. Gnangarra 01:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose. Same as before, I'm against SNGs.  One universal, easy-to-communicate GNG.  And if the GNG can't be stated in simple, straight-forward terms it probably doesn't belong in the GNG.  Iterator12n   Talk 02:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose. There is a deadline: it arrives when someone lists the article at AfD. Geometry guy 16:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose I agree with KWW; provisions that allow N & RS issues to be deprecated will be wantonly abused. Eusebeus (talk) 13:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose "Failed efforts to find appropriate sources should be weighed on balance with the presumption that they exist." - No. If you can't find the sources, you can't assume they exist.  This is a crutch for lazy editors. --John Nagle (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) OPPOSE There should be a deadline to reference claims made in any article by the author(s) as the lack of a time frame begets neglect and encourages the omission of basic WP rules...I'd like to exhibit an example, where the author who appears to be also the subject, used WP to post external links to his web sites and not to build his own biography. The inclusion of said article was granted as per WP:Music, yet the subject has neglected to post references to most of the underlying text. It's behavior like this that we should discourage and we should raise the standards as to who qualifies for an article page.Jrod2 (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose - The idea that something is notable because some source might exist to show that it is notable is on its face flawed. Although I strongly subscribe to the belief that the basic notability of an article should be established at the time that the article is written, I am willing to give editors a reasonable amount of time to find sources if they request this. However, there does come a point when allowing more time is futile. Blueboar (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose - There is no deadline ALSO means that the article can wait to exist until the sources appear. The great thing about notability is that once established it cannot go away, BUT, if it isn't present immediately it can be acquired years later. Why rush and create something that may or may not ever actually have sources to support it for years to come? Since there is no deadline, one can wait until those sources arrive. Assumption is still assumption in mine, and Wikipedia's books.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) Strong oppose. This is essentially B.3 with tagged on to it that unsourced articles should be allowed to exist if the notability guideline says so. This contradicts the verifiability policy, therefore I must vehemently oppose. Shinobu (talk) 14:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutral on B.6

 * 1) Neutral I'd generally agree with this but I imagine that the scope with which it could be interpreted means that pretty much anyone could agree with it when thinking about it from their own viewpoint (example: note the two opposing viewpoints laid out in There is no deadline (essay) ). I don't imagine that this being accepted would really solve any problems. Guest9999 (talk) 01:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral this statement of fact seems reasonable enough, but it's important to discourage (not ban) this sort of encouragement of unsourced material in the guidelines. MrZaius talk 05:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral. The idea of SNG's at least being able to extend the time-frame to look for sources was at least a very good one. If an article passes the apporpriate SNG, it has 30 days to provide evidence for passing GAN. What's wrong with that?Yobmod (talk) 12:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Redundant, but harmless. This is already covered by WP:IAR, and by the fact that WP:AfD last at least 5 days. Note that failure to meet with WP:N isn't a WP:CSD. (BTW, I think that the minumum duration of a WP:AfD should be even longer, at least one week, but this isn't the place to discuss that.) -- A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ! !  12:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Meh. Stifle (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral Anything can be split out or merged back in at any time based on a consensus of involved editors. I don't see what this assertion adds or removes from that reality. Jclemens (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutral Sounds OK, but is kinda wishy-washy. I mean, I understand that somew subjects are patently going to have sources (for example, an unreferenced article on a Governor of a U.S. State may not currently have any sources, but it is patently obvious that such a Chief Executive is likely to have recieved enough coverage to merit an article) HOWEVER, it is WAY too easy for someone to simply make blanket assertions which are not so obvious (ex: My friend's band played at a local club.  It is possible that some newspaper reviewed their performance, and thus, they may be notable based on that).  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  17:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Neutral. What does that even mean? ~ A H  1 (TCU) 14:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral tending to oppose. I don't really know what to say about "presumptions of notability". If sources must be out there, but nobody can find them, I expect wits will be sharpened and determination increased by listing the article at AfD. Geometry guy 16:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral. These "presumed sources" should be found and referenced.  Axl  ¤  [Talk]  17:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments on B.6

