Wikipedia talk:50-year rule


 * Of course we need to do something about this problem, but I see some difficulties with this approach. But if we do go with this general approach, as initial specific comments,
 * 1) first, I think the best way to accommodate older subjects is not a rule like this for new subjects, but an adjusted general rule using "historically important " as an argument for keeping.
 * 2) In any event, we need a better term than "great stature"--perhaps some modification on "notable", such as decisively notable , or `unquestionably notable #This should not refer to A7 or speedy in any way--that will prove to be confusing.
 * 3) It would be necessary to think very carefully about what group of people it refers to, or it might eliminate most current professional athletes, etc. unless it is explicit that the SNG is an alternative the way it is with PROF, not a supplement or presumption.
 * 4) there is still the same problem as with the present qualifications for sources  substantial   third-party   reliable , which can be argued in either direction.: great depth You define it as "a chapter in a book, or a substantial portion of a film." but these are not the typical sources for such articles, which are newspaper or magazine articles. And the key problem with them is not usually depth but promotionalism. Removing notes as a source is one step , but how to we deal with the long personal interview which just repeats what the founder wants to say?
 * 5) 50 years is too long. That's 1966. A  stronger case could be made for 5 years, or 10. or 16, to get us back to 2000, or 1990, the point at which internet sources being to appear.
 * 6) I'm not sure about grandfathering. There are probably a quarter million existing articles this might apply to, and a good part of the problem is that these are being used by new editors as examples.


 * As an alternative, I was considering some rule that sources dealing only with startup funding or executive appointments do not count towards RS.  DGG ( talk ) 19:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I get much of what you say. Feel free to make improvements to the page if you want.  50 years maybe is too long.  I started with that because it is my personal threshold for deciding whether to put any effort into saving an article or not.  5 years is definitely way too short.  The basic question is though, do you support an n-year rule or not.  If yes, then we are just debating the value of n.  If not, and your point #1 seems to indicate that, there is no point discussing the value of n at all.
 * I hadn't thought about athletes (although athletes can be non-notable just like anyone else). So yes, the applicable groups should be more specific.  As a minimum it needs to include musicians, bands, business people, and companies.  Those are the real problem areas.  I definitely think we should stay well away from saying anything about the SNG.  That is a controversial area that is guaranteed to sink any proposal in a quagmire of argument.
 * On your point #4, my view is that newspaper and magazine articles (and even more so online news sites) do not count towards enhanced notability. Certainly, they can be used in an article once enhanced notability has been established, but the enhanced sources must be present first.  That is why I concentrated on book and film sources.
 * On grandfathering, I thought I had explicitly said this is not grandfathering. I was just trying to prevent AFD being hit by all quarter million articles at once.
 * Your alternative suggestion might be good for companies and businessmen, but it does not address rappers and other musicians who are a major component of the problem. SpinningSpark 21:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Newspapers and Magazines
Attempting to purge newspapers and magazine articles from counting toward notability is a non-starter. For that reason alone there will be strong resistance to this proposal. -- 1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that newspapers should not count towards notability altogether. I'm suggesting that classes of article commonly subject to churnalism should have stronger sources as well. SpinningSpark 15:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Pageant winners are a perfect example of this. Every year there are hundreds of winners in variosu contests, the vast majority of who are never heard from again in any reliable sources. Barely a flash in the pan of coverage in their hometown, if they are lucky. Legacypac (talk) 00:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)