Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 23

Why is not WP:NOTE policy?
Here's a serious question for thought: why is not WP:NOTE policy?
 * If we're arguing that the GNC is a standard that should be across WP, then this should have more teeth. However, I'm pretty sure that there would be more than just the inclusionists that raise objections should it be suggested it be brought to policy.  Mind you, I don't believe it has ever been suggested as policy so the exact standing globally for that is unknown, I'm just going off what I read on various other policy/guideline pages that I really don't see this happening.  The fact that there are editors that doubt why we even have a notability guideline also make me wonder if making it policy is even possible.
 * If this does have global consensus to be policy, so be it, that pretty much sets how FICT and other guidelines have to be written. However, if there is no consensus, that implies that there's more to notability than just the GNC and the subject-specific guidelines; or better stated, criteria for inclusion in WP does include having secondary sources or meeting specific guidelines that suggest the same in the sub-notability guidelines, but there must be other methods.  I'm aware that we something objective at some point to prevent topics on every person and their pets, but the GNC and secondary sourcing may only be one aspect of measuring the "worthy of note" of a topic given that this is not policy and likely will never be policy. --M ASEM  12:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability is not policy for much the same reasons reliable sources will likely never be policy, despite the fact that both principles are essentially treated as defacto policies. An overwhelming majority agrees that reliable sources are necessary, and a similar majority agrees that article topics lacking independent sources should not have articles. In both cases, the guidelines are seen by a significant portion of editors as subsets of, or subservient to, broader policies (for example, the "guidance goes in guidelines" position). Also in both cases, there is deep division over wording, particular details and similar issues, which prevents either guideline from gaining enough acceptance "as is" to reach policy-level consensus. This is a problem with the expression of the principles, rather than the principles themselves. Vassyana (talk) 13:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My understanding of why WP:N is not policy is because notability is a relatively subjective concept, and it would not be easy to make it policy regardless of the inclusionist vs deletionist debate: see Wikipedia talk:Notability/Historical/Importance. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Given Vassyana's statement, this would suggest that we do need some policy about inclusion (aka, "What WP is"), with notability through secondary sources being the guideline behind that. The V/RS pair works (most of the time) reasonably well as a statement of policy with interpretive guidance on specifics: we want verification through reliable sources - that is immutable; exactly what is a reliable source is flexible and changes as new cases come up and as media shifts from paper to electronic forms. Similarly, an inclusion policy would state that we include articles on topics that are shown to be notable, with WP:N being the definition of what is notable.  (This really doesn't change anything, however, this puts a more positive spin and I will bet that there's more to a possible "What WP Is" policy than just refering to N, to counter the negative implications that NOT gives).
 * This still points to the fact that the GNC is only guidance. It's good guidance that implicitly helps articles to meet core policies, and itself should never go away.  But, just as RS gives flexibility for areas which may not have the same level of established scholarship as others, it would seem N should be doing the same.  Maybe this is what the sub-guidelines like MUSIC and BOOK perform: cases where secondary sources don't necessarily exist but the likelihood is there.  But in the context of fiction (where pretty much this argument is), there are often references that some would consider as weak secondary sources, yet they are not the exact primary work (case in point is Spoo where much of the article is supported by posts by Babylon's 5's creator JMS to USENET.  Technically, self-published, not secondary, no editoral control - yet they are the best source for this information since he is the best expert on it).  So, what I'm saying is that if we consider the V/RS pair with RS on a sliding scale depending on the topic, it would imply to me that with a Inclusion/notability pair, what exactly is significant coverage will slide as a function of the topic, but never going to the point where the work itself is the only source used.  How much that slide is defined is basically the job then of the subnotability guidelines, which are describing cases that sourcing exists or will likely exist; it may not be 100% secondary but it's not the primary source alone.  Given that, this suggests there are ways for FICT to include specific cases where a fictional element may be notable that ultimately can be shown to have sources (in most cases) beyond the original primary work.  This doesn't weaken the GNC, but only adapts it as RS is adapted for other topic areas. --M ASEM  14:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * While I appreciate the sentiment, the last thing Wikipedia needs is another damn policy. I also would be concerned that an overall companion policy would simply become another mess of confused wording and poor compromises (as I believe the notability guideline to be), only with people taking more extreme positions because "IT'S POLICY". One should also consider notability origins (and therefore its grounding) as a "common sense" conclusion of NOT and the content policies, which would make "reverse engineering" a companion policy that much more complex.
 * I think your aims would be much better served by reducing and combining the various notability standards, as well as clarifying the language. Why can't the major points of the subguidelines just be part of the main guideline? Why not just have a section stating that certain facts provide a presumption of available sources? For example, noting that the prominence of a subject in its/his/her field, the receipt of major and notable awards, the topic is a regular subject of academic study, and so on. It may also be worth considering renaming notability to inclusion. Vassyana (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with what you have said. Most sub pages dealing with people (active, proposed and rejected) have boiled down to the same criteria, which has now been incorporated into BIO.  Thus the subpages of PROF and MUSIC serve little prupose.  However, if you look at all of the special criteria at BIO, ORG etc., these special topic categories likely meet the criteria for WP:N, so why the other pages?  I think that the people who write and use these pages don't understand how to apply WP:N. --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Then why do we need a policy on notability, if you want to get rid of the guidelines? If WP:NOTE works as a guideline, lets keep it that way.--Gavin Collins (talk) 22:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, i'd go in exactly the opposite direction, and have specific guidelines for each specific type of article. the general conduct of notability means whatever a half dozen people at afd wish it to mean at a given moment, with the result of lack of stability, lack of consistency,--which together exude an air of incompetence which pervades the whole encyclopedia--a reference work should at least know what it intend to cover, and hold to it, neither throwing out articles that happen to have no support for the moment, or including those where a claque makes a temporary and irrelevant argument.  The reason we have PROF is because the ordinary sources in the field are a little different. As for book, I think it wont hold up either--it depends upon where reviews happen to be published--thus the perpetual difficulty with SF, where they appear in relatively unconventional sources. But I dont want to argue these specifics--thats for the individual guideline pages. But as for making this into formal policy, I agree with Gavin--from I believe the opposite side of the fence entirely--that it is much better as guidelines. Policy gets fossilised too easily. DGG (talk) 04:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's my belief and assertion that the subguidelines are essentially redundant, repeating more or less the same criteria over and over (major/notable awards, subject of academic study, and so on). Would you object to unifying and centralizing such "broad" criteria in the main guideline (for the sake of consistency, sanity and ease of reference)? Could you point out a few examples that would not be covered by these "universal" criteria? Vassyana (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not meaning to prejudice anything, but I think that's one of the conclusions pointed to by the RFC above. Of course, there are indications of contradictory conclusions, but the consensus seems to be leaning towards that one. I think there are other aspects that comments above suggest changes to, potentially, but that seems one of the strongest. SamBC(talk) 15:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My object to the GNC is more from a deletionist point of view; I think the general concept of 2RS=N to be absurd in principle, an an admission that when we use the term notability we dont know what we're talking about--or don't agree. Consider just as a single case the interplay of it with NOT NEWS--the result is that RS does NOT equal N in case its anything to do with a current event--and then this gets applied by people to individual past events as well. I think we have it backwards entirely-- V is the standard for what we can write about, not what we want to write about. (not that V is simple to apply, as distinct from stating it as a general rule--the concept that there are degrees of verifiability and different sorts of acceptable sources for different things, and that no source is either totally reliable or the opposite, has finally become practical, thanks to a long run of discussions at the RS noticeboard.) the basic question is not what people want to write, but what people want to read in an encyclopedia--what reasonable expectations are, and hope we should go about meeting them. I suppose I will have to develop this separately, as I think the best way to deal with the situation is to start over with a proper policy then exemplified into guidelines, for what WP IS, not modify the N guideline. DGG (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. The rule 2RS=N isn't to say what is notable, but to have some kind of minimum threshold. Not everything with 2RS is notable, because not everything with 2RS can be fleshed out into something significant. But this is just the most basic of minimal standards to exclude people from adding their best friend's band, their favorite fansite, or some random video game sword. Again, it's not to say subjectively "if you have reliable sources, you're famous", but to say "if you don't even have two reliable sources, you don't even get off the ground". I'm open to revising the GNG to be more specific or flexible. But there is no consensus to abolish this guideline which has guided wikipedia for years. Randomran (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It would seem that the GNG leaves us with both false positives and false negatives: it is often (sometimes successfully) used to argue against coverage of things which a great many people argue (based on principle, not ILIKEIT) should be covered, and it's been used to justify retention of things that have been argued to be not worth covering. These two views aren't mutually exclusive. SamBC(talk) 18:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The guideline definitely isn't perfect. But I think there are lots of checks and balances: "no consensus" on an AFD defaults to keep, and then there's deletion review. I happen to think that more checks and balances is a pretty good answer: allow AFDs to be postponed for a "reasonable time" if someone can offer a reason why they believe the references are out there despite evidence that they don't exist. There are also checks and balances if the notability guideline is too gentle: WP:OR, WP:NOT, WP:SIZE. That said, improving the guideline itself is important. For example, WP:MUSIC basically amends the GNG by offering a broader view of what's considered a reliable source: taking artist/band articles as an example, a "hit on a musical chart" or "gold record" or "album on a major label" are all considered equally as good as "significant coverage in reliable source that is independent of the subject". But for every constructive compromise that people offer, there's a radical opinion that says "let's strike down the GNG completely". Randomran (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And a similarly unconstructive "the GNG as currently written is (or should be) absolute and incontrovertible!". SamBC(talk) 19:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you take a look at the WP:MUSIC guideline, they basically offer a few ways to prove a few things are notable. I think we could easily offer a simple alternative for how to prove a character is notable, and how to prove a location is notable. Everything else could still be notable, but in accordance with the general guideline. To me, that's how things should be structured. The content is a whole other issue. But I think this lets us organize the debate into something more constructive. Randomran (talk) 23:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would tend to disagree. I do see DGG's concern, but I think we should go more in the direction that passing the GNG is necessary but not sufficient. Multiple significant independent sources (and that doesn't mean "two newspapers namedropped it") should be a requirement, but it should be one of many requirements, the others being laid out by core policy such as NOT and NOR (one may safely assume that anything passing the primary criterion is verifiable, of course). Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Barebones simplification of WP:N -- Take the "notability challenge"
I re-visit WP:N every now and again because I believe it is one of the most frequently mis-applied of the well-known "core" organizing and operational principles of WP. Others have written exhaustively on this. Popular-media commentators have questioned and even ridiculed how it gets applied. There are strongly-held views and periodic proposals for clarification and reform that sprout up and eventually die out -- cyclically, like the passing of seasons. It's like an intellectual treadmill floating in the midst of a tar pit.

Nevertheless, it's fun to come back every now and again to try to ask people to give their perspective on WP:N. So I offer this challenge.

The WP:N Challenge: Can you give a specific example of an article or topic that WP:N will help to "keep out", that could not be appropriately "kept out" by applying any or all of WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:COI? In other words, assuming that (in very glib terms):


 * WP:OR stomps out: "you've made this up yourself";
 * WP:V stomps out: "this cannot be verified independently";
 * WP:COI stomps out: "you're inherently too close to the subject matter"; and
 * WP:NPOV stomps out: "this is not neutral".

What, exactly, does WP:N help to "stomp out" that cannot already be addressed by one or more of the above?

(Disclaimer1: I've asked variants of this question before, so please don't take this glib summary as a lack of familiarity with possible examples, or the underlying purpose of each core principle. I'm just challenging folks to give concrete examples in order to "keep it real").

(Disclaimer2: This challenge assumes as a basic premise that you can "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge." Participants who do not wish to imagine such things need not respond :) dr.ef.tymac (talk) 17:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Read User:Uncle G/On notability: it is possible to write a bare bones biographical article on just about any individual in the developed world, using sources such as birth, census, geneological and death databases that completely conform to WP:V and WP:RS. However, those databases so not provide the "significant coverage" that WP:N requires.  By extension, sources such as athlete statistic databases do not provide the significant coverage to demonstrate the notability of every person that has ever played professional athletics, and a database such as IMDB does not demonstrate the notability of every person who has ever been credited in a film or television show. Hope this helps. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: I forgot to mention, there are other items in the constellation of WP core principles (such as WP:NOT, and WP:Consensus) that I did not enumerate in the list above, those, nevertheless, apply as well. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply to UnitedStatesian:
 * (1) bare bones biographical article on just about any individual ... that's already covered by WP:NOTDIR;
 * (2) every person that has ever played professional athletics ... [see (1)];
 * (3) every person who has ever been credited in a film or television show ... [see (1)];
 * (4) athlete statistic databases is it correct to assume you agree that some statistics are actually fit for inclusion within WP, such as World records in athletics? If so, we can agree that inclusion in a statistics database is not a sufficient criterion for excluding content. Therefore, close calls can be handled by WP:Consensus, no?