 * 1) Might I suggest a slight rewording (or at least consideration during discussion) in that SNGs describe material that should be covered in WP due to the presumption of independent sources that would exist for them and that coverage of such material rarely fails content and other policy guidelines?  More generally, this is to say that SNGs describe things that we should be covering in WP; it may be its own article, it may be a list, but these are terms, people, places, and things that are core aspects of WP's coverage and that can likely be validated.  If you approach it from this way, saying that an SNG for an area of coverage defines what should be covered, this might help to reduce the number of SNGs (do we need BIO and ATHLETE for example), be more positive ("we should cover these" instead "we can only cover these if...") and many other benefits.  Mind you, these still need to not be developed in a vacuum; a FICT done in this manner without larger consulting would leave a lot to be desired, I believe. --MASEM  17:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) * I tried to strike a balance in that regard by focusing on merge solutions instead of deletion for cases when due diligence turns up a paucity of sources. I have found it difficult to address this point more explicitly without creating wording that appears to strongly favor one view or another, reducing the viability of the proposal as a compromise. For example, it could be argued the language you use is easily abused to demand unreasonable amounts of proof that it is a "rare" case, even for a merge and redirect preserving the content. I believe being more explicit on the point you raise is possible, but would require some hearty discussion, effort and compromise to strike the right balance. Vassyana (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree wording is everything, but as long as we're aligning on thoughts, all for this. I think by thinking of the SNGs as positively identifying topics in specific fields that WP should really cover (article or list), allowing for anything not explicitly covered by these to be defined by the GNG, makes notability seem much much friendlier than our present approach of "no sources, so we don't cover it."  This approach really makes complete sense to me, particularly in light of what I've seen with FICT; we can now state (perhaps) that every episode of a notable TV show is notable to be covered in some form on WP.  The only trick is to note that when sources are lacking, full articles are strongly discouraged.  The exact wording is something we can come back to after (hopefully) this proposal gains support. --MASEM  18:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't think it was necessary to add B.6 and don't think it is necessary to add anymore proposals such as "SNG criteria support exemptions from notability", as this is just one more way of slicing and dicing the existing proposals. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) It is mentioned that notability cannot be presumed, but even the GNG only forms a presumption of notability. A presumption of notability is not the same as a blanket assertion of notability or inherited notability. It's also worth noting that I openly share strong exclusionist views in no uncertain terms (see User:Vassyana/notability and User:Vassyana/fiction). While I would prefer abolishing the SNGs and strengthening the GNG, that is not a viable avenue and it disregards the views of many established (and sensible) Wikipedians. A compromise solution in the middle ground (though maybe not this one) is needed to acknowledge the spectrum of legitimate views and forge some viable consensus. Vassyana (talk) 15:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) *I would like to clarify that notbality cannot be inherited/presumed/acknowledged in the absence of reliable secondary sources, as you only have opinion (e.g. "the Earth is flat") in their absence. A presumption without evidence cannot be substantiated, no matter how reasonable it is.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe the SNGs still require a secondary source to verify (e.g. a news article noting the Oscar winners). Also, your support for merging solutions above would seem to line up with the proposal fairly well. How could your concerns be addressed in the proposal? Vassyana (talk) 12:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am deeply sceptical of this approach, given that the a reasonable presumption of notability runs into the Problem of induction when compared with the more Scientific method that requires that claims of notability should to be backed up by evidence, which is the approach followed by WP:V. Like you, I once considered that a guideline based on a reasonable presumption of notability would provide an opportunity to broaden Wikipedia inclusion criteria, but my opinion has changed, and I now view this approach as not only being intellectually flawed, but it would actually be damaging to Wikipedia, as it can conflict with existing guidelines (e.g. see the example of Ashley Fernee above), but also make us dependent on so called "expert" opinion when it comes to mergers or deletions of topics which do not cite reliable secondary sources. Since arguments supporting a reasonable presumption of notability are easy to manufacture, I think this proposal will give licence to charlatans and quacks to push their view that their pet topics are notable.--Gavin Collins (talk) 05:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a science experiment. Certainly we want to have guidelines that provide as close as possible to objective delineation between what should and shouldn't be included to avoid endless arguments in AFD and guidelines/policy pages ad infinitium.  However, we also are free to define what we want Wikipedia to be.  Yes, we need to be aware that if SNGs aren't checked, walled gardens claiming their own sense of notability can be developed and that the current SNGs need to be vetted to make sure they meet what consensus believes WP should be.  But, regardless, WP is developed based on expert opinion in all areas - that's the purpose of the open wiki nature, and expert opinion has helped to developed policies in the past and will continue to do so in the future.  (See, for example, MOSNUM, where a number of 'experts' are debating how we handle date formatting).  As long as we understand that expert opinion should lead to objective measures for WP's policies and guidelines, and not to create large grey areas of how thing should be handled, then we are applying expert opinion correctly to develop WP. --M<font size="-3">ASEM  05:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Especially given oppose 4, it seems it would benefit the proposal to me to explicitly mention that it is still, of course, necessary to verify that the SNG is met. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) How is this proposal substantially different from B.3?  The wording is different (and more confusing) but it seems to be saying pretty much the same thing.--Aervanath lives in <b style="color:green;">the Orphanage</b> 14:50, 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.