Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise/B.7

Proposal B.7: SNGs (only) provide subject area interpretation of the GNG
<div style="font-size:100%;max-width:100%;float:left;margin:2px 0px 2px 0px;border:1px solid Proposal: SNGs cannot modify the GNG; they can neither weaken nor strengthen the GNG. SNGs should (only) provide assistance to editors to interpret subject matter against the GNG, and support the consistent application of the GNG between disparate domains of knowledge, for example, Music versus Law enforcement agency vesus Geography versus Sport, etc.  Rationale: As Wikipedia expands and matures and as more topics are covered, subject specific area assistance is 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. The practical utility of WP:N is decreasing, but its fundamentals are as still as important as always.  The practical utility 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.
 * 1) AFEEEE;padding:.1em;text-align:left;background-color:#F0FFFF;">


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

Support B.7

 * 1) Strong Support This is how I have been treating SNGs, and no one conversant in AfDs has ever called me on it. Such discussions benefit from greater specificity than can be given in a general guideline.  So, for example, WP:ACADEMIC makes it clear that not every professor is notable, even though just about every professor receives some kind of coverage.  On the other hand, a national reputation is one of the things considered when granting full professorship, and so it makes sense to have a single policy on whether to admit full professorship at a research institution as evidence of a national reputation:  we would not want this done regarding business people, however, as they hand out accolades like candy as part of mutual self-promotion.  It is best that we can deal with these issues once and not have to revisit it every time there is an AfD on a professor (or business person).  RJC  TalkContribs 18:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Logical and reflects current practice. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong support for the same reasons as the two previous supporters (and not withstanding any !votes I cast weeks ago above). —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 08:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Extra strong support. I wonder why nobody came up with this before, it sounds almost obvious to me. -- Army1987 ! ! ! 13:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. This is essentially a bit more elaborate B.2. Since I support that, I suppose I should support this too. Shinobu (talk) 14:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose B.7

 * 1) Oppose: vague. Doesn't really say anything. Does this mean that the GNG is still 100% consistently enforceable, and SNGs just become help-essays? Or does this mean the obvious: that SNGs are specific versions of our notability guidelines? Either way, this doesn't really help us figure out the limits of how far the SNGs can push the GNG. Randomran (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutral on B.7

 * 1) It doesn't really say anything. It just says SNG's interpret subject matter for the GNG.  What does that mean?  Does it connect to what the text of each SNG is? Protonk (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Many times the SNG's interpretation of the GNG is a stretch. It may well be the case that some professional athletes (who the SNG say are notable) will fail to meet any notability requirements in any other sense: we may not know this person from any other - they may have no birth/death data and if we go back far enough, cannot be more than "Joe Blow played professional tiddlywinks in Fooistan." cited to the Fooistan tiddlywink encyclopedia which has no more data on Joe Blow. This instruction creep is much more inclusionary that need be - as probably the most routine crook in the first world gets much more secondary coverage than professional athletes in the third world outside of the most major sports. Bias? Yes, we like sportspeople and dislike crooks, but let's acknowledge it and remedy it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.