 * Also, the essay you linked to actually reinforces my point, (as it alludes to "writing on subjects close to you" and "wp is not a directory" for support, and yet the phrase "significant coverage" is conspicuously absent). Yes it does help, it helps to reinforce my basic point :). Anyone else up to the challenge? dr.ef.tymac (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that WP:NOTDIR prevents indiscriminate creation of articles about anyone for whom we have basic verifiable biographical date. In fact, NOTDIR says "Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety."  From there, the question becomes "by what measure do we determine fame, achievement, or notoriety?"  WP:N is the answer to that question. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sarcasticidealist, can you give a specific example where WP:N is uniquely capable of resolving this question where all the other core principles fail? Also, in doing so, please keep in mind that *Notability is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity"*. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 17:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, because any article I could cite that was non-notable would result in a response from you that it was precluded by WP:NOTDIR anyway. Which may well be so, but my point is that NOTDIR isn't actually useful unless we have an agreed-upon metric by which to determine whether somebody has achieved sufficient "fame, achievement, or notoriety".  WP:N is little more than the intersection of WP:NOTDIR and WP:V, but is useful because it provides a metric that WP:NOTDIR lacks. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, Sarcasticidealist, shooting down individual topics is not the goal. I'm genuinely interested in seeing a specific case of WP:N meeting a need not met elsewhere. You say that WP:N provides a "metric" that WP:NOTDIR lacks, but that seems exactly backwards to me. In my mind, a "metric" is a standard of measurement that is falsifiable, unambiguous, and based on a definition that could be easily reproduced by two or more independent parties not acting in concert.
 * Everyone knows what a phone book is. Everyone knows what the membership roster for the Screen Actors Guild is. Now let's be blunt. Do you *really* think any two people could independently and unambiguously define what "notability" is, and give the exact same or similar answer? Quite frankly, WP:N (as it is commonly applied) seems more like an ambiguous and touchy-feely "catch-all" that people can mold into their own image ... the exact opposite of a "metric". dr.ef.tymac (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I realize you're operating in good faith here, and I apologize if I implied otherwise. I'll give you an example of somebody I could write an article on who would clear all the policies you provided but still not be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia by the standards of anybody but a radical inclusionist: Morag Pansegrau.  She's been a school trustee in St. Albert, Alberta for many years, and I'm quite certain that I could write a neutral, properly-sourced article about her if I was willing to go through microfilms of the local newspapers.  But she's not sufficiently notable for inclusion on Wikipedia.  You can argue that she is, but if you're going to argue that, realize that you're well out of step with community consensus on what should be included.  WP:N and its sub-guidelines preclude the inclusion of this article (in accordance with community consensus) in a way that none of the policies you've cited do.  Does everybody interpret WP:N in the same way?  Of course not.  But I think interpretations of WP:N are less widely distributed than interpretations of WP:NOTDIR would be if WP:N didn't exist. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, Morag Pansegrau looks like she meets the notability guideline: see this and that and there's more out there. I'm not a radical inclusionist, but I think she'd meet the WP:GNG. The question is if there would be enough reliable sources to write a large enough article that this wouldn't be merged into some larger topic, such as Alberta Schools, education theory, or the like. Randomran (talk) 01:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The two articles I can come up with off the top of my head are Terminator (character) and Paladine. Both suffer only from notability issues. That they exist is WP:V (there's a movie and a book series to prove that). That they are in a movie and book series is not WP:OR (again, see book and movie). The articles are written by several editors, none of whom worked on the movie or books (WP:COI). And none of that information is subject to POV (that there is a Terminator movie with a character in it is not my POV, it's a documented fact). None of this solves the question: Why do editors feel we need WP:NOTE? The only argument I've seen revolve around keeping out articles. But why exclude things? Why restrict the knowlege contained herein? Padillah (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Padillah, for the examples, you say these suffer from notability, but is it safe to say you agree with the two following points:
 * "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge." is a core commitment of WP; and
 * Any deficiency regarding these articles could be resolved by discussing whether they should be merged into Dragonlance and Terminator (franchise)
 * If you do agree with these points, one might reconsider whether these examples actually meet the terms of the challenge. WP:N is used as grounds for whether content gets to stay in WP *at all*. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:N is a synthesis of WP:OR and WP:V and WP:NOT that is supported by the consensus of wikipedia users. You could write an article because on research that you read at a fansite or a personal webpage, but then it would be considered unreliable and unverifiable. You could write an entire article that is verifiable from the primary source itself: an article about Spain based on what you saw in Spain, or an article about a TV show based on what you saw on TV. But you'd either violate the rule against original research by making an original observation about what you saw, or you'd violate WP:NOT by going into excessive plot detail or travel detail. It's extremely helpful and important to synthesize multiple policies into a single coherent guideline. It avoids confusion, and improves clarity. Arguably, I could write an article about "The Incredible Hulk's Cut-Off Shorts" based entirely on verifiable primary sources, and I might even try to weasel your way through WP:OR by tossing in a secondary source or two that mentions "shorts" or "pants" or "ripped clothes", and then argue that I'm escaping WP:PLOT because I'm being as concise as I can be about the Hulk's shorts. But WP:N spells it out plain and simple: this crap doesn't belong here. Randomran (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The Hulk "cut-off shorts" example is another one that seems similar to Dragonlance and Terminator above. On a gut level, I can definitely see how a separate, stand-alone article on this topic would not be appropriate. That, however, is a stylistic question entirely independent of whether it merits inclusion *at all*. WP:N is about wholesale topic deletion, not about how much detail is appropriate for community-agreed legitimate WP topics. There are plenty of "superhero" articles in WP, some of them talk about the superhero uniforms.
 * Just to clarify, are you of the opinion that discussion of superhero uniforms is *never* appropriate in WP? Unless that's your view, it would seem this example doesn't quite meet the challenge. Thanks much for your reply and perspectives though, something to chew on. Cheers. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh by all means, someone might want to briefly mention how the Hulk dresses and his appearance. The problem is that mere truth (or even verifiability) shouldn't be enough to warrant a standalone article. I know it's a pain for people who want to write about all kinds of observations they made, but the best way to give appropriate weight to topics is to follow what reliable third party sources have covered. Extracting all kinds of detail from the primary source itself is the non-notable junk comes from. Randomran (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think a serious defect in the logic of this test has not been considered. If you discuss any topic, you have to introduce some sort of POV to get a handle on it, in order to provide context, critisism or analysis. WP:N gives you a get out of jail free card when it comes to POV: if a reliable secondary source has expressed an opinion about a subject, you can cite them, as it is no longer your POV that is being quoted. For instance, I think the appeal of Paladine is that like Gandalf, he is the friend and mentor of characters seeking guidance and encouragement and this makes the character attractive, whereas The Terminator is the opposite: brutal, pitiless & violent: exactly the type of character needed to scare the bejesus out of you at a night out at the cinema. However, I can't express my views as I have written them myself (that would fail WP:NOR), as there is no limit to the number of opinions that can be expressed about these characters - even a paperless encyclopedia would struggle to catalogue all the potential opinions that could be expressed. Instead WP:N requires us to find a reliable secondary source that express an opinion about these characters that indicates that someone has gone to the effort of researching the topic and having it peer reviewed. A reliable secondary sources is still a platform for an opinion, but if a few other people have been given the chance to review it, then the opinion is deemed to be validated in some way, and the fact someone has chosen to express their opinion in this way makes the subject matter notable. WP:N does not stamp things out, it brings them to life.--Gavin Collins (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply to Gavin Collins:
 * If you discuss any topic, you have to introduce some sort of POV to get a handle on it ... this is already addressed by WP:NPOV for articles; for discussion pages, POV is appropriate as long as it is relevant to the article and otherwise consistent with WP norms for discussion pages;
 * WP:N requires us to find a reliable secondary source that express an opinion about these characters ... this is already addressed by WP:RS and WP:V, see also the sections on "opinion" in WP:NPOV;
 * WP:N does not stamp things out, it brings them to life ... given that WP:N is used almost exclusively to substantiate deletion of entire topics from WP, one might question the merit of this claim, however metaphorical it may be. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If we could search all reliable sources, NOTE would be a pretty good guideline, although we would still need many blanket exemptions for things like various bug species or villages in Africa. As things stand, NOTE is combined with google searching to decide the fate of articles, and we're probably searching 10% (or way less?) of reliable sources when we make our decisions.  Old sources, book sources, foreign sources, etc. are not used at all.  It's a problem. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * PF, it's not true that books are not used as source material. I write about sailing and history; for these topics I use a lot of references to printed material not available on the web.  A trip to the library when writing an article can be very productive. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Books are great if you have the book, and want to write an article. They're not so great if you have an article and need a book.  I like to follow AfDs and improve those articles when possible.  That's when the trouble arises.  They may be possible to improve, but we need someone who is reading the book already to do so.  It's all very sticky eventualism vs. immediatism. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have tried to save articles from AfD too, and in that situation I'm generally relying on web-based sources. However, a good practice is to ask for help from a project or projects which cover the topic.   Frequently an expert can be found.  I've thought that we should have a safe-harbor program where dedicated researchers could put a hold on AfD, saying "we think this can be saved, please give us 14 days to go to the library."  I think that we need to break from the box of tradition, and find new solutions.  --Kevin Murray (talk) 05:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In answer to dr.ef.tymac, I accept his refuation of my arguments about WP:N, as most of the concerns about WP:N are indeed covered by WP:RS. However, there is one issue still outstanding, which is why should a particular topic have its own article? Effectively what WP:N stamps out is "there is not enough reliable coverage to write an encyclopedic article". An example of where WP:N comes into its own, and probably why the concept was developed in the first place, is were a new concept arises, but does not have sufficient wide spread recognition to justify an article. Very often these are neologisms, such as Socionomics, an article that has been deleted twice.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would guess new articles would become a function of consensus and surviving AfD. I know I'm not suggesting we accept anything a person writes down as sufficient for an article. But to use such a blatantly subjective "metric" as notability is just lying to ourselves. It's WP:IDONTLIKEIT in a better disguise. Come to think of it, I have an issue with WP:RS too. It relies on the editor to accept a source as reliable and if they don't then we can't use that source. "Reliable" in what regard? Will they take out the trash every Thursday? What makes an article in the newspaper carry more weight than one published on a MySpace page? There are certain researchers and such that study the subject, they are reliable in their knowlege. Some guy that got a job in the copy room?... Not really. The only thing that saves WP:RS, in my opinion, is getting two sources that say the same thing. Then, at least, you have a documented agreement between two random opinions. Other than that it's just more opinions. Padillah (talk) 12:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've always thought an article titled Madeline Mccann is the perfect example of what WP:N addresses and little else, if anything, does. She's a young child who has invented nothing, achieved nothing, discovered nothing and is not a royal or of nobility. I'm not sure what else would stop an article on Madeline Mccann being written. Regards, Mannafredo (talk) 10:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Much of the above discussion triggered a few alternate pathways to thing about notability that may be helpful in trying to resolve this issue. The main purpose of notability, or more specifically, our inclusion/exclusion guideline, is that while WP is not paper and disk space is cheap, it is impractical to provide coverage on everything for three points: the fact that not everything can be covered in an encyclopedic manner (for the most part, being sourced without OR or POV), that not every topic has a significant impact or importance to make it noteworthy for the average reader (global/national vs local topics), and that maintenance would be impossible.

So when we start considering the general classes of articles that we cover, there's obviously points we need to set up to say "this topic cannot be included because it doesn't have this criteria." This is moreso a point when the number of items in that topic is very very large, continually unbounded, or infinite.  We cannot cover all 6 billion living humans or whatever billion of all humans that ever lived; this is a unbounded set that continues to grow. On the other hand, we can cover every chemical element (but not every compound), every country, every town and village in these countries, and similar sets that may be large but around reasonably bounded.

What this comes back to is that each topic area we cover is going to have a different point at which topics within become worthy for inclusion. This of course needs to be aligned with the goals of WP, but the type of information that we can use to judge a class of topics will vary from topic area to topic area. What I can use for people will be different from what I use for animal species, and will be different for what I use for stars and other celestial bodies. Some of these choices are going to be based on the quality and likelihood of the information available for that topic.

When you come from it at this angle, it is quickly apparent that what we currently call subnotability guidelines are actually as important if not more important than the general notability guideline of significance in secondary sources. The general criteria is still important as a catchall - it helps to keep WP's main goals in mind, and for some topics, this may be perfectly appropriate and overlap exactly with the inclusion criteria for that topic, and for others, it may be the perfect catchall for topics that yet to be considered. However, based on these though, we are trying to force this criteria as a "one size fits all" for every topic, which should be clear is not working out given all the discussion about WP.

I know this screams of having more and more topic-specific "inclusion" guidelines as well, but I think that appropriate grouping will help to make tons of news rules, keeping the number of these as small as possible. WP:BIO's approach is probably the way to go, simply listing off objective easy-to-check cases for why a person should be included. We would need to consider how much resorting of these can be done to help improve them. Maybe there is no FICT, but instead one for inclusion for "Literature, Arts, Film" to include magazines, artwork, music, television shows, etc. I'm figuring we can probably end up with at most 5 of these if we play it right. Mind you, some of these may be large, though sectioned like BIO, but the other option, given this concept, is that we either allow numerous topic-specific guidelines, or we allow Wikiprojects to define these, neither option I see being acceptable.

Again, I'm trying to brainstorm this from another direction, and still hold that the general notability criteria is a good baseline for any topic, but that the way we're approaching this, by starting at the GNC and building from that, is part of the problem in trying to resolve this. --13:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I accept the challenge
I put it to you that the article Mad Cow-Girl, currently at AfD where commenters assert that it fails WP:N, meets the challenge. It is a non-stub article on an encyclopedic topic (i.e. individual person) whose content is thoroughly verified, neutrality is assured, and unoriginal by virtue of the fact that the information in the article is cited to reliable sources. Yours pugnaciously, Skomorokh  22:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No need to comment on the merits of the subject matter itself, I will just suggest that if this topic is finally deemed inappropriate for WP, WP:NOTDIR would suffice as a rationale for removal -- again, it seems the amorphous concept of "notability" need not even be invoked here: WP is not likely to become a roster for every human being who has ever run for some kind of political office. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Although the subject has now received non-trivial coverage, I still think it would merit inclusion had it not. NOTDIR is so vague as to be applicable to anything ("WP is not a listing of all things of type x", where x is the type of article in question). Sure, if we accept NOTDIR as policy, it suffices for removal, but this creates a problem of overdetermination: "Bill Clinton should be deleted because WP is not a roster of every human being who has been President of the US". Clearly you need something more than NOTDIR to draw a line, and notability enthusiasts (of which I am not one) will say it's notability. I argue that the point is that the article meets the five pillars, and is not a stub; Bill Clinton just as Mad Cow-Girl. Of course we cannot dispense with WP:NOT on this account, but we can and should downgrade it from a sufficient reason for removal to an INUS-condition or similar. Skomorokh  21:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Earlier, someone stepped up to this challenge by advocating WP:N as a useful "metric" for removal when other standards failed. Your reply underscores why I think such reasoning is actually an inverted image of the reality. Your critique implies a need to draw a line, but that is *precisely* why the hazy and indistinct notion of WP:N (at least as it is applied in practice) is such a justifiable target for reform, overhaul and (apparently according to some WP "outsiders") even scorn.


 * Let's take your evaluation of WP:NOTDIR as a case in point. Consider the traditional formulation, and then consider the alternate ways to resolve the formulation and bring it to a logical conclusion:


 * Resolved: "Foobar Politico Man" is not a suitable topic for inclusion in WP because X


 * Now, in order to arrive at a coherent consensus, we have to fill in the value for X and then individually resolve whether we agree or disagree.


 * Alternative resolution paths: different ways to fill in X 
 * (with WP:N)
 * WP:N says that Wikipedia is not a repository of non-notable topics that lack significant coverage; (agree or disagree)
 * (without WP:N)
 * WP:NOTDIR says that WP is not a directory of every human being ...
 * who ever lived; (agree or disagree)
 * who has ever run for political office; (agree or disagree)
 * who has ever won political office; (agree or disagree)
 * who has ever served as a politician in the U.S. Federal government; (agree or disagree)
 * who has ever served as the President of the United States; (agree or disagree)


 * Consider this: regardless of which points you choose to agree with in this hypothetical case, there is a stark and undeniable difference between the "WP:N" way of doing things, and the alternative. Even if everyone agrees that the hypothetical case is not notable, under the WP:N model, there is no measurable or repeatable indication of what people are actually agreeing to in the first place. It's a total grab bag. Sometimes, it may exclude highly accomplished individuals who are unfamiliar to a wide audience, other times, it may include individuals who are little more then very shrewd publicity hounds.


 * In contrast, even if one disagrees on the proper "boundaries" associated with WP:NOTDIR, it at least includes the ability to unambiguously derive and record for posterity what people actually think those boundaries are. If the WP community one day agreed that all US President articles should be permanently kept out, everyone but the illiterate could understand such a rule and follow it. Even if there was a need for one or two exceptions, discussion and consensus could provide for that also, without any need to rely on or cite WP:N.


 * Bottom line: Implicit in this challenge is a basic assumption: no matter what standard you choose, it will always lack credibility unless it is unambiguous, repeatable and falsifiable.dr.ef.tymac (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Multiple sources in Presumed paragraph
Up until this edit:, the sentence reagrding presumptions read: "Presumed means objective evidence meets the criterion, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors"; now it has been modified to say "multiple sources", which was carefully avoided when WP:N was rewritten last year, a part of attaining consensus. I’m not sure if this was an error or a subtle attempt to make WP:N more restrictive. My edit was only to leave this issue out of the presumption sentence, which is now being used as a coatrack for a separate issue. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

However, I think you have forgotten that WP:N provides an important defence against bad content, and I don't think this change is appropriate; I don't want to allow the inclusion of non-notable topics, fringe scientific theories, hoaxes or in appropriate content about living persons in Wikipedia, no matter what subject-specific guideline say is allowable. This whole push to change Wikipedia guidelines to make it more inclusive to such content is just not acceptable, and I propose this stops now, it is just not ethical. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Changing WP:N just to accomodate more fictional coverage is itself a contraversial proposal: you probably are well aware of my view that GNC is the only criteria by which articles, or lists of fictional elements such as ficitonal characters, can be judged suitable for inclusion, as reliable secondary sources in the form of analysis, critism or discussion of their development is the only evidence of their notability because fictional elements cannot be observed in the real-world, but reliable secondary sources can. However, if you disagree with this view, then lets deal with it at WP:FICT. Watering down WP:N so that WP:FICT can override or provide exemption from GNC is an intellectual crime in my view because it will permit bad content in, and the disputes this will cause will be endless. If WP:N is going to be changed in a radical way, then I must insist that it is formally proposed at RFC, not in this stealthy manner. Not only must you make a formal proposal, but you must provide examples of the articles you feel should be included as a result of the changes, so that this proposal can be subject to scrutiniy in practical terms, as well as in principal.--Gavin Collins (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, since "presumed" has no meaning that's even close to "objectivity," if that's what we mean to say, we should use some other word or phrase to say it. Croctotheface (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with your further edits. Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The use of multiple along with sources is redundant. Doesn't the WP:MOS also apply to policies? The addition seems unnecessary.Jim Miller (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am sort of understanding what is going on now since Masem's recent post. Since WP:FICT has not been accepted, the focus of watering down Wikipedia guidleines has now switched to WP:N, and it is now a key inclusionist objective to water it down so that content without reliable secondary sources can be included in Wikipedia. I understand that this will be achieved by altering the guideline to say that topics should only have to meet the GNC or any subject-specific guideline, instead of that they should meet the GNC and any subject-specific guidelines. It is a very subtle change, but marks a huge paradigm shift for Wikipedia.
 * Gavin, I don't think that you are familiar with the history here.  I was among the people that really supported the retention of this guideline last year, but not in support of it being overly restrictive.  I do believe that third party source material is the most likely evidence of notability, but in some extreme cases one very solid and highly credible source can be sufficient.  My main concern here has to do with minor historical figures, certainly not garage bands.  I absolutely oppose all subguidelines except at this time ORG and BIO which seem to be necessary evils.  I vehemently oppose bad content, but I also oppose overly complex restrictions which eliminate good information. --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem we are having right now is that while this guideline probably should be used for common sense determination of notability, neither those that are creating the articles, nor those looking to clean up the excess articles, are using common sense often for determination as of late - the spread between inclusionists and deletionists is very wide and getting wider (I believe the RFC on FICT showed how far apart they are). It would be great if we had one single unified notability guideline, but because there is pull from both of these camps, it is necessary to line out specific objective cases (the subguidelines) so that we can cut back on the edit warring over certain topics.  They are necessary evils, as well put, as long as there is a split between inclusionists and deletionists; the best we should do is try to minimize high specificity for these and generalize as much as possible.  However, there still is the issue if its "GNC and subguidelines" or "GNC or subguidelines" that needs to be resolved.  --M ASEM  17:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's funny, I got involved in this discussion about 18 months ago with the objective of getting rid of WP:N. However, though the process and rewriting, I became a fan.  It's a gret concept, just poorly understood and unevenly applied by those who don't understand it.  In my case, involvement in the processes brought me more toward the middle.  Rabid inclusion will turn this project into junk, but blind deletion equally harms the versatility of the project.  I really think that we can solve the problems if we focus our good thoughts here and abandon the contentious subpages which are full of highly charged ILIKEIT.   What works for politicians and numbers should work for fiction too.  I think that a more sophisticated application of the independent third party concept could be the trick. --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * With regard to Jim's literal reading, we always use plurals when dealing with arbitrary numbers. The only case in which we would write "source" is if we knew invariably and unequivocally that we were dealing with exactly one source. If we're dealing with "one or two sources", we use the plural; likewise for the general "one or more". — xDanielx  T/C\R 18:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In response to Masem, I have to disagree with the view that guidelines are here purely to fuel the inclusionist vs. deletionist debate, since WP:N does not inhibit or restrict the range or quantity of articles that can be written about fictional topics. Reliable secondary sources enhance article content, and readers place greater value on articles that cite such sources, more so than any other form of content. Fiction is the one subject area where content can easily be sourced from reliable secondary sources in newspapers and magazines as well as academic journals, and does not require a PhD in astrophysics to be understood.
 * Gavin we did all this last year, and yet the result has been nibbled at constantly since. I agree that we only need WP:N and the sub-page whether they justify greater inclusion or exclusion are problematic.  There should be no changes made to WP:N in order to include more fiction.  If we need changes these should be to best affect the objective of the entire project consistently. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't accept your explaination, since the changes are in direct conflict with WP:V which states that "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". Now you are saying that it can, and it just won't work.--Gavin Collins (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have never said that. WP:N does not allow reliable primary sources to establish notability.  WP:V deals with content, and I agree that if there is no content there can't be an article.  But WP:N goes to the next step; while not prohibiting content, it will prohibit inclusion of a topic for which notability can not be demonstrated by a reliable secondary or tertiary source (preferebly multipe).  I don't think that you are seeing the differences. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (EC) I don't claim to be an inclusionists, but if you believe that WP:N does not limit what topics regarding fiction can be covered, you need to look at the discussions here, at FICT, and at NOT where the inclusions are claiming that it does. The whole reason we are here (NOTE being questioned because of the failure of FICT, its rewrite necessitated by those thinking it too strict way back last year) is because there are those that feel WP:N is a limiter in what can be covered given what available sources there are out there, particularly in the area of fiction works.  I am not saying they are right, nor that you are wrong, but both inclusionists and deletionists cannot be right.  We may have to make a decision that will be completely unsatisfactory to one side or the other simply to make the concept of notability simple, or find an approach that is the middle ground which unfortunately does lead to more guidelines, if only to stave off problems.  Remember, consensus drives policy and guidelines, not the other way around, and though I do believe that the GNG is a very good clause to stick to, I cannot ignore the fact that's a good number of editors that have provide clear rationales of why it should not be the only notability clause we have.  --M ASEM  19:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's time to call for a proposal from people who want something more inclusive than the notability guideline. I don't really care what the proposal is. But if they don't think this guideline reflects a consensus, then they should offer a proposal that they think reflects a better consensus. You said it well: we can't all be right. So let's find out who. Randomran (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * More inclusive than the notability guildeline? Verifiability is the policy that defines inclusion, and anything that passes WP:V automatically passes the secondary requirements of WP:NOTE. Many things that pass WP:V may not meet the wording of WP:NOTE, but that is not required. Policies always supercede guidelines. Notability, as written, gives us a reason to keep an article because we recognize that it probably belongs here, but does not yet meet WP:5P. Even considering myself as an inclusionist, notability only provides a limited amount of time to meet WP:V before the article should be deleted anyway. I find the wording to be ambiguous only in the use of the word "presumed" which should be replaced with "established" to make the guideline conform to the policy it is meant to interpret. Notability, much like truth, should never override verifiability. WP:V is the standard. Jim Miller (talk) 06:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * NOTE seems stricter than V to me. I'm interested in hearing more though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's no secret I'm an inclusionist, as such I'll put forth that there nothing WP:V let's past that WP:NOTE has any right excluding. So my question becomes, if I can provide verifiability doesn't that preclude notability? What RSS would pass WP:V but not pass WP:NOTE?Padillah (talk) 13:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There's nothing in WP:V that contradicts or overrides WP:N. They complement one another. That said, you're proposing that we get rid of WP:N and just stick with WP:V? Randomran (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. By your own admission there is nothing in the one that can't be accomplished with the other so I am left with the question of "Why"? The discussion I was having that brought me to this talk page - whether Paladine deserves his own article - could easily be quashed with pleas of WP:V. The first sentence is "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." that excludes any of the sources we have on the article currently and means we need to merge it back into the list page. With a few exceptions for article length (I wouldn't want to have to keep everything from Lost (TV series) in one article) WP:V has all the restriction we need. As long as it's verifiable there's no need to exclude it from the 'pedia. And, in the end, that's all WP:NOTE is - a means to exclude articles because some editor doesn't think they are "encyclopedic enough" (or, if they are a real intelectual "encyclopaedic"). What is the impetus for excluding verifiable information from WP? WP:V includes third-party sources, it is the very deffinition of verifiable... I don't see why it doesn't stand on it's own (again, article length not withstanding)? I've seen the past rejections of removing WP:NOTE but in my view they amount to a legitimization of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Padillah (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't tell me what I admit or don't admit. Nothing in WP:V overrides or limits WP:N. WP:N extends WP:V by combining it with WP:NOT and WP:OR. The reason we need WP:N is because you can write an article about nearly anything if you rely on verifiable primary sources. Literally anything. I could write an article on the tree in front of the Simpson's house. It appears in multiple primary sources, and everything I say could be verified. If you want to get rid of WP:N, you're welcome to propose it. But I think you'll attract a better consensus by compromising. Notability is here to stay. But who knows? I might be wrong. Go ahead and propose it if you want. Randomran (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be confrontational. Your statement "There's nothing in WP:V that contradicts or overrides WP:N" is your way of admitting that there's nothing in WP:V that contradicts or overrides WP:N... At least, that's the way I understood it. The assumption that you are making is that WP:V mentions primary sources, it does not. According to the sentence I quoted above, it requires "reliable, third-party published sources" and demands that those sources have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". So, unless you can find a reliable third party source for the tree in front of the Simpsons house, your SOL. However, I will admit that this will probably never get accepted since WP:NOTE is way too important for editors that are trying to shape WP to their philosophy of what they want it to be, rather than sticking to the 5 pillars and what WP should be. Padillah (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's okay, apology accepted. That's exactly what I said: WP:V and WP:N are totally compatible and don't contradict each other. The point I disagree with is when you said "there is nothing in the one that can't be accomplished with the other". Plenty of articles rely on information from themselves: articles about the President that are based on white house press releases, and articles about games that are based on their instruction manuals. But this can't be enough to assert notability, otherwise everything would be notable: notability would be a circular argument. I think it's important to remember that wikipedia's guidelines are a reflection of the philosophy of the editors. It's bigger than me or you. WP:N, if nothing else, clarifies what is expected for an article to qualify for inclusion in wikipedia. If you're realistic enough to see that WP:N will never be abolished, then perhaps you might be able to help us find an acceptable compromise? There are several proposals to revise WP:N below, and I'm sure there are a lot of good ideas that have yet to come out. I think one of the problems is that there are people on both sides who are turning WP:N into a "yes or no" discussion. There's a lot of room in between. Randomran (talk) 20:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, first off, if there are articles that are based on primary sources then they need to be removed. WP:V specifically mentions "third-party published sources" so without those the articles are violating WP:V. Second, "compromise"? Sure. But to accept that WP:N is inevitable? I don't agree. I will do what I can to keep it from becoming a legitimization of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as seems to be it's current use. I don't understand why the project as a whole must limit itslef, but that's apparently the way it was established so there's little I can do with that. Padillah (talk) 03:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And a lot of us are trying to guard against an erosion of WP:N as a legitimization of WP:EVERYTHING. Well-crafted guidelines are the best way to avoid "I don't like it" arguments, because it gives us a baseline that we all have to respect (even if we don't like it). I hope you can help us think of ideas and work out a compromise. Randomran (talk) 03:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on the modified wording?
Hi.

Someone reverted the changes I made, and said I should bring it here for discussion. May I hear their objection?

The revised text was:

""Presumed" means that substantive coverage in multiple independent reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of suitability for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion. This is not done wholly arbitrarily and subjectively: for example, it may violate what Wikipedia is not. Not even all "notable" topics are fair game for Wikipedia. Notability is a criterion for inclusion, but not the criterion. To be guaranteed for inclusion, material must pass all relevant content policies and guidelines.[1] "

from

""Presumed" means that substantive coverage in multiple independent reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion. For example, it may violate what Wikipedia is not.[1] "

To me I do not see what the problem here is. First off, that notability is _a_ criterion, but not _the_ criterion, for inclusion, should be uncontroversial: WP:NOT is not part of WP:N, and passing it is required for inclusion. WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IHATEIT are not valid arguments for keeping and deletion either, so that the idea the process of deciding whether or not X is worthy of inclusion is wholly subjective is false. That material must pass all relevant content policies seems obvious as well. Unless you're saying that somehow, biased, unverifiable, original research is allowed somewhere on Wikipedia... If so, where is this? I'd like to hear some real objections to the change. mike4ty4 (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I wasn't the one who reverted, but personally I think we should leave it at this:
 * "'Presumed' means that substantive coverage in multiple independent reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion."
 * We don't need to go on to state that articles must (generally) conform to our policies and guidelines in general -- not only is that intuitive, it's rather out of scope. It wouldn't hurt to clarify somewhere that although WP:N generally most the pertinent guideline with regard to inclusion standards, there are other considerations (BLP deletions for example) -- but I don't think the clarification of "presumed . . . to be notable" is a good place for that. — xDanielx  T/C\R 02:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's another. What do you think?:


 * "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is considered notable and presumed to be worthy of inclusion.


 * "Presumed" means that the criterion establishes a presumption, instead of a guarantee, that the subject matter is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. This presumption may be refuted if there is rational, objective evidence to point to other reasons it should not be included."


 * Failing WP:NOT, WP:BLP, etc. do not make it "non-notable", it makes it "not worthy of inclusion". "Non-notable" means it fails WP:N and/or it's associated subject-specific guidelines. Also, the emphasis on objective evidence and logic I feel is important since it helps provide a stumbling-block for WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IHATEIT types of nonsense arguments whose acceptance as valid criteria for the inclusion and removal of material are detrimental to Wikipedia. Also, there's those "NN, D" (non-notable so delete) "arguments" which occur so readily in Articles for Deletion (AFD) "debates". "NN, D" is not a good argument for deletion -- why is this "NN"? What evidence do you have to refute the presumption of notability/suitability for inclusion? 170.215.65.87 (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're correct, the guideline should not talk about presuming notability. It should instead use that space to make clear the distinction between notability and worthiness of inclusion.  As I've said before, we can't say "presumed to be notable" if it is not possible to "defeat" that presumption.  It's vitally important that policies and guidelines use words to mean something that they actually mean.  Croctotheface (talk) 06:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, so therefore why not draw such a distinction? Notability is a, not the criterion for inclusion. I don't think WP has a single criterion for inclusion, either. mike4ty4 (talk) 00:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to ask, what has promted these proposed changes? Can you give provide examples of articles where the changes would apply? Otherwise I propose we keep the guideline the way it is, as change for change sake makes no sense.--Gavin Collins (talk) 07:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this is what prompted the initial changes, but per the above, I think we've come across something of a flaw. Currently it says "subjects are presumed to be notable if X, but consensus may preclude this presumption of notability based on other concerns". So in the context of a BLP deletion of a notable subject, our notability guideline would essentially say "the subject is presumed to be notable, but the article fails an unrelated policy (BLP), so the subject isn't notable after all." It doesn't quite make sense. The guideline should read either "subjects are presumed to be notable if X, but consensus may dictate that they are non-notable despite X", or "subjects are presumed to be worthy of inclusion if X, but consensus may dictate that they should not be included for reasons unrelated to X (i.e., matters not related to notability)". — xDanielx  T/C\R 18:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You are mostly right. It makes it sound like a non-notability policy or guideline somehow affects notability, which is weird. If something passes WP:N but fails WP:NOT, for example, it does just that: fails WP:NOT, not WP:N. Furthermore it stresses "consensus" that it not be included as opposed to "evidence", which suggests unwritten, subjective, and even ad-hoc criteria could dismiss the article's inclusion. But ILIKEIT/IHATEIT are bad arguments. So I'd suggest "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable" become "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is considered notable, and presumed worthy of inclusion". Then have ""Presumed" means a rebuttable presumption that can be falsified by presenting logical reasons that the article may still be unsuitable for inclusion under other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If a consensus is reached that these reasons are valid, the presumption is falsified the article is still not worthy of inclusion even if the notability criterion is satisfied." This stresses both and gives less "wiggle room" for ILIKEIT/IHATEIT crap. mike4ty4 (talk) 00:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I like the phrasing you suggested; it eliminates that confusion while still being fairly succinct. The only (potential) objection I can foresee is that some non-notable articles might receive "incidental" coverage, but it is just a general guideline after all; we generally regard the more specific notability standards (including WP:NOT) as preclusive of the general notability guideline anyway. — xDanielx  T/C\R 02:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. Although I don't really see how the proposal would suggest such an objection. If it's not notable then it is not worthy of inclusion, no? Unless you are referring to mentions of the subject in other articles, not it having it's own article. In that case, though, the suitability of such coverage would seem to be determined more directly by policies like verifiability, no original research, and neutrality (especially due/undue weight considerations.). mike4ty4 (talk) 06:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I just thought of one more proposal. One could have "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is considered notable.". Then go on to have another section called "Notability is not a guarantee of suitability for inclusion", similar to the sections "Notability is not temporary" and "Notability requires objective evidence", and then put under that something like "Notability is not the sole arbiter of inclusion. Just because a subject satisfies the notability criteria does not automatically make it worthy of an article. All other Wikipedia content policies still apply, and if there are solid reasons accepted by consensus that it's inclusion goes against such policies (for example, it violates What Wikipedia is not), it is still not suitable for inclusion.". mike4ty4 (talk) 06:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty content with either wording. — xDanielx  T/C\R 18:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:NTEMP vs WP:NOT
I feel that there is a bit of a contradiction between WP:NTEMP and WP:NOT, and it may be better to rectify it somehow. This is especially true since WP:NOT is a policy which trumps WP:N which is a guideline. WP:NTEMP implies that once a topic receives sufficient coverage, that topic becomes and remains notable even if that coverage quickly ceases altogether. This goes somewhat against WP:NOT which says:"Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own." The key phrase here is historical notability. To me this means that there has to be some evidence of a historical impact and significance of an event, as demonstrated by coverage that extends beyond the time the event was taking place. Of course, such coverage need not be as numerous and intense as the coverage during the even itself. An example of this would be something like a crime (a bank robbery, a highway chase, a murder) that gets significant coverage for a few days and then no coverage at all. Or a presidential press-conference. Or a 300 points DOW drop on a particular day.

There is a related but somewhat distinct issue which I think ought to be addressed as well. It'd be good if WP:N mentioned that notability is not the only factor in deciding if a topic deserves a separate WP article. There may be some topics that formally pass WP:N but should be covered on WP in the context of a somewhat larger topic rather than on their own. A good example here would be something like a sports game, e.g. the recent victory of Russia over Netherlands in the quaterfinals of the Euro 2008 soccer cup. The game received plenty of coverage in national and international media but it is fairly clear that it does not deserve a separate WP article, but rather should be covered in the Euro 2008 soccer cup article. Another example is a significant political announcement (e.g. somebody announcing their presidential run). Nsk92 (talk) 04:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I see no contradiction at all, but there is plenty of scope to explain it better. WP:NTEMP says once demonstrated notable, always notable, and stems from the notion that notability is only established by proper sources that show that others have already written about it.  WP:NOT#NEWS says that we are not about recording mere news.


 * A subtle but critical distinction here is the difference between news coverage/stories and news reports. Here lies the fine line between primary and secondary sources in journalism.  Mere reptition/republication of information, without commentary or tansformation does not change the information from primary to secondary.  Reports are just reproduction of facts, times, events, quotes, etc.  Stories are different in that they include editorial commentary or opinion.  “Coverage” implies some non-trivial breadth of coverage, implying that the information is not mere repetition or reporting from a single source.  WP:NOT#NEWS is referring to news that is primary source material, “reports”, routine journalism, and is not referring to news that can be called secondary source material.


 * So, they way I see it, WP:NTEMP and WP:NOT#NEWS are not in conflict. They have different purposes, but both presuppose that “news reports” or “new events” are not suitable bases for articles, and that “news coverage” or “news stories” may be suitable.


 * I agree with you on the related but somewhat distinct issue. Editorial consensus is required to judge whether a subject should be stand alone, or part of a broader subject, and WP:N doesn’t necessarily offer guidance on such a question.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm-m, I have seen people invoke WP:NOT in AfD debates quite a few times and they usually do it in different circumstances from what you describe. Namely, it is invoked even where there is substantial in-depth but very short-term coverage of a particular topic, and not merely superficial reporting. The phrase "historical notability" in WP:NOT also suggests this approach. For example, U.S. Presidents give many speeches and these speeches usually are covered and analyzed in substantial detail by the media. But very few such speeches (even very few State of the Union speeches) receive substantial coverage beyond a few days after they happened and very few such speeches get their own WP articles. Rare examples of this, like Nixon's Checkers speech or Reagan's Tear down this wall speech, do get their own WP articles but only after it becomes clear that their significance and effect extend beyond a few days or weeks after the event. Another example of this sort of thing is various crimes that often get detailed but very short-term coverage in the media and then quickly fade into oblivion. There was an interesting recent AfD Articles for deletion/Joshua Packwood where this kind of a problem came up. The AfD resulted in a "no consensus" closure and it was clear that there was indeed no consensus on how to reconcile WP:NOT and WP:BLP1E with WP:BIO in that case. Nsk92 (talk) 13:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

More discussion on the changes I tried to make.
Well they got reverted again, by Kevin Murray. He said he was willing to discuss it on the talk page. May I hear his objection, if he's here? mike4ty4 (talk) 00:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

''"Presumed" means a rebuttable presumption that can be falsified by presenting logical reasons that the article may still be unsuitable for inclusion under other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If a consensus is reached that these reasons are valid, the presumption is falsified and the article is unworthy of inclusion even if the notability criterion is satisfied''

Mike, the above seemed a bit complicated and a unclear. Can we distill it down, and then discuss whether it serves the purpose? --Kevin Murray (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I support Mike's change on a substantive level (we discussed this above), but I agree that some of the rhetoric may be confusing (though the old version was a bit unclear as well). Here's how I would word it:
 * If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is considered notable, and presumed to be worthy of inclusion.
 *  "Presumed" means that notability establishes a rebuttable presumption that an article is worthy of inclusion. It is possible that a notable subject may still be unsuitable for inclusion under other policies or guidelines. If a consensus is reached that this is the case, the presumption is overruled and the article should not be included.
 * What do you guys think? — xDanielx  T/C\R 10:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not withstanding other issues, the last sentence is not necessary since the outcome is described elsewhere and each paragraph does not have have to stand alone.

or
 * "Presumed" means that notability establishes a rebuttable presumption that an article is worthy of inclusion. It is possible that a notable subject may still be unsuitable for inclusion under other policies or guidelines.'' --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Presumed" means that a "notable" subject might be rejected because it fails other policies or guidelines.'' --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I prefer the first one. — xDanielx  T/C\R 17:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Any of these above are fine with me as well. mike4ty4 (talk) 20:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I support a clarification of this paragraph, but only with some demonstration of consensus at the talk page. It is not worth destabilizing a delicate consensus to make a minor clarification. Sometimes stability is prefered to precision. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What would demonstrate more consensus? A straw poll? mike4ty4 (talk) 20:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't support saying that. It simply is not what presumed means. We may as well say "a topic is oglornaxed to be notable," since if we're just going to make up a brand new definition, we may as well make up a brand new word, too. If we actually mean that something that meets the guideline IS notable, but it may not be worthy of inclusion, we should say something like that. We shouldn't use a word differently from the way it's defined anywhere else. Either something is notable if it meets the guideline or it's presumed to be notable. They're not the same thing. Croctotheface (talk) 03:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you're not getting the proposed clauses mixed up? (They are admittedly rather disorganized.) I agree that nonliteral language is a Bad Thing, but I don't think that's a problem with these proposals. For instance, the wording I prefer is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is considered notable, and presumed to be worthy of inclusion. [bullet] "Presumed" means that notability establishes a rebuttable presumption that an article is worthy of inclusion. It is possible that a notable subject may still be unsuitable for inclusion under other policies or guidelines." So according to this, adequate coverage (as defined elsewhere) establishes notability (no presumption involved), and notability establishes a presumption that an article is worthy of inclusion. Seems logically sound, no? — xDanielx  T/C\R 05:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I didn't see that "presumed" was moving someplace else in the main definition. I'd be fine with that change as far as the language and use of words.  My only remaining concern is that I'm not sure that there exists a consensus behind saying "is notable...presumed worthy," but I don't object to it personally.  So long as there's a consensus behind that change, I'd be fine with it as well.  Croctotheface (talk) 06:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see why we need any change at all. Can you explain which articles this will impact or why? I am against cosmetic changes for changes sake. --Gavin Collins (talk) 06:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Gavin, see above discussion. The main motivation for tweaking the wording is that, on close examination, the current version isn't quite logically coherent, resulting in minor ambiguity. — xDanielx  T/C\R 22:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Gavin about not making minor changes for the sake of nit picking. But I mildly object to the current text as a bit of a WP:coatrack for restating other issues and having links to other pages.  All we are trying to say is: "Presumed" means that a subject may meet this guideline, but might be rejected because it fails other policies or guidelines."  Why say more, or better yet, could we even make that statement more precise and concise?--Kevin Murray (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason I prefer the other wording is it makes it clear that if an article's subject is notable, the burden of proof falls on those wanting the article deleted to show that other policies or guidelines are not met. Your wording clarifies that the presumption can be negated, which is of course true, but it doesn't cover the other side. (Of course we don't exactly need either point to be clarified.) That said, I'd prefer your wording to what we have now -- at least it makes sense and is succinct. — xDanielx  T/C\R 22:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * no, presumed refers to presumed notability -- not to other Wikipedia guidelines. Notability is not the only criterion for an article, and the reasons why an article might not be suitable would apply regardless of notability. The intended and accustomed meaning of this is that in the absence of other evidence about whether something is notable or not, the presence of the sources is a determining factor. (now I personally have some doubts here, but I think I'm stating what has been the consensus--personally I think it's close to irrelevant, but I know perfectly well the consensus is not with me there--I am not trying to argue that). Something can perfectly well be notable in the absence of such sources being present, and most certainly not every notable thing gets into Wikipedia -- se the follow section on NOT NEWS for an example. DGG (talk) 07:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Becuse what evidence can rebut a presumption of notability when the notability criteria are satisfied? The text says "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion." One should not be able to rebut it on arbitrary criteria. Whereas rebutting a claim of inclusion requires one to point to Wikipedia policy or guidelines and evidence why it fails to meet the criteria there. Then also notice the text says "it is not suitable for inclusion", not "it is still not notable". Since the former makes more sense given the context, that's why I proposed the changes I did. And of course presence of sources satisfying the GNG is not the only form of evidence for notability -- see WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO, WP:MOVIE, etc. The trouble I have here is that it seems to open up a can of worms: it's saying that although something passes all these "notability guidelines" it may still not be notable, not just unsuitable for inclusion, without giving any explicit criteria on what would render something non-notable in spite of passing the guideline. Without such criteria we get something very arbitrary and GAMEable. In addition, it still seems self-contradictory: it says later that it is referring to suitability for inclusion! What gives with that? PS. CCC, you know. mike4ty4 (talk) 03:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Can specific topic guidelines be more inclusive?
One issue that is not specifically addressed is whether a specific notability guideline can be more inclusive than the general notability guideline, or whether they are limited to be more exclusive. WP:NOT is an example of a guideline that is more exclusive ... it outlines topics that may have multiple, impeccable, detailed sources that are, nonetheless, considered to be insufficiently notable to get an article.

Other guidelines attempt to allow things to be considered notable despite not meeting the general notability guideline. The guidelines on geographic places previously attempted to include every possible speck on the map as being inherently notable, a problem which has since been fixed. Some people arguing on the fictional guidelines are attempting to generate guidelines for fiction which would allow things to have articles even if they have never been mentioned in any independent source, by attempting to propagate notability from a parent topic to a child topic.

I would like to change
 * A topic is presumed to be sufficiently notable to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below, or if it meets an accepted subject-specific standard listed in the table at the right.

to
 * A topic is presumed to be sufficiently notable to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below. Additional guidelines which may prevent a topic from being considered notable are listed in the table at the right. Kww (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * rather to


 * A topic is presumed to be sufficiently notable to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below, or if it meets an accepted subject-specific standard listed in the table at the right. This is a rebuttable presumption, if the material appears insignificant.  Additional guidelines which may prevent a topic from being considered notable are listed in the second table at the right.

I really dislike the GNG, but at least the version I've written states clearly the logical relationship. As proposed above it was rather a complete reversal of policy from accepting both GNG and specific guidelines. DGG (talk) 02:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that I was stating a "complete reversal of policy", because I think this issue is really at the core of the fiction battle. There are many (myself included), that believe that a part of subtopic guideline that attempts to include material rejected by the GNG is invalid on its face. The purpose of the subtopic guidelines are to exclude, not to include. Look at WP:MUSIC ... you can find documentation on nearly every single ever made, but WP:MUSIC says that most of them should not have articles. It doesn't try to claim that being a single is inherently notable. The cases it lists can nearly invariably be supported by documentation. Kww (talk) 13:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting proposal however it still sounds as if there are hidden criteria that can rebut the presumption, as it does not define what material "appears insignificant" nor does it seem to say whether the "additional guidelines that prevent notability" define this. That term "appears" makes it sound really subjective and GAMEy. mike4ty4 (talk) 05:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability, the GNG, subject specific guidelines, and definition, characterisation, or evidence?
Partly because of recent discussions, here and at WT:FICT, mainly, I think we need to clear something up.

As I read it, the current notability guideline (WP:NOTE) defines notability as nothing other than "worthy of note", and then says that something is considered notable if it meets the general notability guidelines (GNG) or any of the accepted subject-specific guidelines that are applicable. However, a great many people seem to read this as that notability (for WP purposes) is defined by the GNG and that the other guidelines give guidance on interpreting it for specific areas.

The first reading means that, generally, subject-specific guidelines (such as WP:BOOK et al) can be more permissive than the GNG, as if they were less permissive they could simply be ignored and the GNG used to pass instead. The second reading means that subject-specific guidelines should be less permissive, and if they fail to be so, then the GNG will effectively nullify them. Well, the first reading does also mean that they can complement the GNG, such that it becomes possible to pass the GNG and fail the subject specific and possible to fail the GNG and pass the subject specific; the second reading doesn't seem to allow for this possibility. So which is it? SamBC(talk) 16:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(Oh, as a final note, as currently written the GNG is not a corollary of WP:V, WP:NOR, etc, as they permit sources that the GNG says don't speak to notability (such as directories and primary sources), and it's possible to pass the GNG without then being able to say more than a few sentences per WP:V, as multiple independent secondary sources might all be saying the same thing, for example. V/NOR talk about individual bits of content, WP:NOTE is all about the article, in fact the topic, as a whole. This may be a separate point of debate, but if WP:NOTE and the GNG are taken as a corollary of WP:V, then WP:NOTE ought to be rewritten quite massively to reflect that, and all the subject-specific guidelines refocussed and, in a few cases, probably deleted. SamBC(talk) 16:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC))


 * You probably know my stance on this already. I am emphatically not one of the ones who believes Wiki notability to be defined in absolute terms by the GNG, largely because so many clearly notable fictional characters fail the guideline utterly.  Most notable fictional characters and elements of literary fiction, video games, Dungeons and Dragons, do not have and will never have what we consider sufficient coverage in secondary sources to be notable.  And yet I think the consensus at AfD is clearly that another standard of notability may be applied to even minor characters who have been kicking around their respective notable fictional universes for a while (take Articles for deletion/Ego the Living Planet as a representative example).  I believe it is the persistence and recurrence in the work(s) that confers notability in such cases.  I came to this discussion largely because fictional characters was the first area I noticed that was completely failed by our current WP:N guidelines.  I can't think of any other examples, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.  Would anyone else care to enlighten me?  Ford MF (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The AfD for Ego the Living Planet is an embarrassment of WP:ILIKEIT. There is not one logical and supportable Keep argument and I think that the participation was due to canvassing.  The AfD was closed early by a non-admin which I think is a horrible practice.  --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I see notability, and its burgeoning sprawl of sub-guidelines, as a ridiculously complex way of expressing some relatively simple concepts. This is due to, in my opinion, bad pseudo-compromises and exactitude in wording demands. Notability simply means there is a reasonable presumption that enough independent reputable sources to craft a complete and well-sourced article. Or following the guideline name, that independent reliable references consider the topic noteworthy enough to provide substantive/comprehensive coverage. All the sprawling subguidelines generally just provide some common sense bits, such as if someone won a major award, we should presume enough sources exist to support an article. Whether its the GNG or the subguidelines, it all returns to a presumption that sufficient sources exist. This is also true of the common "inherently" notable topics, such as towns. This "auto-notability" derives from the (perfectly reasonable) presumption that plentiful sources almost assuredly exist. It should also be noted that fulfilling notability is not necessarily sufficient for inclusion on Wikipedia. For two prominent examples, there are some things that simple don't belong here and an article about a living person must meet certain standards.

Touching on fiction specifically, in my experience, there is rarely (if ever) an actual lack of sources for prominent fictional topics. There is simply a lack of motivation to find the sources. I do not see the need to relax our basic inclusion guideline to accommodate laziness or other lack of willingness to do the grunt work to find sufficient sourcing. Using comics as the example, there are industry and mass market periodicals that cover the market fairly intensely. There are additionally numerous "encyclopedias", "fan guides" and similar resources available. There isn't even much of a need to cite the primary artistic works for comic book characters, as the major comic book publishers release numerous books, yearbooks, who's who listings and so forth that conveniently compile the most salient primary source appearances and facts. There are even academic articles and books about comics. Vassyana (talk) 19:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would just point out that, while those sources (the comic yearbooks and suchforth, and "encyclopaedias" and guides from the pubishers) are allowed (if not ideal) under V, they aren't acceptable per NOTE to demonstrate notability, as they aren't independent of the subject. This is one of the flaws in the note-just-ensures-V view. If we want NOTE to be something that just ensures V (and I don't say that it should be, or shouldn't per se) then it needs changing. If it's trying to do something else, that should be clearer. SamBC(talk) 20:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I was using those "in house" sources as examples that could be used instead of the direct appearances in comic titles. As I mention, there are numerous industry and mass market periodicals, among other independent sources, which do suffice for the purposes of notability. I disagree with the notability = verifiability and notability just ensures verifiability views. Saying that, as a whole, the available independent reliable sources should present comprehensive coverage of a subject is a distinct, if related, matter from indicating that information must be verifiable in reliable sources. Vassyana (talk) 05:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines are guidelines: think WP:POINT, WP:NONSENSE, WP:PROFANITY. They've developed out of a consensus about what generally improves wikipedia's overall quality. Exceptions should be occasional. But there's definitely a problem with WP:N because a few people find it's causing harm. We do need a workable standard: if it were just based on a small consensus on an individual article, wikipedia would take the form of urban dictionary with a page for every little fansite, internet meme, and web celebrity that could get voted up. The requirement of two reliable (e.g.: not self-published) sources that are independent of the subject (e.g.: the subject itself can't just generate its own notability) is meant to exclude a lot of crap (yes, crap). But a lot of people think it goes too far. This can't be fixed by letting each article make up its own subjective standard. We need that workable standard for some level of quality control. My question is simple: what would you change about the notability requirement? My gut feeling is we need a parallel standard that isn't just based on independent reliable sources, but then I'm not sure what that would look like. Randomran (talk) 15:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability is just a "guideline" which is to be interpreted with "common sense". Editors who are familiar with a subject area know what is and isn't worth covering.  The problem seems to arise when editors who are hostile to a subject area engage with it.  The resulting Wikilawyering is a huge waste of everyone's time and we should not encourage it by creating volumes of detailed guidelines, essays and policy talk.  Colonel Warden (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The general notability criterion was a nice attempt at an "objective" inclusion standard, but I think it has failed in that is deletes too much content that is perfectly reasonable to keep, and keeping some content that ought to be deleted. We have too many articles on murderers and murder victims, etc. and are too trigger-happy with deleting articles on pop-culture topics that while perhaps trivial have an enormous audience and are "in demand". I view our mission as being fairly responsive to the actual demands of our audience, and would like to see us address that audience more appropriately. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The proliferation of murder victim articles are a failure to enforce WP:NOT, not a failure of notability (which specifically mentions that meeting notability is not necessarily sufficient). Vassyana (talk) 05:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In practice this guideline is the means of enforcing the relevant provisions of WP:NOT. Moreover, this guideline perpetuates the notion that the number of independent sources available on a topic is the primary determinant of whether a topic ought to be included, but as exposed by these examples, in many cases the number of independent sources does not tell us much about our ability to write a useful encyclopedia article on a subject. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, while I might be arguing rather vociferously against the GNG on the WP:FICT talkpage, I have to say that in pretty much all other cases I find our current notability guidelines to work fine. I was sincere in asking if anyone know of a class of articles that our current WP:N fails the way it fails fictional characters and objects, because I can't think of one.  Many properly notable fictional characters without a shred of secondary source (because generally nothing non-trivial exists) easily pass AfD in an I know it when I see it kind of way, and maybe we just need some language to reflect that.  Honestly I think an additional page of guideline at WP:FICT is lunatic, when all that is really needed is a clause here that says something like "Fictional characters are a special case, and characters notable for their persistence or popularity in fictional media often have not received secondary source coverage."  Ford MF (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't been following discussions at WP:FICT, so please forgive my ignorance. My knee-jerk reaction in the past has been to say something like "if those reliable secondary sources do not exist, the character should be discussed as a subsection of the article about the fictional work, rather than in a separate article." As I read through parts of this discussion, however, I am second-guessing myself. A concrete example would probably be helpful to me; can you point me in the direction of a fictional character who clearly deserves his/her/its own article but who doesn't have adequate secondary sources granting that character notability per WP:N? Thanks for helping me learn about this issue. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 19:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * One I've hauled out before is Ego the Living Planet, and the corresponding Articles for deletion/Ego the Living Planet, which elicited a fairly strong and unambiguous consensus to keep, despite not having a single secondary source. And speaking as someone fairly knowledgeable about the subject, I'd say that no such sources exist, or if they do they are so trivial or obscure as to be virtually indistinguishable from nonexistent.  I think the contention voiced here--that for notable articles, there will be some secondary sources, somewhere--is mostly true, but not entirely true, which is what makes it problematic.  There will be a whole subclass within the class of fictional "X" articles for which secondary sources, for all intents and purposes, do not exist.  And yet it's clear from watching AfD that a community consensus considers at least some of these articles notable, despite failing the letter of WP:NOTE utterly and entirely.  Ford MF (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To try to brainstorm this, can you provide an example of how this character can be sourced from anything besides the comic itself, ignoring any other restrictions on reliable sources or the like? Are there writer's bibles? Are there comprehensive fansites?  Are there newsgroup postings?  The reason I state this is because there is a bit of allowance for moving the goallines in WP:V to have the "best sources possible" for a topic, and if we consider the same here, trying to see if there's a way of relaxing what we consider as possible sources, such that the topic can be shown to be notable and have semi-independent sources... To meet the general concept (not the GNC, just the concept) we need to make sure that the subject is widely notable within the overall class of materials; just like local figures represented by only local sources are not considered notable, we need to make sure we're not pulling material from the only fan site that goes into depth for one minor character.  --M ASEM  20:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's this, but as you say, it's minimal. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 01:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, not much more than a passing mention, and unclear if it's even about Ego, rather than about someone else referencing it. Ford MF (talk) 01:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Arguably, the fact that it's mentioned in a published book which was important enough to be featured on Google Books (however important that may be) hints at some notability. Anyway, as I indicated earlier, I'm second-guessing my earlier opinion, and I'll keep an eye (and an open mind) on this discussion. Thanks. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 01:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think my point is being missed here. The question isn't whether or not Ego (and similar articles) is notable.  That the character is in fact notable has been confirmed by editors knowledgeable about the subject and by an AfD that was passed without much reason beyond a bunch of energetic editors saying "Trust me, he's notable."  I'm trying to work backwards, starting from the point at which the community consensus says a character is notable, and figuring out how to establish that through guidelines when the current guidelines (which require secondary sources that are, for all intents and purposes, next to nonexistent in these cases) fail, as our current guidelines fail.  I'm trying to brainstorm ways to show this, and the best one that I can come up with is that, for fictional characters, primary sources might have to be considered acceptable.  I admit I'm only mostly coming at this problem from one specific domain--comics--but it is the one in which the guidelines most drastically do not work.  (Although an argument can be made for television characters being utterly broken with regards to WP:NOTE as well.)  Ford MF (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * One problem is that we can never be sure if an apparent lack of sources is an actual lack, or just that they haven't been found yet; the corollary problem is that some people want a tight deadline, if you don't find the sources (to demonstrate notability, not verify the content of the article) soon enough, they want the article gone. SamBC(talk) 19:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I know, except I'd have phrased it "we can never be sure if there is an actual lack of sources, or just that no one has been motivated enough to try and find the sources. If/when I get an example here, the first thing I'm going to do is make an honest effort to find the sources needed. I've seen editors who spent days arguing that a topic is notable without spending one minute trying to find the sources to prove it. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 20:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's possible to compose a generally applicable alternative; to my mind, that's the point of the subject-specific guidelines. Anything can be considered obviously notable if multiple independent reliable sources have covered it non-trivially, but within various limited domains (such as books, movies, athletics, etc etc) one can derive other ways of determining whether something is worthy of note. That's what the preamble to WP:N currently means to me, anyway, and it's the way I see things making sense. And if a domain isn't suited by the GNG, editors who edit in that domain (as in constructively edit, rather than just try to reduce or remove coverage) should try to develop guidelines. Then, however, there's no need for those domain-specific guidelines to be based on the GNG, or refer to it at all. However, what should they be measuring? That's one of the main problems, as far as I can tell; in the absence of an actual definition of what we mean by notability (one that is usable for anything, anyway), people are taking the GNG as a definition and insisting that subject-specific guidelines conform to it. SamBC(talk) 16:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've taken a copy of WP:N, removed the interwiki links, categories, etc, and then edited it. It's at User:Sambc/Notability Demo. The point of this, for now, is to indicate as clearly as I can manage how I think notability should be interpreted, and how to change the guideline to clarify it in this direction. The changes aren't terribly major, with some tweaks and a couple of additions in content, and a slight change to some organisation. One very important point is the addition of the "definition" section, which makes it clear that the GNG isn't a definition. SamBC(talk) 16:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's worthwhile bringing up the previous topic that I suggested here of establishing an "inclusion policy" (yes, policy), which notability as a guideline would be underneath (in the same fashion WP:RS is a guideline to policy WP:V). But going this direction, and I know I've seen this idea suggested before, is that WP:N now, and how its treated, is basically "notability by coverage"; if there's secondary sources, we can cover it.  If you look at some sub-notability guidelines like MUSIC, we then have "notability by importance per WikiProject", in that there are cases that have been determined to be considered notable despite the lack of currently existing sources (though with the assumption that sources may reasonably likely to exist).
 * Maybe the solution is that we creation inclusion policy (why its needed, what it is meant and not meant to do, such as limiting content of articles, and so forth); and then make WP:NOTE, as stated, "inclusion due to coverage" guideline. The subguidelines, for the most part, then become "inclusion by importance within field". Now, I do raise a big red flag here is that I can see editors, free to create importance within a specific feild free of having secondary sources, to introduce importance terms that significantly fail our encyclopedic goals (eg the example of a WikiProject Smith to include every person with the last name of Smith), so there needs to be quality control here. In otherwords, while a project may present a set of inclusion guidelines, they need to gain acceptance at the global level.  Then these can be listed on this inclusion policy page.  Of course, we don't want too many levels here; I'd expect we'd have inclusion guidelines for persons, and then likely one for sports figures, but I wouldn't go any further to expect one for specifically baseball players, though WikiProject should be free to clarify specific aspects of a higher inclusion guideline (eg, if the sports player inclusion guideline says "has played in any non-regular season game", the basebase project may clarify this to mean AL/NL division games, the World Series, and the All-Star game.
 * This still ends up that meeting what is currently the GNC is fine for inclusion, however, this makes it very clear that other standards may exist. --M ASEM 16:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that we need guidelines here, though they will be extremely difficult to do in a comprehensive way,except in very general terms. MASEM's approach, of doing it for particular types of articles in Wikiprojects or otherwise, is probably the way to go. I remindus though that the decisions of wikiprojects are not binding on the community, though they should certainly be taken very seriously as considered input. (There have even been cases, as schools, where wikiProject guidelines are much more unsettled than actual results at AfD, because of the smaller number of people in the project and the easier possibility of unrepresentative changes.) DGG (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Masem's idea actually sounds like a fine way to do this, in which in absence of secondary sources (which would justify inclusion of an article of any topic), refer to the specific guideline for that type of article. It allows for the specialist knowledge of the local WikiProjects to be utilized in a community-sanctioned method, and I can see it drastically reducing possible conflict. The only issue I'm seeing is that it might lead to too much instruction creep, but that can be resolved by ensuring each guideline covers a broad category. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 23:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd be okay with some mechanism to refer (or defer) Wikiproject related deletions to the Wikiprojects involved. Ford MF (talk) 00:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There's already the deletion sorting project though not to specific projects, though many projects include their own transcluded AFD list. You still need more that just project input, of course; a project may become so biased to have a very low threshold for inclusion that is in stark contrast with the rest of WP, so while we consider them "experts" they can't operate in a vacuum. --M ASEM  00:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think there still has to be a minimum standard, if only to avoid purely original research and prevent articles built entirely from primary sources. Randomran (talk) 01:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To try to keep this as open a thought process as possible, we do want standards, but again the suggestion is that there may be topics that are notable in their field that should be included but they are limited to primarily primary sources. Yes, there needs to be a good objective metric for this to start. --M ASEM  01:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (EC) I tend to agree. I think the subject-specific guidelines get too much into instruction creep, in terms of "Keep, this band played a few bars in California and some in Virginia, that's a national tour", or "Keep, album by previously-mentioned band", or "Keep, was on a pro team as a third-stringer for a couple seasons." Secondary sources are already a non-negotiable requirement, and that's defined by WP:V: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Verifiability is policy, not just a guideline. Notability requires significant secondary sources. Notability is a guideline, to which the occasional exception can be made, but such exceptions should be exactly that&mdash;occasional. Subject-specific guidelines should be intended to help by saying "Here are some circumstances under which it is more likely that one will indeed be able to find significant amounts of secondary source material." It should never be used as "Here is a class of articles which are appropriate even if such source material does not exist." That just results in keeping garbage articles. The only acceptable "keep" argument should be "Keep, I've found these secondary sources", or "Keep, it's likely for (insert reason) that such sourcing exists, and more time is needed to find them". Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "reliable third-party sources" is a non-disjoint, non-identical set with "reliable secondary soures". For example, The Academy's own publications/website is a primary source, but it is third-party to the award-winners. WP:N is the only major policy or guideline to completely require secondary sources. WP:NOR requires them for any analysis, etc, but for many subjects it's possible to have a perfectly worthwhile article without analysis (remember, we combine aspects of almanacs as well). SamBC(talk) 10:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not quite true. I would suggest that both WP:V and WP:NOR require secondary sources:
 * "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources." WP:PSTS
 * "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." WP:BURDEN
 * Jakew (talk) 10:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (undent)Well, the issue here is that "should" does not mean "must", and "reliable, third-party" does not mean "secondary". Wikipedia articles, generally, should have some analysis in, which requires a secondary source (not necessarily third party, that is, not necessarily independent). Articles also require third-party (independent) sources, because otherwise we can't trust there to not be bias. However, neither of these alone, nor combined, require there to be any specific number of "independent secondary sources", which are source that are both third-party and secondary. Once again we see problems from editors conflating "third party" (aka "independent") and "secondary" (meaning what WP:PSTS says it does). An author analysing there own work is secondary, but not third-party. An official announcement of an award is primary (it is the original source) but third-party when considered in the context of the award recipient. Newspaper coverage of awards would be both secondary and third-party, while a press release in which the recipient says they were pleased to receive the award would be primary, and not third-party. SamBC(talk) 12:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's try and get a little specific. Could everyone please take a look at User:Sambc/Notability Demo. I'm not proposing it as a change, I'm just asking people to look at it and see what they think is wrong or right compared to the current version; this can be seen more readily, perhaps, with this diff. Given as the changes represent attempts to address what I see as the problems, this ought to help illustrate whether people agree or disagree on any points, and may help elucidate other specific problems. SamBC(talk) 12:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The one thing that struck out at me as troubling is the point about notable things within a subgroup or subculture. We need at some point a global metric or a global oversight to prevent topics that may be notable at the subculture level but are not "worthy of note" at the global level.  (I am not saying this necessarily the rquirement of secondary coverage, though that's a possible global metric).  Eg: I'd consider the World of Warcraft to be a subculture, and I'm that specific quests, locations, and items in the game are very important, but from a global standpoint, they are not. --M ASEM  13:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll agree actually, as that was overkill for what I was aiming for; I just couldn't actually find a simpler way of doing it. Amicable numbers are not of any real sort of global importance, but they are important enough within maths. We combine aspects of specialist encyclopaedias, so we can't be looking at just "general public" interest. However, we don't want any old subculture. Just "subject" and not "subculture" may be nearer the mark, but goes back to the other side. "Significant subculture" ends up with the subjective decision of what's significant. However, seeing as this is for the general definition rather than any criteria that would be worked with, it can be more fuzzy. I'm willing to tweak my demo to improve it within the same intent, and maybe then some aspects of it can be used to improve the guideline; can you suggest a better version with the same intent that doesn't have such overkill? SamBC(talk) 13:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As a secondary point, does that mean that you approve of and/or agree with the other clarifications, restructuring, etc, or just not object to them? If a bit of both, which bits are "agree" and which are "not object"? SamBC(talk) 13:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In general, no problems - some of the wording choices are questionable but the spirit I don't see a problem with, one that exacts that GNC is one approach to notability, and subject-specific ones are another way, but subject-specifics don't have to build off the GNC to be usable. --M ASEM 13:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * While I generally am in pretty close agreement with Masem, I have to go the exact opposite way here. Sub-guidelines should not be able to exempt or loosen the requirement for significant independent sourcing, they should only be able to offer pointers when it's likely to be found. We should never have "Keep, even though there's little/no independent source material available, it passes WP:MUSICORWEBORWHATEVER." Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you say that the current notability guideline, at WP:N, is in line with what you're saying? If not, does my demo bring it closer to or further from what you believe should be the case? SamBC(talk) 14:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, also, do you feel that "significant independent sourcing" is/should be a requirement for all articles generally, or that it should be a requirement for the concept of "notability". I ask, because there are already separate requirements that all actual content be sourced, and that there are independent sources (per WP:V), but the GNG requires significant coverage in sources that are both independent (third-party) and secondary, which is more restrictive. It also does not admit directories and similar, and is often read as not including sources which cover something (even in some detail) in passing, while covering something else (to give a recent example, a videogame review discussing characters in some detail is accepted by some as a reasonable source per WP:V, but not as indicating notability). SamBC(talk) 14:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's the general intention, especially including a "definition" section to ensure that it's clear that the GNG isn't a definition. SamBC(talk) 14:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to say, there's just too much deference to the individual wikiprojects and what not. I'm willing to concede that "specific notability guidelines" (SNGs) can be more loose OR more strict than the GNG. But they're not a free hand to come up with an SPG that totally contradicts or ignores the GNG. You need that standard in place to prevent people from creating truly non-notable articles in the overall scheme of wikipedia. What I might suggest is that you MUST have coverage in secondary sources, and those sources have to be independent (e.g.: not just toys, movies, gameguides, etc.). Where the SPGs come in is their ability to define which of these sources are reliable, relaxing the standard so that you measure reliability by coverage on mid-level website (rather than the higher standard of a professional peer reviewed site, newspapers, journals, books...) Just thinking out loud here. Randomran (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to admit I've had some similar thoughts, albeit for different reasons and as part of wider changes. I would suggest that subject specific guideline be allowed to define things in two ways:
 * Alternative notability criteria independent of the GNG; these would not be required as well as the GNG, but rather as alternatives. WP:V ensures that sourcing is always needed, but as I've demonstrated it's possible to satisfy WP:V and fail the GNG.
 * Clarification of the application of the GNG; these would clarify which sources are considered as speaking to notability in that area.
 * In practice, both of these are used in some existing guidelines, and it would be useful for this framework to be made clear by WP:N. Note, however, that it would be vital that it not be seen as redefining WP:RS for different subjects, but rather defining which sources give notability. These could be more or less strict than the basic idea of "third-party reliable secondary", as appropriate to the topic. SamBC(talk) 16:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I also feel the need to point out, though, that subject-specific guidelines should never be simply the purview of a wikiproject; they should have the same standards of community consensus as any other guideline, with wikiprojects being listened to as knowledgeable advisers. SamBC(talk) 16:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In my view, the GNC are best indicator that a topic is notable, given that probably 99% of all Good Articles use reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability, but also, reliable secondary sources provide real-world content, analysis and critism which is need for encyclopedic articles. Specific guidelines relating to certain subjects, like biography or books may provide evidence of notability, but on their own they do not provide a good source of content. However, the guidelines for living persons and books are about real-world subjects; for elements of fiction such as characters, GNC are the only way to establish notability, as the notability of fictional characters cannot be observed in the real-world; it is only through the opinions of reliable secondary sources can evidence of notability be found. There are lots of content available from reliable secondary sources, more so for fiction than any other subject in Wikipedia, so there is no need to provide exemptions from GNC. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please remember that this is a broad discussion; while one reason for it starting was the ongoing fiction issue, the purpose is to examine the whole question broadly. SamBC(talk) 11:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment, I've arrived late to this, but I'd like to point out that the AfD on Ego the Living Planet was not at all typical of anything, and represents (in my mind) the high water point of the anti-notability movement, coming just after the banishment of TTN. Blast Ulna (talk) 01:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Would a hundred such AfDs prior to TTN sway you? They can be found. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: if I may say so, I think that in the case of BLPs, whichever guideline – the general one or the specific one – is narrower  should prevail.  Bwrs (talk) 04:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

On global vs "subcultural" significance
Okay, I've got a problem with the discussion immediately above, since it implicitly holds as received wisdom that a value judgment of subcultures (whether or not you replace that with "subjects" is merely a semantics game) it both desirable and possible. I'm mostly an editor of articles on classical subjects, and I've added more than just a few damn obscure articles to Wikipedia. Like, super super obscure. And I can tell you from a perch of some expertise that even the most profoundly obscure classics article will never suffer the same AfD tribulations that moderately well known pop culture articles routinely experience, particularly if they're affiliated with youth culture. This is due largely, I think, because classics is perceived to be an august, honorable, serious discipline in a way that, say, the study of Pokemon characters is not. And forgive me for being blunt (and I swear I'm not trying to be uncivil), but that's bullshit. The publications of Marvel Comics should carry no less weight as a source than those of Apollodorus. It's just a judgment call cloaked in guideline, call it a variation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT that's more like WP:IDONTTHINKITISSERIOUS, wherein people (who actually might "like it") do think one kind of culture is inherently less serious than another. Yeah, sure, on the one hand classics articles are imbecile-easy to ref, but if notability cannot discern that Banshee (comics) (with a doubtful possibility of external refs at present) is far more notable than Apollo Agyieus (which has nice little blue refs), then notability has no meaning.

And believe me, I am one of those recalcitrant curmudgeons who believes that 99.9% of youth culture is inherently idiotic. Young people are stupid, and by and large, they like stupid things. But if you want to talk about WP:NOT, we should talk about how Wikipedia is not "the encyclopedia that all adults" can edit. People seem to be basically saying that, yes, Wikipedia is a combination of specialist encyclopedias, but only certain specialties. Yes, part of the problem is that a lot of the younger editors who create and maintain these articles are shite at finding and adding acceptable sources (and lots of the older editors prefer to go to AfD rather than actually look for sources), but that doesn't concern the problem of establishing notability for obviously notable things that haven't been much written about.

This difficulty does not necessarily equal lack of notability, yet our guidelines treat it as if it does. And that is the problem. Ford MF (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It goes without saying, I presume, that if there are no secondary sources to provide analysis, an article may not contain analysis. Following your assertions (which I broadly agree with) to their logical conclusions, I can assume that you are suggesting one of two things: either we admit that these subjects are notable, but that we still can't have articles on them because there's no source for analysis, or we admit that they are notable and allow articles that contain only bland statements of fact and information. Either makes sense to me; there's nothing wrong with an article which is more of a factbook entry, as we are supposed to include aspects of almanacs as well as encyclopaedias. We just have to be very careful to avoid OR in that case. If this were the case, however, WP:V would have to be amended; where it currently says words to the effect that "if there are no independent sources, we can't have an article" we instead say "if there are no independent sources, we must be very careful in writing the article". The situation is made slightly more complicated by the interaction of the primary/secondary axis and the first-party/third-party (not-independent/independent) axis. SamBC(talk) 17:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Of the two, I obviously lean towards the latter. And in fact I think "bland statements of fact" is exactly how fictional articles should be written, unless secondary analysis can be uncovered.  They should essentially be treated like biographies.  And I think it is exponentially preferable--by orders of magnitude, I really can't stress this enough--for us to err on the side of content that may be helpful and useful and has an opportunity to grow, than for us to say, as someone did on one of the other talkpages, "if you don't have sufficient sources in hand, don't even bother starting an article."  I don't think we need to start imagining new strategies to discourage the creation of articles.  Ford MF (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You can't write an article on fiction that is a "bland statements of fact", because fiction by its nature is not about fact at all: fiction is the creative opinion of an author from what ever perspective they choose to write it in. To summarise fiction is, at the very least, a passive endorsement of the authors opinion and perspective; that is why articles on fiction should cite reliable secondary sources so that they don't fall into the trap of being based on original research or synthesis. A "classic" example is the article I, Claudius which is a fictional autobiography of a Roman Emperor, partly based on contemporary accounts. Becasue the contemporary accounts are biased or conflicting (it seems historians at that time were more interested in slander and rumour than writing truthful accounts of his life), the plot summary for this book is disputed, because no one is sure whether the story itself is based on fact or fiction. If we err on the side of content, we will be making exactly the same mistake that ancient historians made when they wrote their accounts of Claudius - they did not cite relaible sources, and as a result, their writings are disputed. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I like how you imply here that modern historians are somehow magically free of bias. Ford MF (talk) 05:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You've made this point several times, people have rebutted and explained several times. A "bland statement of fact" about fiction is a statement of fact about what the fiction depicts. To repeat my last rebuttal (in part), the bland statement of fact would not be "there is a Stargate under Cheyenne Mountain", but that the fiction depicts the operation of a Stargate under Cheyenne Mountain. Not every sentence is going to make that clear, because it is clear from context. It doesn't stop it being bland fact. The case of historical or biographical fiction is, indeed, more complex, but that does not extend to all fiction. SamBC(talk) 11:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is, without reliable secondary sources, you cannot be sure that statements of a fact which are unsourced or based on primary sources alone are correct or comprehensive. The statement "there is a Stargate under Cheyenne Mountain", may appear to you to be uncontroversial, but if this fact has not been sourced from a reliable secondary source, there may be a detail omitted or unintentionally added. This cavalier approach maybe acceptable at Wookipedia, but here it is not, because once you start off sourcing an article on fiction from primary sources only, you are going down the road of original research.  An article that is not compliant with WP:N is likely to be comprised of bad or defective content. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is lunatic. Citing characters from the works in which they appear is no different from using the Bible to cite Lazarus.  This isn't cavalier or a slippery slope, it is simply a way to cite fictional characters and events.  You don't need a reference to state that Anna Karenina is about Anna Karenina, it is self evident. Ford MF (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I can't imagine what you mean by "controversial". Refs are used to give the reader a guide, a place to look to confirm the truth of a thing stated.  Primary sourcing for fictional characters ought not be any more controversial than secondary sourcing.  Why does it let in the spectre of controversy when our readers look at the original work for confirmation, but not when they look at someone else talking about the original work?  What makes secondary sources more factual than primary ones in this case?  Ford MF (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And that argument would apply just as well to summaries of secondary or tertiary sources as well. The only way to refer to any source while being sure that one hasn't added or removed something is to quote the entire thing verbatim. And no-one could watch Stargate: SG-1 and fail to reach the conclusion that the show depicts a stargate being under Cheyenne Mountain, just like no-one could read Harry Potter and disagree that it depicts magic, and school of magic called Hogwarts. It doesn't need a secondary source, just like no additional source is needed to summarise a secondary source. SamBC(talk) 14:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not saying reliable secondary sources are perfect, but what I am saying is that Wikipedia is not the place for writing research papers based on a synthesis of primary sources. Take for example the article Ancient characters in Stargate, in which all the sources are primary. I have no idea if this article has featured all characters as there is no overarching primary source that can do this. Nor can I rely on the "facts" drawn from primary sources such as "Ayiana is one of only two Ancients appearing both in Stargate SG-1 and Stargate Atlantis ("Rising") - the other being Moros". Such statements are drawn from the recollections of the primary source material, and those recollections may or may not be accurate. More importantly than this, the article suffers badly from a lack of reliable secondary sources: it is written from an in universe perspective, and comprises almost entirely of plot summary. Primary sourcing for fictional characters provides no real-world content, context or analysis, which is what Wikipedia is about. An article that is not compliant with WP:N is very likely to be comprised of bad or defective content.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Ayiana is one of only two Ancients appearing both in Stargate SG-1 and Stargate Atlantis ("Rising") - the other being Moros" is blatantly an analytical remark. It can't be simply verified from the primary sources. Thus, per WP:NOR, it shouldn't be sourced from only primary sources. The fact that people misuse primary sources in fiction doesn't mean they shouldn't be used; people misuse all types of source in all types of article. SamBC(talk) 17:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Why on earth can't that be simply verified from the primary sources? All you'd need to do is, like, view the primary source(s).  You could argue you 1) don't have the time to do so, and/or 2) your DVD player is broken, but other than that, I don't see the problem.  68.81.95.231 (talk) 02:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that a given character is in a given episode is, generally, verifiable from primary sources. To say they are the only character of a certain type to appear in X number of episodes requires analysis, which cannot, per WP:NOR, be done from purely primary sources, as that would be original research. SamBC(talk) 12:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Baloney. That's an obvious synthesis of the sort that is allowed. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * shrugs* Maybe it's a borderline case. I'd be concerned about the degree of analysis involved, and the implicit assertion that no other characters fit the same bill. Let's not get hung up on specifics. The general point is that analysis etc (listed in WP:PSTS) can't be sourced from primary sources, bland statements of fact about what is contained in the fiction can be. SamBC(talk) 14:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between research and analysis, and stating facts from a fictional work. Just because a work is fictional doesn't mean that facts cannot be derived from it.  It is a statement of fact that J.K. Rowling's fictional character Harry Potter has a lightning-shaped scar on his forehead.  It is a statement of fact that the fictional character Winston Smith works at the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell's novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four.  Both of these facts need no other source than the primary source to be verified.  Explain to me how reading a physical description of the character Gandalf in the New York Times, free from analysis or interpretation, is better than reading it directly from The Hobbit.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skiguy330 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for getting here late but I've been lazy lately. One big question: why are secondary sources so much better at determining the content of a TV show or book than we are? What makes the NYT better at reading The Hobbit than I? Why is TV Guide better at watching SG! than you? I can count just as high as they can, why the difference? Padillah (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed; however, per WP:NOR and the like, we don't trust any-old-editor to know how to analyse the book, programme, film, play, be it for meaning, significance, analysis of motives, etc. Counting (she's been in both series) is fine; asserting this to the exlclusion of others hits, to me, the borderline; offering a reason for it is right out. SamBC(talk) 16:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It is vital to note that notability serves a purpose. It is not something that was implemented for the fun of it. What is this goal? It's not to constrain our content, but, as I understand it, to ensure quality - the idea being that we simply cannot effectively maintain an article on every street in every city in the world even if all of them are verifiable on Google Maps. But when we apply this guideline we have to keep in mind the purpose. This is, I think, the major problem with fiction notability debates - the tools created - notability guidelines - tend to work contrary to their intended purpose in this area, deleting information that we are perfectly capable of maintaining at a high quality and that is genuinely useful. This suggests a flaw in the guideline. That so many are willing to uncritically accept the guideline and contort themselves into ever more ridiculous arguments defending the patently ludicrous results is a deep and unfortunate flaw in our community. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

A Very Specific Question
Okay, here's a very specific question; please answer below with reasoning, but try to avoid getting into a debate (yet). For now I think it'd be good to see how many people think what, and why. SamBC(talk) 15:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the responses in this have been very useful and very illustrative. While I'm not suggesting this as any formal process, I'd just like to let people know that I intend to try to summarise the points made into "talking points" on the afternoon (UTC+1) of Sunday 15th, to try to move the discussion forwards. If people want to suggest a different "deadline", that's fine, but I'm basically offering to carry on facilitating here by doing this. If people think it's a good idea, the same could be done with other sections under this RFC. SamBC(talk) 15:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Is notability a way of:
 * a) determining what topics are worth having an article about, independent of the question of sourcing that article
 * b) determining what topics will be able to have a suitably-sourced article written

I think basically a

 * 1) As I've explained previously, above and elsewhere, I think that N is and should be independent of V; it says if it's worth writing an article, and part of V is whether it's possible to write an article. SamBC(talk) 15:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) The purpose of WP:N, as opposed to WP:V, is to limit the scope of Wikipedia. If a topic does not have reliable sources, then apparently it's impossible to write an encyclopedic article about it (unless we start inventing the content). But verifiable material does not imply that a topic falls into our scope. I'm quite sure that all the English-speaking media of the world produce more material each day than Wikipedia could cover in a decade; there needs to be some kind of selection. Or to give a more extreme example: Almost everybody in the developed world has reliable sources written about him. (Official birth records, for example, are very reliable!) But that doesn't mean we should have an article about everybody. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) While I agree with the statement, in practice you can't have an article without sources at WP.  While on the other hand you could have verifiable sources to provide content, but no reasonable demonstration of notability.   I firmly believe that mention of a topic in a broadly distributed or respected source brings to WP the reponsibilty to expand on the topic for our readers, when possible.  If I am watching TV and see a person (actor, politician, artist, etc) mentioned in the news, I come to WP to findout who that person is -- trusting WP to be a credible source.  If I read the name of an ancient warrior leader in a history book, I come to WP to find out who that person was -- trusting WP to be a neutral source.  Even if the article is stubbish and has links to further information, I have been well served.  --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the whole "occurring in broadly distributed media but not widely reported on in secondary sources" I think is the crux of the whole problem here. Ford MF (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just trying to understand your view; would you then agree with the suggestion that non-GNG notability criteria are of value, although they may lead to "bland statement of fact" articles with no analysis? And if so, are such articles okay? (This is not a question to everyone, although it's discussed in a subsection above; I'm asking Kevin Murray specifically, to clarify his view) SamBC(talk) 20:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, even though you didn't direct this at me, that is a suggestion I would agree with. And of course such articles are okay.  All Wikipedia articles ought to be "bland statement of fact", with the analysis of others reported on, where it exists, but not a necessary component.  Take Ellis Loring Dresel (another obscuro creation of mine); there is zero analysis in the article, and yet I think few people would state that it is an undesirable article because of it.  We are an encyclopedia; we deal primarily in facts.  Analysis should be a consideration far secondary.  Ford MF (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * NO. Sam I oppose most non-GNG notability criteria, and only support some as compromise (e.g., BIO and ORG). I believe that a universal set of standards should apply equally to all topics.  My examples above are probably unclear.  Any topics for which a broad base of typical WP users develop questions or interests in the course of life should be notable.  Whether porn queen, potentate, pope or politician they need to meet the standard that people may have a question about them based on media mention or historic coverage.  This is hard to quantify in a rigid standard or set of standards.  I think that AfD participants need only ask two questions: (1) does this article answer a legitimate broad based and demonstrable question, and (2) can we write an article or even a meaningful placeholder (stub with links).  Most of the articles that I begin at WP are because I have a question, and as I answer the question for myself, I share my findings with WP readers, and as the article grows I learn from my peers. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * PS: I think that we should allow protected stubs and what I call soft redirects, where there is a placeholder-page with a link to the suggested redirect. For example a search for "Lord Morphdon Ontang" yields a page of that name, with a redirect link to Star Trek XXIII.  The page might have to be protected to keep it from being a junk magnet, only to be opened for editing when demonstration of notability can be made to an admin, project, etc. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I will point that this solution, creating a redirection for any likely search term, cannot be stated nearly enough as being a necessary part in any solution. We absolutely should have mention (but not necessarily a full article) on any likely name or term that may arise, and make that term easily findable with redirects and anchors and disambig pages.  Those are cheap and should be exploited to make WP useful. --M ASEM  23:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is more well put than I've been managing. Thanks.  Ford MF (talk) 22:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, still trying to make sure I understand; I don't mean to be putting words in your mouth. You seem to be suggesting that we should have more-or-less just a GNG, but not necessarily this GNG (as in the current one at WP:GNG)?
 * YES! I agree with that statement. I think that the criteria at this GNC are really quite good to the extent that they allow inclusion of topics where legitimate and significant recognition by third parties is demonstrated; however, we need to go a bit further to allow topics where we answer questions posed or prompted by legitimate and significant third parties, but where the verifiable material may be the result of secondary research from primary or less significant sources. --Kevin Murray (talk) 13:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I want to say this more than the combination choice; I agree V and N are separate concepts: V is how we talk about a topic, N is why.  However, N still needs some aspects of sourcing requirements: "Because I said so" is not sufficient.  But it's not the same sourcing as one needs for V, though more often than not, the same source works for both V and N.  --M ASEM  20:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Another question to make sure I understand: so you're suggesting that articles may be notable without satisfying the GNG, and yet still satisfy V, but in any case we can never accept any notability standard that doesn't call upon sources to support a notability claim? SamBC(talk) 20:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think so, though not 100% sure. We have notability criteria that do not use the GNC (such as at MUSIC and BOOK) but we still want to provide sources.  On the last part, you have what I'm saying right, though I will say that the word "sources" may be taken broader than we current take it. --M ASEM  21:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As I have frequently said, because the other position leads us in many cases to results that contradict both common sense and the consensus of editors. I recall that in one of the first AfDs I commented on, I defended an article on the basis of sources alone, even in the clear absence of other notability. With more experience, I have learned better. DGG (talk) 01:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm pretty definite about statement A. Having said that, I'm starting to suspect that notability guidelines could accept a wider variety of sources in some circumstances. If Superhero X appears in 1,000 issues of Marvel Comics, do we need secondary and/or third-party sources to assume notability? I still am convinced that such a character would have secondary and/or third-party reliable sources out there somewhere, even if we haven't found them yet, but do we want to base guidelines on this assumption? Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 16:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think A. Last night's traffic accident was covered in the local newspapers. Shouldn't have an article on en.wikipedia. Ever. --Alvestrand (talk) 06:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think basically b

 * 1) Verifiability is, or should be, the absolute determiner of the article/no article axis.  Everything else is judgment call.  This is why WP:V is policy and WP:N is merely a guideline.  WP:N limits the scope of the encyclopedia, and limitation is both necessary and beneficial, but it should not be doing so in an arbitrary manner because of a rule-based framework and people who are all too happy to delete the baby with the bathwater.  Ford MF (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait, perhaps I have misunderstood the question, because I'm starting to see points of view that I agree with under "A". Ford MF (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll try to clarify: either notability is a quality independent of verifiability that determines what we should cover, rather than what we can cover (point "a") or it's a means of ensuring that we will be able to write a decent article without breaching WP:V et al (point "b"). Of course, it can be both. SamBC(talk) 20:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The two are related, but notability isn't the same thing as verifiability, which is why we have those pages, one a hard policy, one a guideline (that tends to get treated like hard policy). You can't write an article while breaching WP:V, period, end of sentence, so I'm not sitting here screaming "Sources?  Who needs sources!"  All the things I've been talking about are easily verifiable, as anything appearing a primary source is by definition ''verifiable.  All I'm saying is that for a certain class of articles, that is, fictional "X"s, the restrictions to secondary sources fail, because they exclude obviously notable things.  Ford MF (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * While I am not, at least right now, questioning that the GNG causes problems for coverage of fictional topics, I must ask why you feel it is only fiction that is limited as such? An example: if we know, from objective evidence, that a musician is notable (whatever that evidence is, but assuming it doesn't satisfy the GNG) but we can't source any analysis, why not have an article listing their releases, release dates, and basic biographical information? SamBC(talk) 20:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't feel that at all; I just couldn't really think of other examples, and fiction is the subject with which I'm most familiar, and I thought it an illustrative example of an area in which WP:N is broken. And yes, why not have that musician article if the information is verifiable? Ford MF (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And I do get that that's also asking for a whole lot of genuine bullshit to be included in Wikipedia, since the verification of the existence of non-notable people is fairly easy. I just think the guideline as written fails a lot of areas, and I think it better to err on the side of content retention.  Ford MF (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And thirdly, as someone pointed out before, notability isn't a mathematical proof. Proper guidelines would need more subjective flexibility and less hard-ruliness.  Ford MF (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As a separate point, I think that rather means taht you don't agree with point "B", and I'm not entirely sure you agree with "A" but I'd say you seem to. SamBC(talk) 20:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think basically both

 * 1) Not sure what you're getting at, but I'll bite. I'm glad we're having a real discussion. We've talked about WP:N as a guideline for what topics should have their own article, and that's pages of debate in of itself. But let's say we already knew what was notable, and it was based on something looser: popularity, longevity, or even just reader interest -- no secondary sources required. If articles are based entirely on primary sources, how do you prevent wikipedia from being a cruft of articles based on observations and original research? How do you stop someone from writing an article about The Incredible Hulk's Cut-Off Shorts? The shorts appear in comics, movies, and toys. They're recognizable by millions. And for the 12 or so editors who work on it (along with the hundreds who are redirected towards it by wikilinks), the topic is very interesting and filled with original (but factual) observations about how the shorts rip, the typical length of the shorts, how the shorts appear as the Hulk transforms, variations on how the shorts are represented based on realism/character/etc... Without any reliable secondary sources, there's nothing to guide the focus of the article except whatever observations that the most devoted fans can notice. (Have you noticed that in three issues, the shorts are purple?! Add it to the article!) So having at least a few reliable secondxary sources that are independent of the subject itself is tied to other basic policy, like avoiding original research, avoiding undue weight to certain facts, and making sure the information can be verified. I think that the guidelines are redundant to an extent, but I also think they all depend on each other to form a coherent idea of what should be covered and how to cover it in an appropriate way. Randomran (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) For me, notability is a way to presume what article can become at least a B-class (i.e. decent) article, preferably higher. IMO, all perma-stubs and perma-start-class articles should be merged somewhere (a), and all articles should be suitably sourced (b). Mind you, there are articles like surname pages, math-related pages, general lists, and articles about dict-def-notable people who lived centuries ago but simply don't have more sources. But for most intents and purposes, the GNC is (in my mind) a necessary hurdle that any article must ultimately demonstrate to pass to be save from deletion or merging. – sgeureka t•c 16:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think something else

 * Please don't use this section if you think something slightly different; just make the difference clear in your explanation in the sections above


 * 1) Notability is the logical synthesis of several of our core policies and concepts, such as what we are not, the requirement for verifiability, the prohibition against original research, and the need for a neutral point of view. The requirement for multiple independent sources assists in the fulfillment of all these requirements. It ensures that we do not become a directory, collection of random crap, or fansite, and instead remain what we should be&mdash;an educational reference work. It ensures that any article we write has a substantial quantity of information which is verifiable, and verifiability itself specifically warns against articles consisting only of first-party sources. It ensures that significant analysis has already been made regarding any subject we have an article on, reducing the temptation to try and synthesize primary material ourselves or insert our own personal experiences or thoughts. And it helps in ensuring that undue weight is not put on topics&mdash;if reliable, independent sources have chosen to write little or nothing on a subject, what are we doing besides second-guessing and contradicting them if we do? It also ensures that a good body of sources is available if any question of neutrality arises, allowing us to settle such a question, not through our own opinions, but by properly referencing those sources. In short, notability is where our core policies naturally and inevitably lead. It is an excellent, indispensable means of quality control, something Wikipedia is often lacking in. Indeed, Quality control is a redlink, and probably likely to stay that way. This is it, right here. This is the mechanism we have to prevent crapflooding. So let's not punch holes in it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree wholeheartedly with Seraphimblade. As regards the question, I don't think WP:N determines anything. It does not determine what topics are worth having or deleting: this is determined at WP:AFD; nor does it determine what topics will be able to have a suitably-sourced articles, because notability is not the same as suitability. WP:N was never intended to act as a road block to adding content which some editors attempt to circumvent, or get around in order to write about their favorite topics; on the contrary, it is a guideline that encourages good content, so that the readers of Wikipedia will be able to "stand on the shoulders of giants".--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) In addition to agreeing with Seraphimblade and Gavin Collins, I would like to chime in with my own thought that policies and guidelines can't be changed by changing the wording on their pages, but only by changing what is in the minds of the editors. I have yet to see anybody change their mind due to the continued debate about notability; the disagreement is philosophical. The sign of a good compromise is that it pleases no one. The current wording of WP:N doesn't please the inclusionists, and the suspend-all-rules keep results at AfD don't please those who nominated them for deletion under their interpretation of WP:N. Blast Ulna (talk) 01:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Seraphimblade already said it, but the authors of Independent sources said it even more succinctly. "Any article on a topic is required to cite a reliable source independent of the topic itself, to warrant that an article on the topic can be written from a neutral point of view and not contain original research."  Analyzing notability solely in terms of verifiability is missing the point quite severely.  GRBerry 21:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) I don't believe that WP:NOTE is necesssarily the problem. If used as it is written, a way to determine if something is notable enough to be included even if it does not meet the four actual policies for inclusion - namely V, OR, NPOV, and NOT, it succeeds as a guideline. The problem is more in the hierarchical structure of policies, guidelines, and sub-guidelines. If a subject meets the four policies, it should be beyond the reach of AfD other than for the purpose of gaining consensus on meeting the requirements of those four policies. NOTE is a guideline encompassing those subjects that may merit inclusion even before those four policies have been met because we believe that they can and will eventually be met due to the nature of the subject. It is an inclusionary guideline, and not an exclusionary one. The sub-guidelines like WP:BIO, WP:ATHLETE, and WP:FICT go even further to provide reasons for maintaining inclusion until the basic four can be met. The legitimate arguments are really about how long we allow articles that meet the guidelines, but not the policies, to remain. WP:NOTE should never be counted as a legitimate criteria for deletion, nor as an argument for deleting. It is far too easy for NOTE to serve as a mask for WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:WHOCARES, or even a catch-all for hiding systemic bias due to the inherent subjectivity of "notability". The guideline contains an unabiguous definition that is too often ignored - "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." If that first sentence is met, there is no reason to even look at the rest of the guideline anyway. What we need is to reinforce the structure of how policies, guidelines, and WP:IAR are supposed to be used to justify our actions, and guidelines are only useful if something fails policy. Jim Miller (talk) 13:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Agreeing with Seraphimblade. Verifiability is not enough. Every fire truck in New York City, or every mailbox in my home town, or every character, scene, event or weapon in every work of fiction is verifiable, but does not necessarily need its own encyclopedia article. Articles about the New York Fire Department, mailboxes, or the work of fiction (if it has achieved sufficient notice itself) are the proper venue for the information which would otherwise be fanspewed into a multitude of permastub articles. Lack of a claim of notability is an appropriate reason for speedy deletion. Lack of reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage is a reason for deletion in AFD. The existence of a small number of fans of something establishing a "project" is no reason to automatically make the objects of their fandom entitles to individual encyclopedia articles. This is not "fanpedia." It is supposed to be an encyclopedia. There are other websites for fandom. Edison (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) I also agree with Seraphimblade that verifiability, while incredibly important, is not the only consideration in determining notability. Notability describes instead the way our policies should interact. Karanacs (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

"Inclusion"
has, on several recent occaisions and in several locations, raised the idea that it might be better to have an overarching policy on "inclusion" for Wikipedia, perhaps by defining "what Wikipedia is", perhaps with other focus, and Notability becoming a guideline in support of this in the same way that WP:RS support WP:V; this has been raised most recently (to my knowledge) in a section below. I'd like to consider this idea, and people's reaction to it, as part of the RFC, to help give ideas and talking points for later moving forwards.

I'd like to discuss the idea without focus on any single topic area. I'd like people to think about it in the abstract. So, I would like people to outline a few things, some or all of which may be applicable to any individual:


 * 1) How you think this idea could take form, if you think it could at all. You might think of more than one way.
 * 2) Your immediate reaction to the idea in complete abstract (as I describe it above), without taking too long to think about it.
 * 3) Your more considered reaction to the various possibilities you have read or thought of, after giving it more thought.

Hopefully, this can lead to some general discussion. I would ask that people not directly reply to one another's statements, so we don't get bogged down in adversarial debate. Please use the further subsection "discussion" to air reactions to what you have read, but try not to get adversarial or confrontational. Oh, and let's try and keep "optimistic" now and not consider arguments along the lines of "it'd never get consensus". Let's just try to explore whether it would be a good idea or not (and why). SamBC(talk) 15:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by
My immediate vision is that this could be much like verifiability: describe general principles of "what we write about", of which "notability" (in the abstract sense, not specifically the GNG) is one aspect, much as which sources to use (RS) is one aspect of verifiability (V). I have some fairly foggy ideas as to what else would be said.

My gut reaction was that this would be over-complicating things. However, after some consideration I can see value here, as it would have a number of potential advantages: Overall, my reaction is that it's worth exploring, but I'm not convinced that it's the best way forward, or even a good one; I'm also not convinced it isn't. I'm convinced that it's worth thinking about, talking about, and exploring. SamBC(talk) 15:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) clarify that notability (by whatever measure) isn't strictly sufficient for inclusion
 * 2) put WP:N in a clear place in the guideline/policy structure, as RS is
 * 3) help explain to those who don't get it what the purpose of notability is
 * 4) support claims in other policies and guidelines that any particular quality makes something eligible/non-eligible for inclusion, and centralise the broadest of these

Statement by
A similar proposal has already been tried and failed: see Article inclusion.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Place responses to statements here, and please avoid adversarial and confrontational approaches

"Sambc" said ""notability" (in the abstract sense, not specifically the GNG) is one aspect", but what is "notability in the abstract sense"? What is notability, exactly? There appears to be a problem here with the current guidelines in that they do not spell out what notability actually is. mike4ty4 (talk) 00:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

SPLASH
Holy crap, have you people forgotten that these pages are guidelines, not policies? If I could dump a bucket of cold water on some of you I would, in hopes it would bring you to your senses. We need advice for new and existing editors, to help guide them on the creation of articles. It's not an exact science, it's not a set of black and white rules, and one size won't fit all. -- Ned Scott 06:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)